Question

compare the details that were included in both texts.
detail | text 1 | text 2
--- | --- | ---
reading some historical documents requires cursive literacy. | ✔️ |
removing cursive from the curriculum frees teachers to address other areas. | | ✔️
new standards in the early 2000s determined cursive is unnecessary for college or work. | | ✔️
many school instructional plans no longer include cursive. | ✔️ | ✔️
which statement would the author of text 1 likely agree with?

• cursive literacy should be included in classroom instruction.
• cursive literacy is more important than computer skills.
• cursive literacy should be omitted from classroom instruction.

Explanation:

To determine the author of Text 1's agreement, analyze Text 1's details: Text 1 marks "Reading some historical documents requires cursive literacy" and "Many school instructional plans no longer include cursive" (with a check). The first option ("Cursive literacy should be included...") aligns with recognizing cursive's need (for historical docs) despite its exclusion in many plans. The second option has no support (no comparison to computer skills), and the third contradicts Text 1's implication that cursive has a valid use (needing it for docs).

Answer:

Cursive literacy should be included in classroom instruction.