Cochlear implant debate
Wed, Oct 7, 2026 · Week 7 · Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions)
Today's goal: Build and defend a claim-evidence-reasoning position on whether cochlear implants should be standard care for deaf children.
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Parallel case (not today's prompt): Should a genetic screen for a serious adult-onset condition that has no childhood treatment be added to the standard newborn screening panel that every baby receives at birth?\n\nClaim: A genetic screen for an untreatable adult-onset condition should be offered to parents as an optional add-on, but it should not be folded into the automatic newborn screening panel that every baby receives.\n\nEvidence 1: Standard newborn screening tests a heel-prick blood sample for a set list of conditions, and the panel was built mostly around disorders that can be treated early, such as PKU, where starting a special diet in the first weeks prevents brain damage.\n\nEvidence 2: A result for an adult-onset condition with no childhood treatment does not change the infant's care now, but it creates lifelong knowledge about that person's future body that the newborn cannot yet weigh, and that some people later say they would have chosen not to learn.\n\nReasoning: Because the automatic panel earns its automatic status by catching problems that early action can fix, adding a test that changes nothing in childhood breaks that logic and hands a child a permanent result they never agreed to receive. Offering the screen as a clearly separate choice keeps the medical benefit available for families who want it while protecting the future adult's right to decide what to know about their own body.\n\nReflection: At first I assumed more information at birth is always better, so screening for everything seemed obviously good. Thinking about the difference between a result you can act on now and a result the child will carry for decades made me see that timing and consent matter, not just the test's accuracy. I kept my claim that the screen should exist, but moved it out of the automatic panel and into an informed, opt-in choice.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Parallel model showing the full CER format: a claim on whether an untreatable-condition genetic screen should be added to the newborn panel, two pieces of evidence, reasoning, and a three-sentence reflection. Students copy the structure, not the answer.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Post your CER and reflection to Schoology before the end of the block.
Turn in: Worked CER on a parallel case (newborn genetic screening)
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about cochlear implant debate. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Explaining how a cochlear implant restores hearing signals.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.