Question

Rev 05/17/18

Primary Source Writing
After reading the passages on the last two pages by President Woodrow Wilson and Senator Robert
M. La Follette, you see that politicians can consider the same historical event and arrive at different
conclusions. Refer back to the evidence and claims from both articles and then fill in the information
needed. Then, write a paragraph at the bottom of the page telling us which speech you agree with
more. Support your ideas with evidence and ideas from the readings.
Directions: Identify the first author's source, point of view and supporting evidence.
. (author's name)
In the article
(begin with a verb like: argues, asserts, claims)
EXPLAIN
that....
(author's last name)
supports their claim by (use a verb here such as: illustrating,
showing, telling, explaining, demonstrating, describing)
Directions: Compare and contrast the second author's points of view and supporting evidence.
(In comparison, In contrast, On the other hand)
in the article
(use a verb here such as: argues, asserts, claims, contends)
rections: Evaluate the claims of both authors.
valuating these claims and their supporting evidence, I agree with
pective because
(second author's name)
(second author's last name) supports their claim by (use a verb here such as: illustrating,
howing, telling, explaining, demonstrating, listing, describing)
tions: Rewrite your paragraph here. Alternative option: Using supporting evidence from the primary
s, choose the author you agree with most and explain why.

Answer 1

Woodrow Wilson, in his speech, argues that the United States should remain neutral during World War I. He claims that the United States should prioritize peace and that getting involved in the war would disrupt that peace. Wilson supports his claim by pointing out the consequences of the war and the potential harm it could cause to the United States.

In contrast, Robert M. La Follette's speech argues that the United States should not remain neutral and that entering the war would not serve the country's interests. La Follette claims that entering the war would be costly and that the United States should focus on domestic issues. He supports his claim by pointing out the potential costs of entering the war and the potential negative impact it could have on the country.

After evaluating the claims of both authors, I agree more with Robert M. La Follette's perspective. I believe that the United States should not have entered World War I, as it would have been costly and would not have served the country's interests. La Follette's arguments about the potential costs of the war and the negative impact it could have on the country are compelling. Additionally, the United States should focus on domestic issues, such as improving the economy and infrastructure, rather than getting involved in foreign conflicts.