While research in mathematics education has shown that mathematics assessments are highly consequential, traditional assessments often lag behind advancements in instructional methods. One such advancement is the promotion of mathematical habits of mind such as students' abilities to critique others' reasoning. This study explored the use of student work embedded in seventh-grade curriculum-based mathematics assessment tasks as a mechanism for critiquing others' thinking. The researcher investigated the prevalence and nature of student work in assessment tasks as compared to textbook tasks from five seventh-grade, Common Core State Standards for Mathematics-aligned curriculum series. The text analyses findings revealed that while there were multiple critique types in student work across both assessment and textbook tasks, there were substantial differences between students' opportunities to make sense of someone else's mathematical thinking in curriculum-based assessments as compared to the student textbooks. These findings reinforced prior curriculum and assessment research that found assessment often lags behind instructional methods.