DTW GED PREP

Responding to Conflicting Arguments in the GED® Extended Response

On the Extended Response portion of the GED® Reasoning Through Language Arts test, you will often be asked to evaluate two conflicting arguments on a specific topic. Your task is to:

Persuade your readers that one of the two arguments is stronger.

To do this effectively, begin by evaluating the strength of each argument using the analytical skills you’ve developed. These include:

• Distinguishing facts from opinions
• Assessing the reliability of sources
• Evaluating the validity of claims

Once you’ve analyzed both sides, determine which argument is more factually accurate, better supported by credible sources, and presents more logically valid reasoning. Use that analysis as the foundation for your written response.

Your goal is to clearly explain why one argument is stronger and convince the reader through reasoned evaluation and evidence.

PASSAGE A
Excerpt from a 1941 Speech by Charles Lindbergh in Des Moines, Iowa

When war broke out in Europe, the vast majority of Americans opposed involvement. This sentiment stemmed from our strong defensive position, our historical independence from European conflicts, and the unresolved outcomes of our previous engagement in World War I, including unpaid debts.

Public opinion polls from 1939—when England and France declared war on Germany—showed that fewer than 10% of Americans supported entering the war. However, certain interest groups, both domestic and international, sought to draw the U.S. into the conflict.

For instance, Congress initially approved the expansion of our air corps to 5,000 planes, but shortly afterward, officials called for 50,000. Despite this, most newly produced aircraft were sent abroad, leaving our forces with only a few hundred modern planes—fewer than Germany could manufacture in a single month.

From the beginning, the arms buildup was geared more toward aiding European allies than securing U.S. defenses. This shift toward war was implemented under the strategy of “steps short of war.” The public was repeatedly told that aiding the Allies was the best way to remain safe and avoid conflict. Gradually, we progressed from selling arms, to lending them, to patrolling the Atlantic, and finally to occupying strategic islands—bringing us to the brink of war.

The first two steps toward war—arming for battle and becoming entangled abroad—are already complete. We are nearly involved in every way short of combat, awaiting only the creation of “incidents” to justify full-scale entry—incidents that, Lindbergh argues, were orchestrated without public consent.

He warns that only the growing opposition of the American people stands between the nation and war. He questions the lack of a clear strategy and warns against entering a war we are unprepared for, particularly one that would demand an invasion of heavily fortified enemy shores.

Lindbergh concludes by urging citizens to act: to voice their opposition, contact their representatives, and defend the democratic process. He insists that if the American people act now, the country can preserve its independence and avoid a costly and unnecessary foreign war.

Passage B
Excerpt from President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Press Conference, December 17, 1940

We have been hearing various perspectives and traditional arguments about how to address the ongoing war in Europe. However, it’s important to consider alternative approaches to these challenges.

One such suggestion involves gifting military equipment and supplies—such as weapons, ships, and machinery—to Great Britain at no cost. I am not convinced this is necessary, nor do I believe that Britain would prefer such a gift from American taxpayers. Instead, I have been exploring other viable solutions over the past few weeks—methods that would help us expand our manufacturing capabilities and maintain a steady supply of defense materials to Britain.

One potential approach is for the United States to assume control of British defense orders. Since many of their requested materials are similar to what we use in our own military, we could reclassify them as American orders and fund their production ourselves. As military conditions dictate, we could then lease or sell these supplies to Britain—perhaps with some kind of financial security or agreement—on the principle that aiding Britain is ultimately in America’s best interest. The defense of Britain, in many ways, contributes directly to the defense of the United States.

My main goal is to remove the burden of immediate financial exchange. Rather than demanding upfront payments, we should focus on long-term repayment through material replacement or equivalent goods. Imagine this situation: if a neighbor’s house caught fire and I lent him my garden hose, I wouldn’t demand payment before he used it. I would simply expect the hose to be returned—or replaced if it was damaged. This same logic can be applied to supporting our allies in wartime.

In conclusion, while the exact legal and logistical details are still under review, the idea is for the United States to take over a significant number of future British defense orders. These materials would then be made available to the British under an agreement that their use is critical to American defense. Eventually, we would be repaid in kind, without focusing on monetary debt—thus replacing traditional financial arrangements with a mutual understanding based on shared goals and responsibilities.

On the GED® Reasoning Through Language Arts test, you may encounter an extended response prompt similar to the one below:

In his speech, Charles Lindbergh contends that the United States is being drawn into a European conflict that the American public does not support. In contrast, President Franklin D. Roosevelt advocates for supporting Great Britain as a means of safeguarding America’s own national security.

Your task is to analyze both speeches and determine which argument is more convincingly supported. Your response should include specific and relevant evidence from both texts to support your evaluation.

Please write your response in the space provided. This task is designed to take approximately 45 minutes.

Before writing your response, begin by closely analyzing each speech and identifying the main arguments made by each speaker. Start with Charles Lindbergh’s position. Let’s outline the key points he presents in his address.

RLA EXTENDED RESPONSE

Directions: Read the following text, which is excerpted from a speech by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

       One of my priorities as Secretary of Defense has been to remove as many barriers as possible for talented and qualified people to be able to serve this country in uniform. Our nation was built on the premise of the citizen-soldier. In our democracy, I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation. And every citizen who can meet the qualifications of service should have that opportunity.

       To that end, I’ve been working closely with General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We’ve been working for well over a year to examine, how can we expand the opportunities for women in the armed services?

       It’s clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission of defending the nation. Women represent 15% of the force, over 200,000. They’re serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield. The fact is that they have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission.

       Over more than a decade of war, they have demonstrated courage and skill and patriotism. A hundred and fifty-two women in uniform have died serving this nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Female service members have faced the reality of combat, proven their willingness to fight and, yes, to die to defend their fellow Americans.

       However, many military positions, particularly in ground combat units, still remain closed to women because of the 1994 direct ground combat definition and assignment rule. Military and civilian leaders in this department have been taking a hard look at that rule based on the experiences of the last decade.

       Every time I visited the war zone, every time I’ve met with troops, reviewed military operations, and talked to wounded warriors, I’ve been impressed with the fact that everyone—men and women alike—everyone is committed to doing the job. They’re fighting and they’re dying together. And the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality.

       The chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I believe that we must open up service opportunities for women as fully as possible. And therefore today, General Dempsey and I are pleased to announce that we are eliminating the direct ground combat exclusion rule for women and we are moving forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary genderbased barriers to service. In a few moments after we speak, we’ll both sign a memo that will rescind the ’94 barrier.

 Our purpose is to ensure that the mission is carried out by the best-qualified and the most-capable service members, regardless of gender and regardless of creed and beliefs. If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job—and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation.

       For this change and policy to succeed, it must be done in a responsible, measured, and a coherent way. I’ll let General Dempsey describe our plan of action in greater detail. The bottom line is that further integration of women will occur expeditiously, even as we recognize the need to take time to institutionalize changes of this importance.

       The steps we are announcing today are significant. And in many ways, they are an affirmation of where we have been heading as a department for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, it will take leadership and it will take professionalism to effectively implement these changes. I am confident in our ability to do that, because I am confident in the leadership that General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have demonstrated throughout this process.

       When I look at my grandsons and my granddaughters—you know, I’ve got six grandchildren, three grandsons and three granddaughters—I want each of them to have the same chance to succeed at whatever they want to do. In life, as we all know, there are no guarantees of success. Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. But everyone is entitled to a chance.

       By committing ourselves to that principle, we are renewing our commitment to the American values our service members fight and die to defend. As Secretary, when I’ve gone to Bethesda to visit wounded warriors, and when I’ve gone to Arlington to bury our dead, there is no distinction that’s made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform. They serve, they’re wounded, and they die right next to each other. The time has come to recognize that reality.

       By opening up more opportunities for people to serve in uniform, we are making our military stronger and we are making America stronger. We deeply honor all of those past generations, combat soldiers and Marines, who fought and died for our freedom. And in many ways, their sacrifice has ensured that the next greatest generation will be one of men and women who will fight and die together to protect this nation. And that is what freedom is all about.

 Read the following text, which is excerpted from a letter signed Sentry, appearing on an Internet website.

       I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6″, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper-body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

       We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be minuscule—I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me—and that minuscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission.

       Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

       Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a manto get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men . . . but not nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women’s. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s 10 feet high, you have to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

       Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

       Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the U.S. are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

       I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

 ___________ While Secretary Leon Panetta argues that women should be allowed to serve in the same capacity in the armed forces as men, Sentry argues that women will cause men to die if they are treated as equals.

In your response, analyze both texts to determine which position is best supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your response. Write your response in the box on the following page. This task may require approximately 45 minutes to complete.

RLA EXTENDED RESPONSE

Extended Response:

While both Secretary Leon Panetta and the author Sentry present compelling arguments on the topic of women in combat roles, Secretary Panetta’s position is better supported through a combination of evidence, logic, and appeal to democratic values.

Secretary Panetta argues from the standpoint of equality, demonstrated performance, and mission readiness. He emphasizes that women have already proven themselves on the battlefield during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As he states, “Over more than a decade of war, they have demonstrated courage and skill and patriotism.” He also notes that 152 women have died in combat zones, showing that women are not only present but are already enduring the risks of war. His argument is grounded in direct observation, as he references personal visits to war zones and meetings with wounded soldiers, men and women alike. This experiential evidence strengthens his claim that women are already serving in combat conditions, despite outdated policies restricting their official roles.

In contrast, Sentry’s argument, though passionate and informed by personal military experience, relies heavily on hypotheticals, generalizations, and assumptions about how men and women will interact in combat situations. For example, she claims that integrating women into combat units will “ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit,” primarily due to privacy concerns, male protective instincts, and women’s physical limitations. However, she provides no concrete data or military-wide studies to support these broad claims. Even while acknowledging that some women (like herself) may be capable of meeting male standards, she insists their inclusion would still be detrimental, which appears inconsistent and speculative.

Furthermore, Sentry’s argument relies on emotional appeals and worst-case scenarios, such as graphic predictions about how female prisoners of war might be treated. While it is valid to consider risks, the argument becomes less objective and more alarmist when it centers on hypothetical atrocities and media reactions rather than performance data or military assessments.

Panetta, in contrast, maintains a tone of measured pragmatism, stating that changes will be “done in a responsible, measured, and coherent way.” He clarifies that qualifications for combat roles will not be lowered—“I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job”—thus preserving military standards while expanding access based on capability rather than gender. His stance is aligned with democratic ideals of opportunity and fairness, as he states, “everyone is entitled to a chance.” These principles, grounded in the Constitution and civil rights, form a solid foundation for policy-making in a diverse and inclusive military.

In conclusion, Secretary Panetta’s argument is more thoroughly supported by evidence of past performance, leadership consultation, and a clear policy framework. It balances the need for military effectiveness with the moral imperative of equal opportunity. Sentry’s letter is heartfelt and raises important concerns, but it relies too heavily on speculation and fails to offer broader evidence beyond individual experience. Therefore, the best-supported position is Secretary Panetta’s: that qualified individuals, regardless of gender, should have the opportunity to serve in any role in the military.