Both author's overall claim is that high schools should start later in the day. However, the first passage states the reasons that high schools should start later while the second passage states why the schools are unable to start later in the day. Both the authors claim the same thing but their articles are written differently. The authors of both texts also advance their unique perspective differently. Michelle Trudeau, the author of the first article states the reasons high schools should start later in the day. She also provides solutions to the problems that schools may be facing when delaying the high school starting time. The author also states the benefits that come from high schools starting late. For example, the author quotes in paragraph three that, "Students reported less depression when there was a later starting time." She also gave examples of some high schools that have delayed their starting time. She stated the problems the schools encountered …show more content…
From reading the passage, many can figure out that Dan Weissmann supports the claim that high schools should start later in the day. However, instead of stating the reasons or benefits of high schools starting later, he states why they are unable to. In the first line of the eighth paragraph, the author states, " The big issue- the expensive issue- is transportation." That is one of the reasons as to why high schools are unable to start later. Dan Weissmann also states why some school districts are unable to switch the starting times of high schools and elementary schools as Michelle Trudeau had stated in her article. When he asked Amundson why little kids, who tend to be early risers, couldn't start early in paragraph twelve she states, " Oh, no that was a non-starter. There were exactly zero of us who were prepared to have five-year-olds on the street in the