Comments by Ben Beaudry

below

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 14:19:38 -0500

This is a logical fallacy (post hock ergo propter hoc) because there isn't any actual evidence that Snowball was getting into trouble while the other animals were asleep. Merely someone saw Snowball out at night and assumed he was up to trouble. This happens quite a bit in the sports world when people assume they are winning because of some silly superstition.

Can you suggest how to make my letter more effective?

Sun, 22 Feb 2026 10:08:44 -0500

Your letter already follows the six-part framework really closely, so you’ve got a solid “good enough” draft that clearly states who you are, what you care about, and what you’re asking for.
One choice you might consider: do you want to anchor your letter on ONE main bill or policy (like the phone ban or third-grade retention) so your ask feels more focused, or do you like having all three together as a “big picture” concern?
In your evidence section, you mention “coverage of the 2026 session” and “national research”; you might think about whether you want to name one specific source or study (even in a simple way, like “a national study on retention found…”) to boost your credibility (ethos/logos), just like Part 3 of the Framework for your legislative letter suggests: “Support claims with credible, integrated evidence.”
Your personal paragraph is strong; if you wanted to lean into it even more, you could decide whether to add one short, concrete example of a time you saw a policy help or hurt students, which fits the framework’s idea that “this is not just a policy debate—it is a lived reality for people in our community” (Framework for your legislative letter, Part 4).

If you picked ONE small part to adjust next (focus on one bill, add a specific piece of evidence, or add a brief example), which would you choose—and do you want to click *Continue with AI* to talk through that choice more, or head over to Create Document to keep working on your own?

finished letter

Sun, 22 Feb 2026 10:05:51 -0500

Should exercise be enforced more for high school students?

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:21:22 -0500

You’ve got two different things on the table: a Utah bill about exercise in elementary schools and your own question about high school students.
Your question about whether exercise should be enforced more in high school is a strong, clear claim you could turn into a full argument.
One choice now is to decide your position: are you leaning yes (schools should enforce more PE/fitness) or no (it should be more about choice and access)?
Another choice is to connect the bill to high school: you could ask whether starting with elementary “habits” means we don’t need strict rules later, or whether high school still needs its own requirements.

If you had to write one sentence answering your own question right now—“Should exercise be enforced more for high school students? Why or why not?”—what would you say, and do you want to click *Continue with AI* to build that into a paragraph, or go to Create Document to start a fresh draft or upload a source?

How would these rules affect students use of AI?

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:20:09 -0500

In the articles you shared, teachers are encouraged to really know students’ home language patterns instead of shutting them down, so a similar question for tech/AI is whether rules shut students down or help them use AI more thoughtfully.
If a classroom “restricts tech” by banning phones and AI entirely, many students will probably still use AI at home, just with less guidance about how to use it ethically or in ways that build real skills.
If the rules say AI can be used only for certain steps (like brainstorming, language support, or checking grammar) but not for full answers, then students are more likely to treat AI as a tool they control instead of something that replaces their thinking.
Strict limits could also affect whose language gets valued: students who use home language, AAVE, or Indian-English patterns might feel pressure to let AI “standardize” their voice instead of honoring the kinds of speech your articles describe (Knapp, 2015; Kynard, n.d.).

If your teacher made a rule tomorrow about when you can and can’t use AI, how do you think it should be written so that it helps you without erasing your own ways of talking and writing—and do you want to click *Continue with AI* to think that through here, or go to Create Document to start drafting your own answer?

Link to Article

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:02:47 -0500

https://ez-le-ut.com/bill?bill=HB0024&year=2026

I agree with this bill because I think everyone should have insurance, and a minor infraction like careless driving shouldn't have criminal charges.

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:01:47 -0500