Grade 8

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Penny

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

Although there are some awkward sentences (e.g., “This method will overall be more costly than producing pennies already is”) and problems caused by needless passive voice (“Some American citizens have seen this penny be changed…and have seen the penny represent…”), there are no actual sentence formation errors.

There are commas missing after introductory elements (e.g., &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will…&#8221; and &#8220;If there are no pennies to pay for the 96 cents then the price… and for these many reasons I think that…&#8221;). Additionally, there is a missing comma in a compound sentence (&#8220;The penny represents how ani who Americans used to be and that affects….&#8221;). The misplaced period in the second sentence of the second paragraph is likely a typo.

The “i” in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph should be capitalized.

There are several grammar errors with verb tense and mood. As one example, the shift from &#8220;If the penny was to be eliminated&#8221; (paragraph 1) and &#8220;if the penny were to be eliminated&#8221; (paragraph 2). As another example, the verbs in paragraph two move from “would take place,” “would be confusing,” and “could well be” to “will overall be more costly.” There is an error with a frequently confused word (paragraph 4: &#8220;it’s&#8221; should be “its”) and another error with the incorrect word &#8220;and&#8221; instead of &#8220;an” (paragraph 2).

The response includes a variety of specific details from multiple sources to adequately support the position.

There is no source attribution, although the response does incorporate information from more than one source.

Most of the development relies on summary, and sometimes cursory summary (paragraph 5), with little or no elaboration. As an example, in paragraph 3, there is the beginning of a nice analysis regarding the differing accounts of the penny’s manufacturing costs; however, the writer fails to account for the fact that one is the cost for Canada, while the other represents the cost for America. At other times, inferences drawn are unexplained (e.g., &#8220;This rounding system would be confusing, awkward, and pricey for the consumer and the business&#8221; &#8211; there is no subsequent explanation for why the system would be confusing or awkward). Other conclusions (e.g., &#8220;The penny represents how ani who American used to be and that affects how we are now&#8221;) resonate with the reader but again are subsequently unexplained, contributing to an overall uneven development of ideas.

The language use is inconsistent. Some phrasing (e.g., &#8220;Some American citizens have seen…the penny represent American culture in multiple ways&#8221;) and word choices (e.g., &#8220;confusing, awkward, and pricey&#8221;) are mature. However, in other places, the language is general, wordy, and repetitive (&#8220;My thought on…&#8221;; &#8220;I have thought out…&#8221;; &#8220;there are reasons…&#8221;) and is ineffective for the purpose.

There is an evident style, but it is somewhat formulaic and doesn’t enhance the argumentative purpose. (e.g. &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will address every reason and explain them thoroughly…&#8221;).

The claim (&#8220;…the penny should be preserved&#8221;) is somewhat buried in the first sentence (&#8220;My thought on the penny being preserved or eliminated is that…&#8221;). Once established, however, the focus on that claim is generally maintained throughout.

Most transitions are adequate (&#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Another reason&#8221;; &#8220;For this reason&#8221;), and the transitions between body paragraphs are generally effective (using generalizations to move to the next paragraph/idea. For example, building from cost of rounding to cost of the coin as well as transitioning from sentimental value to historical value).

The perfunctory introduction reads more like a rough draft with unnecessary introspective comments distracting the reader rather than clarifying the writer’s intent (e.g., &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will address every reason and explain them thoroughly&#8221;). Further, the conclusion is weak for the argumentative purpose.

While the overuse of formulaic phrases is distracting and occasionally interferes with a smooth reading, the progression of ideas is overall logical (e.g., cost considerations, to sentimental and historical, to charity).

An opposing/alternate argument is presented (e.g., Some people that are on the sidle that thinks the penny should be eliminated state that the penny costs more to manufacture than its actual value&#8221;). The counterclaim is logically addressed in the final sentence of that paragraph (paragraph 3).

Except for some occasional awkwardness (e.g., &#8220;According to this article from the Washington Middle School Chronicle, Save the Penny-Save the Day!, that without pennies&#8230;&#8221;), there are no sentence construction errors.

There are errors with punctuation. There are numerous examples of unnecessary commas (&#8220;&#8230;has created many figures of speech, still used today.&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;has been changed over the course of U.S. history, yet still provides the same&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;to donate their pennies, than their quarters&#8221;; &#8220;They allow for easier donations to charities, and help the needy&#8221;). There are also examples of commas missing with compound independent clauses (&#8220;One would get rid of their dead weight and the money would go&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;It would hurt some charities if the penny is removed from the U.S. and that would&#8230;&#8221;) and a missing comma after an introductory phrase (&#8220;Instead of paying $29.96 you would have to pay&#8230;&#8221;). The title &#8220;Washington Middle School Chronicle&#8221; should have been italicized or underlined.

There are numerous grammar usage errors with pronouns and verbs. For example, there is an unclear pronoun reference (&#8220;by donating their coins it would become&#8230;&#8221;), errors with pronoun/antecedent agreement (e,g., &#8220;The penny provides sentimental value for people, holding a lot of history inside them&#8221;), and unnecessary shifts in pronouns (e.g., in paragraph 3: &#8220;you&#8230;people&#8230;you&#8221;; in paragraph 4: &#8220;people&#8230;one&#8230;people&#8230;one&#8221;). There are also some inconsistencies with verb tenses/moods (e.g., &#8220;It would hurt some charities if the penny is removed from the US&#8230;&#8221;) and the unnecessary use of passive voice (&#8220;some figures of speech has also been created due to the penny&#8230;&#8221;), which may have contributed to an error with subject/verb agreement (&#8220;some figures&#8230;has&#8221;).

Given the length of the response, there are relatively few spelling errors (&#8220;buisnesses,&#8221; &#8220;te,&#8221; and &#8220;Alot,&#8221; which is spelled correctly some places and misspelled in others).

The response includes a variety of supporting evidence from multiple sources; however, there is some vagueness and repetition in the development of the ideas.

Although multiple sources are used, only one article is attributed (&#8220;According to this article from the Washington Middle School Chronicle&#8230;&#8221;).

Overall, there is some adequate elaboration through inference (e.g., &#8220;it would hurt some charities if the penny is removed&#8221;). Yet some of the development in this response is really more repetition than elaboration. For example, the introduction includes the statement &#8220;[the penny] has created many memories for some Americans, and it has created many figures of speech, still used today.&#8221; Then the support in paragraph 2 contains the statements, &#8220;Some figures of speech has also been created due to the penny. The penny provides a large amount of sentimental value and memories.&#8221; Consequently, the reader is left feeling as though information has been repeated rather than developed. However, that same supporting information (provided in the introduction and then repeated in the first body paragraph) is then somewhat elaborated at the end of the paragraph with commentary: &#8220;For something so small, it can hold a lot of history.&#8221;

The language/vocabulary is adequate despite some occasional repetition (e.g., &#8220;money loss&#8221;/&#8221;cost a lot of money&#8221;; &#8220;created many memories&#8221;/&#8221;provides a large amount of memories&#8221;).

The style is overall consistent and appropriate for the argumentative purpose (e.g., effective rhetorical questions such as &#8220;If pennies help good causes and charities, wouldn&#8217;t that mean they are good for us?&#8221; and phrases such as &#8220;win-win situation&#8221;).

The claim is concisely stated as an imperative: &#8220;Preserve the penny! … The penny can provide some value….&#8221; Further, the focus is maintained throughout the response.

The transitions within paragraphs are adequate but there are some inconsistencies. For example, the word “this” sometimes has unclear referents, and some connections lack clarity (&#8220;[saving 2 cents] does not seem like alot to save, but along with a dollar, two cents can be alot for some people&#8221;). Further, the transition from the introduction to the first body paragraph is abrupt. Yet other transitions between body paragraphs are particularly effective (e.g., &#8220;for something so small, it can hold a lot of history&#8221;; &#8220;If pennies help good causes and charities, wouldn&#8217;t that mean they are good for us?&#8221;).

The introduction is adequate but somewhat inconsistent in its qualities: beginning with a moderately effective call-to-action (&#8220;Preserve the penny!&#8221;), it is followed by a context for the argument and a statement of claim (&#8220;I think this is a bad idea. The penny can provide some value…&#8221;). What follows then is presumably a roadmap for the essay, but it goes beyond concisely introducing the support, seeming more like specific supporting ideas rather than an introduction (e.g., &#8220;The penny has some sentimental value, for it has created many memories some figures of speech still used today&#8221;). The conclusion merely repeats the introduction, even ending with the same call to action.

The progression of ideas is adequate, following the organization of the relevant source materials: appreciate the penny for its historical value (paragraph 2) , save money (paragraph 3), which can then be donated to charity (paragraph 4).

The response acknowledges and effectively addresses the opposing argument/point of view at several points throughout the response (e.g., &#8220;Many people dislike the usage of the penny and…&#8221; and &#8220;Some people feel like their loose change would weigh them down. So how would one get rid of one&#8217;s extra coins? Well, some people donate them&#8221;).

There is one “sentence” that is not complete (&#8220;Additionally, some people say that since the penny was one of the first coins authorized for production by the federal government, was created to commemorate the 100th anniverseray of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, should hold much sentimental value&#8221;).

There are a few unnecessary commas (e.g. “News Register states that,…,” “an MIT scientists argues that,…,” “From saving money in the Treasury, to dropping prices…”). There is a comma missing from a compound construction (&#8220;…passage also shows that the penny costs more to produce and that once-cent coins provide…&#8221;). In addition, the titles for the articles &#8220;Penni Anti&#8221; and &#8220;Cost of a Penny&#8221; should be in quotation marks, and the publication Prairie New Register should be either italicized or underlined.

There are no capitalization errors.

There is an error with pronoun and antecedent agreement (&#8220;…the price of manufacturing pennies as opposed to its value and worth&#8221;), and a misplaced modifier (&#8220;make prices go up to consumers&#8221;).

This response has a few spelling errors (“anniverseray,” “Prarie,” “citzens”).

The response draws specific details from a range of available source material.

Although there are some unattributed source materials used, where direct quotes are used, citations are also used.

The elaboration is overall adequate, with some variety of techniques used. The development is fairly formulaic, with quoted material from the text subsequently “explained” in terms of its meaning and its significance to the argument (e.g., &#8220;&#8216;A penny currently costs the United States government 2.4 cents to mint.&#8217; This short passage also shows that the penny costs more to produce and that one-cent coins provide a complete and utter waste of tax payers&#8217; dollars and a waste of energy&#8221;). While the explanation for the rebuttal of the sentimental value of the penny is somewhat weak (at the end of paragraph 5), overall, the address of the opposing point of view is also adequate.

Overall, the language and vocabulary choices are effective. While there are a few imprecise phrases (e.g., &#8220;beneficial advantages&#8221; and &#8220;…Cost of a penny costs more…&#8221;), there are also some strong verbs that enhance the argument (e.g., &#8220;This quote demonstrates…&#8221;; &#8220;Jeff Gore…argues that…&#8221;; &#8220;…the quote helps reassure others…&#8221;).

Varied sentence structures contribute to a style that enhances the argumentative purpose (e.g., &#8220;Should we consider abolishing the penny?&#8221;; &#8220;Without pennies, people would be forced to round everything up to the nearest nickel&#8221;; &#8220;From saving money in the Treasury, to dropping prices for the consumer, the elimination of the penny will help the economy greatly&#8221;).

The claim itself (&#8220;the penny is more of a nuisance than an item of transaction&#8221;) is copied from source #1, but it is nicely set up with a reference to the opposing point of view, and the focus is effectively maintained throughout the response.

A variety of transitions within paragraphs clarify relationships (e.g., &#8220;However&#8221;; &#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Additionally&#8221;; &#8220;Ultimately&#8221;).

The response has a solid introduction and conclusion. The introduction begins with a rhetorical question followed by a statement setting the context for the argument. The concluding paragraph logically concludes the argument, once again acknowledging sentimental value while reasserting that the arguments for banning the penny are stronger than the arguments for keeping them.

The argument progresses logically as the response builds on the different fiscal arguments for abolishing the penny (e.g., &#8220;&#8230;costs more to produce&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Pennies are costing each of [us] nearly $50 a year&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;rounded prices should not cost more&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;buying power lowered&#8230;due to inflation&#8221;).

The response progresses to an acknowledgement of the opposing argument and then a rebuttal of that argument.

There is a single sentence structure error, a run-on sentence in paragraph 3 (&#8220;the penny has sentimental value, it was the first coin created by the U.S. State Mint&#8221;).

There are punctuation errors, in particular a pattern of errors with unnecessary commas (&#8220;Many people think and feel that the penny is worthless, and a waste of&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;the prices of everything might be rounded up, and be more costly to the consumers&#8221;; &#8220;This will affect all consumers, and be uncomfortable&#8221;).

There are several grammar usage errors (e.g., &#8220;would of&#8221; should be &#8220;would&#8221; in the fifth paragraph). There is an error with the frequently confused word then instead of than (&#8220;it does take more money to make then it is worth&#8221;) and two errors with subject/verb agreement (&#8220;it cost&#8221;; &#8220;The pictures on the pennies also represent and celebrates certain events&#8221;). Arguably, there are places where the verb mood should be conditional (&#8220;charities will thrive even more because most people do not care to keep pennies, so they will donate their pennies&#8221;). Again, given the complexity and length of the response, the response still demonstrates adequate control of grammar usage.

This response shows effective paraphrasing of information and the integration of details from across the available source materials.

More than one source is used, the sources are attributed, and the citations are clear.

Although most of the elaboration is via summary, there is an adequate amount of explanation/extension of ideas (&#8220;If we round everything up to the nearest nickel, it would be a huge loss to those who bought the goods&#8221;) and appropriate commentary (&#8220;look how much a middle school made in one week!&#8221;).

Despite some occasional lapses (e.g., repetition: that is inaccurate and not true), overall the effective use of precise language/vocabulary enhances the argument. Some strong word choices appeal to the audience without resorting to pathos (e.g., &#8220;help to charities who desperately need money to support needy people&#8221;).

There is evidence of a style that enhances the argumentative purpose. For example, the response demonstrates clever pairing of concepts that engage the reader (&#8220;Though you might not be able to do anything with one penny, you might be able to do something with a few or many pennies&#8221;).

Although the claim is not overtly stated until the end of the response, the issue is clearly introduced, and the focus on that issue is consistently maintained throughout the response.

Purposeful transitions work to clarify connections (e.g., &#8220;You can argue&#8230;, but look how&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;though people may&#8230;, in reality&#8230;&#8221;).

The introduction to this response catches the reader’s attention with a rhetorical question and then alludes to the opposing point of view, which is followed by a generalization that subtly suggests what the writer’s claim will be (&#8220;Though you might not be able to do anything with one penny, you might be able to do something with a few or many pennies&#8221;). The introduction ends with a list of the upcoming support that is somewhat awkward (and unnecessary), but it doesn’t substantively diminish the overall effectiveness of the introduction. The conclusion states the claim (&#8220;the penny benefits us&#8221;); provides a statement, albeit a general one, about the consequence of abolishing the penny (&#8220;it will make a big difference in America&#8221;); and summarizes the support (helps money system; sentimental value; charity). As with the introduction, the listing of the supports is unnecessary but doesn’t offset the overall strengths of the conclusion.

The inductive reasoning (saving the actual claim until the final paragraph) works because the response logically progresses by addressing the opposing argument/point of view (&#8220;many people think and feel the penny is worthless&#8221;; &#8220;you can argue that collecting pennies won’t make much of a difference&#8221;) and then crafting the argument with evidence for the claim (&#8220;but look at how much a middle school made in one week!&#8221;).

The opposing point of view is subtly acknowledged and addressed throughout.

Paragraph 3 contains a very long incomplete sentence: &#8220;This being the time it takes someone to whup out thirty pennies instead of six nickels, this could cost people time away from their jobs.&#8221;

There are several punctuation errors (e.g., the missing period at the end of paragraph 3). There are missing commas between compound independent clauses in paragraph 4 (&#8220;One major issue…is that it causes prices to be rounded up and then costumers will have to pay more&#8221;) and paragraph 5 ( &#8220;…the currency in this country are very iconic peices of history and to retire the penny would be sad&#8221;). There is an unnecessary comma in the final sentence (“so” is used to introduce a dependent clause [“so that…”] rather than a coordinating conjunction). There should be a comma, rather than a semi-colon, before “which” in paragraph 3. However, note that semi-colons in general are not grade 8 errors, so the incorrectly used semi-colon in paragraph 4 does not “count” as an error. There are several missing apostrophes to form contractions (e.g., &#8220;dont&#8221;), and countries wealth (paragraph 6) should be possessive: &#8220;country’s wealth.&#8221;

There are several grammar usage errors (e.g., &#8220;Which may not sound like much, but it can add up when you think about it&#8221; should be &#8220;This may not sound like much&#8230;&#8221;). There are subject/verb agreement errors in paragraphs 4 and 5 (&#8220;…it cause…&#8221;; &#8220;the currency in this country are…&#8221;), and the use of the plural noun wages in paragraph 3 is incorrect (either &#8220;average wages amounts&#8221; should be singular or &#8220;wages&#8221; should be the possessive &#8220;wage’s&#8221;). Although there are some minor shifts in verb tense (e.g., paragraph 5: &#8220;…end of something that has been&#8221; followed by &#8220;the penny had more uses&#8221;) they do not cause significant confusion. In addition, there is occasional confusion with unclear references (e.g., &#8220;Cost of the metals used in making pennies being worth more than the penny itself.&#8221; “The cost of metals” doesn’t make sense with “being worth more,” which is the grammatical referent).

This response has a few spelling errors [“dont,” “costumers,” “peices,” “havn’t,” and “a” should be “at” (third sentence second paragraph)].

The response includes specific details, nicely paraphrasing and integrating information from a variety of the source materials. As one example, in paragraph 2, the writer states: &#8220;It is not only the cost of the metals in pennies that costs our country, but the fact that nobody actually uses pennies much in their everyday life. All the pennies people get in their transactions a[t] stores just end up at the bottom of their couch.&#8221; This integration of [pilot] material from source #2 (cost of metal) and source #1 (pennies are discarded/forgotten) is effective.

Although multiple sources are used, the use of source material is unattributed.

The previous example (&#8220;It is not only…but…nobody actually uses pennies…&#8221;) is extended with a conclusion about the economic consequences that goes beyond the obvious: &#8220;This does not help the overall finances of this country.&#8221; There is also some elaboration via inference and speculation (e.g., &#8220;this could mean&#8221;; &#8220;Maybe they haven’t thought….[this] could save many people money&#8221;). The response then develops an effective address of the opposing point of view by considering possible, if simplistic, solutions (e.g., &#8220;figure out a way to reimburse people who still own pennies after they were abolished&#8221;). Overall, the integration and subsequent development of source materials reflect the kind of development that is typical of the score point 4 category.

The language/vocabulary is generally precise (e.g., &#8220;iconic,&#8221; &#8220;fiddling with pennies at store counters&#8221;).

The response evidences some effective style including parallelism (e.g., &#8220;the country would save hundreds of millions of dollars,&#8221; and &#8220;save the general public tens of dollars…&#8221;) and effective use of cause/effect (e.g., &#8220;It is not only….but…&#8221;; &#8220;…don’t only affect…but…&#8221;).

The claim is stated up front (&#8220;the penny should be abolished due to the hassles involved in using it&#8221;), and the response stays focused on explaining the “hassles.”

The transitions are varied throughout, ranging from simple words (e.g., &#8220;Well,&#8221; &#8220;Also,&#8221; &#8220;but&#8221;) to subtle phrases that establish clear relationships (e.g., &#8220;It is not only….but…&#8221;; &#8220;…don’t only affect…but…&#8221;).

The introduction is adequate, providing a clear claim, followed by a roadmap that provides forthcoming supporting reasons. That roadmap begins with the formulaic phrase &#8220;I have three reasons as to why….&#8221; The conclusion is stronger than the introduction. The perfunctory return to restating &#8220;the reasons I have for wanting the penny gone&#8221; is less distracting, in part because it is couched as part of a general call to action (&#8220;[so] we can get something done about this issue&#8221;).

The response progresses logically, building the argument by explaining each of the “hassles” to support the claim that the penny should be abolished (&#8220;costs more to make than it is worth&#8221;; &#8220;takes up a lot of people’s time&#8221;; &#8220;abolishing the penny could actually save people money&#8221;). The body of the response leads to an acknowledgement of the opposing point of view before concluding the argument.

The fourth body paragraph (paragraph 5) acknowledges the opposing point of view and then presents a possible address of that concern (&#8220;…maybe we could figure out a way to reimburse people…&#8221;).

Grade 11

3D Printers

The sentence structure of this brief response is somewhat simplistic; however, with the exception of the two missing words in the first sentence (“Using 3-D printer” and “you have a chance break”), there does not appear to be any major formation issues. The awkward constructions (&#8220;It is best to not allow…to be available&#8221;) are style problems rather than conventions errors, although, given the brevity of the response, they do interfere with fluency.

There are no punctuation errors in this response.

There are no capitalization errors in this response.

There are two noted grammar usage issues in this response: the missing “to” in the first sentence after &#8220;chance&#8221; and the prepositional phrase “of accessing” in the final sentence, which should be replaced by “to access.” The use of passive voice (&#8220;can be created&#8221;) in this response causes some confusion.

This response has spelling errors (e.g., &#8220;Furnitures,&#8221; &#8220;sovouenirs,&#8221; and &#8220;Unforuntately&#8221;).

With only a single supporting idea (copyright infringement, although the examples offered—furniture and &#8220;souvenirs&#8221;—are examples of patents, not copyrights), there is no integration of information.

The response offers no citations or attributions and presumably uses information from a single source.

The lone supporting detail is developed with a brief example, &#8220;sovoenirs&#8221;  (“furniture” is an example provided in the sources and so is not original elaboration).

Vocabulary is limited, ineffective, and confusing (&#8220;I disagree with the idea of the ability of accessing a 3-D printer in public&#8221;).

The response is too brief to create any style.

The response ends with a confusing claim (&#8220;I disagree with the idea of the ability of accessing a 3-D printer in public&#8221;) and is too brief to be cohesive.

The use of a few transitional phrases (&#8220;For instance&#8230;,&#8221; &#8220;Unfortunately…&#8221;) does not necessarily promote unity. For example, it’s not clear why it would be “unfortunate” that it is illegal to use someone else’s design.

Especially for this grade level, there is no adequate introduction or conclusion. The first sentence sets up the first (and only) supporting reason (&#8220;may cause lawsuits&#8221;), and the final 2 sentences repeat a weak claim that fails to provide closure.

There is no progression of ideas as there is only a single supporting reason offered (illegal copyright will cause lawsuits) with a single example and explanation (&#8220;furniture&#8221;/&#8221;sovoenirs&#8221; and &#8220;illegal&#8221;). The final two (of 5 total) sentences merely repeat each other.

Opposing arguments are not acknowledged.

With the exception of the awkward opening sentence, the sentence structure of this brief response is adequate.

There is a missing comma after introductory elements in the third sentence (“In source #2 of the article on 3-D printers it…”), a missing serial comma (“such as rubber, plastic and other useful…”), and a missing comma in a compound sentence (&#8220;high speed so it will help&#8221;). Given the brevity of the response, these comma errors indicate a lack of command, but the comma is only one example of punctuation, allowing for a score of 1 in the category.

The most obvious grammar usage error is in the awkward first sentence (“I have been brought to the attention of 3-D printers…”), which should be “it has been brought.” Although the response should have been in the subjunctive mood (&#8220;would&#8221; instead of &#8220;will&#8221;), the mood is consistent throughout and therefore not an egregious error.

This response has two spelling errors: “effitently” and “librairies.”

There are nearly no accurate details, and the brevity of the response precludes any true integration.

There is a single vague and inaccurate reference to source #2.

The reasons offered are either inaccurate (&#8220;3-D printers can replace other items such as rubber, plastic&#8221;) or are vague to the point of being meaningless (&#8220;used greatly,&#8221; &#8220;very helpful,&#8221; &#8220;will print things quickly and effitently&#8221;).

The language use is weak. Words such as &#8220;things,&#8221; &#8220;objects,&#8221; and &#8220;items&#8221; are too vague to support the argument.

The style is overall weak. For example, relative to the extreme brevity of the response, phrases such as &#8220;I believe,&#8221; &#8220;I have been,&#8221; and &#8220;I think&#8221; diminish the overall credibility of the response.

The implied claim is that the writer is in favor of putting 3D printers in public libraries, and the few vague details offered are in line with that claim. However, the response is too brief to provide a cohesive argument.

The words &#8220;And&#8221; and &#8220;also&#8221; and the phrase &#8220;This is why…,&#8221; are transitions, but the ideas are randomly presented with no clear relationship among the few ideas listed.

The vague implied claim (&#8220;it will be used greatly and will be helpful&#8221;) is set up by the first sentence. The final line summarizes the apparent opinion: &#8220;3-D printers will be a tremendous attribute.&#8221; However, there is no adequate introduction or conclusion per se.

The progression of the single paragraph is a general list that fails to advance an argument. The apparent supporting information details the function of the 3D printer: its ability to replace objects and to work at very high speed, and though these details are not irrelevant, they provide only minimal support for the assumed claim.

There is no acknowledgement of the opposing point of view.

The first and final sentences of paragraph 2 are run-on sentences. Confusing phrases, word repetition, and missing words interfere with fluency (e.g., “Here at our library we seem to be having a little dilemma here…” and “Yeah there may be some problems…”).

There are many missing commas in this response: after &#8220;library&#8221; in the first sentence (“Here at our library we seem…”), after “Yeah” in the third sentence, and after “Also” in the last sentence.
Commas are missing in three compound sentences (“…it’s a waste of money but I really dont think…&#8221;; “…may be some problems…like it says in source #4 but it 95%&#8230;”; “…how useful that will be but it could be….”).
Additionally, there is a missing hyphen in the last sentence between the words &#8220;game&#8221; and &#8220;changer.&#8221; There are several missing apostrophes throughout the response (e.g., “dont,” “its”).

The first-person pronoun “i” is not capitalized throughout the response.

Because of the missing word “printers” after “3D” in the first sentence of the second paragraph, the verb “are” is incorrect. There is at least one error with frequently confused words (&#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s&#8221;; it is not clear if the correct word &#8220;whether&#8221; is used as it’s misspelled “wheather”). In the second sentence, “that” should be “who” (“&#8230;doubters that dont want&#8230;”).

This response has only one spelling error (“wheather”).

There are very few details from the available materials, and they are poorly integrated.

References to two sources are vague (especially the reference to source 4).

Some references have no explanation to explain what the details mean (&#8220;some problems with the system sometimes like it says in source #4&#8221;). Others are illogical, or at least unsupported, conclusions (&#8220;thats so not true 3D printers can have so much more content [than 2D printers] on them because they are so much bigger&#8221;) and/or contradictory statements (&#8220;how unuseful that [printing in chocolate] will be but it could be useful with someone that works with chocolate or something&#8221;), which do not function as appropriate elaboration.

The vocabulary is confusing (&#8220;all about content,&#8221; &#8220;more content&#8221;), repetitive (&#8220;so&#8221;), and/or vague &#8220;(some problems,&#8221; &#8220;some things,&#8221; &#8220;sometimes&#8221;).

There are apparent attempts to create a style (&#8220;seem to be having a little dilemma, and i think it would be a game changer&#8221;) but they are unsuccessful in enhancing the credibility of the argument. Further, some phrases (e.g., &#8220;goes off on…,&#8221; &#8220;…so not true,&#8221; and &#8220;yeah….but…&#8221;) are inappropriate for the audience and purpose.

The implied claim favoring 3D printers in libraries is minimally sustained with seemingly random information provided.

The single transition word &#8220;also,&#8221; and phrases that connect ideas (&#8220;Yeah…but&#8221;; &#8220;theres a lot…but&#8221;; &#8220;Rundle goes off…but&#8221;) are inadequate in connecting already loosely-focused ideas.

The first paragraph, arguably the introduction, provides background information about the issue, but never states a concrete claim (&#8220;I dont think it is [a waste of money]&#8221;). There is no conclusion other than a final vague opinion (&#8220;I think it would be a game changer&#8221;).

There is no discernable progression of ideas. The ideas in the first paragraph (3D printers are not a waste of money and 95% problem-free) have little connection to those in the second paragraph (3D printers are “useful” and “have content”), and any vague connection implied fails to build a credible argument.

There is a general acknowledgement of the opposing point of view throughout the first paragraph (&#8220;waste of money,&#8221; &#8220;problems with the system,&#8221; leading to a confusing conclusion that &#8220;95% of the time it will be flawless&#8221;). Paragraph 2 offers a similarly confusing address of the counterclaim (&#8220;thats so not true 3D printers can have so much more content on them because they are so much bigger&#8221;; &#8220;it could be useful with someone that works with chocolate or something&#8221;).

The third sentence of the response is a run-on sentence (comma splice).

There is a missing comma after “In Source #4” in the second paragraph. There is a missing comma with a compound structure (“…content works well under the system and the system doesn&#8217;t have…”).

Paragraph 2 has numerous errors with the articles “a” and “an” (e.g., before “innovation” and “new” in the second sentence, and before “potential” in the third sentence).
There is some inconsistent use of verb mood (e.g., the use of the subjunctive “could” and “should” versus “it is a good idea…”). The phrase “someone getting abusing the copyright” is confusing. It is unclear whether a word is missing or if this was meant to be a serial phrase.
In the second paragraph, “easy” should be “easily,” and in the final paragraph, “people that” should be “people who,” but most of these errors are relatively minor.

This response has one spelling error (“workout” in the second to the last sentence of the response should be two words: “work out”).

Few details from the available sources are used, and those that are used are weakly integrated, unexplained, and/or inaccurately used.

A single source is used and attributed.

The elaboration of evidence is especially weak, in part because there is so little evidence offered to support the claim, and some of that evidence is not accurately used. For example, source 4 concludes by warning against assuming that copyright problems are easily solved. This is not consistent with the unexplained statement in paragraph 1 that &#8220;the system doesn&#8217;t have any big problems.&#8221; This oversimplification of source information diminishes the credibility of the argument. Paragraph 4 briefly attempts to address the opposing point of view by suggesting a compromise (&#8220;If deciding yes on purchasing one for your library, consider charging people a fair amount of money…[and] have them sign a contract or waiver&#8221;). This information is appropriate but totally undeveloped.

The vocabulary is limited: general (&#8220;would workout&#8221;), repetitive (&#8220;new step,&#8221; &#8220;new style,&#8221; &#8220;new thing&#8221;; &#8220;great idea,&#8221; &#8220;good idea&#8221;), and/or confusing (&#8220;someone getting abusing the copyright clause&#8221;) word choices are ineffective for an argument.

The style is consistent but not convincing.

The claim is mildly confusing (&#8220;3-D printers should be purchased through public libraries&#8221;), although it is clarified in the conclusion (&#8220;…good idea to purchase 3-D printers for public libraries&#8221;). However, the body of the response solely addresses issues with copyrights and ignores the stated focus on potential benefits (a new step in learning such as a new style of art). This lack of unity diminishes the argument.

The very few transitions (&#8220;also,&#8221; &#8220;Although&#8221;) are inadequate to establish relationships between evidence that would build an argument.

Considered separately, the introduction and conclusion are adequate in structure; however, they do not reflect the topics covered in the body of the response. The introduction provides a claim and some vague context for the issue (&#8220;best new thing&#8221;). The introduction then refers to the educational potential of the 3D printer. The conclusion reiterates the claim and repeats the information about potential for new art and creations. This information is not addressed in the body of the response, which instead covers copyright issues. This weak progression of ideas interferes with overall unity.

Paragraph 4 briefly addresses the opposing point of view by proposing a general compromise (&#8220;consider charging people a fair amount of money&#8221;).

There are several errors with sentence formation (e.g., missing word in the second sentence and the awkward construction in third sentence), but these are problems with style rather than grammatical sentence errors per se. However, the last sentence of paragraph one is not a sentence (“For example, Copyrighting issues and it is expensive to purchase”).

There are missing commas in compound constructions (e.g., “Printing out…can cause a problem with copyrighting and I don&#8217;t think our library needs this…”), missing commas after introductory elements (“When a piece of work is copyrighted it….”) or both (e.g., “No one can take credit for that work and if they do they can get in big trouble”).

There are a few capitalization errors (e.g., “Copyrighting” in the last sentence in paragraph 1, the word “there” in the second sentence of paragraph 2, and “nooks” and &#8220;staples&#8221; should be capitalized because they are proper nouns).

The verb mood is inconsistent; it should be subjunctive (&#8220;could&#8221;) instead of indicative (&#8220;can buy,&#8221; &#8220;will add&#8221;), which causes mild confusion. There is a lack of agreement between pronoun and antecedent in the final paragraph (“…3D printers….It…”).

The response includes minimal details from the available sources, and the integration of those few details is cursory and/or imprecise.

Two sources are generally attributed.

Elaboration is uneven and too limited to develop a credible argument. For example, the detail about the cost of a 3D printer is from a cited source arguing against 3D printers due to legal problems, not because of cost issues. This information could—with better elaboration—work to support that claim, but as used here, it is unsuccessfully developed. On the other hand, in this same paragraph, the statement that 3D printers would cost a lot to maintain is a solid inference to elaborate on the evidence about the 3D printer expense. Paragraph 3 summarizes information with no real elaboration except for the final commentary that &#8220;I don’t think our library needs this added stress to worry about….&#8221;

The language is mostly general and repetitive (&#8220;issues,&#8221; &#8220;stress,&#8221; &#8220;problem&#8221;).

The style is consistent but lacks conviction. For example, words such as &#8220;may&#8221; and &#8220;could,&#8221; as used in this response, do not promote the argumentative purpose.

The claim is weak, never progressing beyond general phrasing: &#8220;may cause quite a problem,&#8221; &#8220;may be many issues.&#8221; While the focus is sustained, the response is too brief to be convincing.

The transitions are weak and include just a few formulaic phrases that are intended to connect paragraphs but don’t really clarify any relationships (&#8220;In source #2/#3,&#8221; &#8220;So as one can see&#8221;).

The introduction is weak: the claim is too vague, never directly stating that the writer is against libraries providing 3D printer services. The sentence fragment at the close of the introduction provides the forthcoming reasons. The conclusion is stronger, summarizing the support for the claim.

The progression of ideas follows the support that is listed in the introduction, structuring the two supporting paragraphs with a formulaic quote from the text followed by brief summary and/or commentary about the substance of the quote. While the supporting paragraphs do not drift, they are too brief to provide any real sense of a cohesive argument.

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are several errors with punctuation, including a missing comma in compound construction (&#8220;…they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes…and this is what a library should…&#8221;).

There is one capitalization error (e.g., “just” at the beginning of the third sentence in the second paragraph).

There are a few grammar usage errors. An incorrect pronoun is used in paragraph 4, “it” should be “them,” and the phrase “put the library in blame” uses an incorrect preposition: “in” should be “to.”

The response attempts to integrate some information from several sources, but that attempt is generally inadequate. For example, in paragraph 3, the attempt to integrate information from source 1 and source 5 results in some confusion (e.g., the information about H. Rundle is over-simplified). As another example, in paragraph 2, the issues of piracy, copyright, and patents are confounded.

Multiple sources are used and attributed.

The lack of elaboration contributes to some confusion. For example, paragraph 3 calls for utilizing strict rules to control the use of 3D printers. But the central argument lacks an explanation that might clarify the unclear connection between two ideas (&#8220;This [signing a strict policy] secures the library from being blamed for such piracy and makes the users be more responsible while using the 3D printer; they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes without the issue of patents and this is what a library should promote&#8221;). Similarly, paragraph 2 acknowledges the difficulty in controlling 3D printing but then jumps to the conclusion that therefore virtually everyone would be acting illegally. This lack of explanation interferes with the development of a logical argument.

Overall the vocabulary use is uneven. Some stronger vocabulary (e.g., &#8220;essentially,&#8221; &#8220;virtually,&#8221; &#8220;contrary&#8221;) offsets some general and repetitive language (people) and words that are used imprecisely (&#8220;This secures the library…&#8221;; &#8220;If the library chooses to implement a 3D printer&#8221;; &#8220;…put the library in blame&#8221;). However, given the brevity of this somewhat repetitive response, the language use is too inconsistent for a higher score.

The few attempts at establishing an argumentative style (&#8220;Having a 3D printer means the library IS promoting learning…&#8221;; &#8220;I strongly urge…&#8221;) are insufficient to bolster the credibility of this uneven argument.

There is a clear claim in the introduction (&#8220;I oppose the use of [3D printers in libraries]&#8221;), but the conclusion states a qualified claim (&#8220;only if they have very strict rules&#8221;). This mixed focus is weakly sustained.

Although there are some transitions words (&#8220;therefore&#8221;) and phrases (&#8220;Just as people…people will also…&#8221;; &#8220;All in all&#8221;), the connections are sometimes weak or even faulty. For example, just because manufactures wouldn’t have the power to prevent “the proliferation of 3D printing, ” it does not necessarily follow that &#8220;Therefore, virtually everyone who uses a 3D printer….would technically be involved in crime….&#8221;

The introduction sets the context for the issue and offers background information as well as an evident claim (&#8220;I oppose the usage of these machines&#8221;), which is then lumped in with the forecasted supporting reasons. The conclusion is brief but adequate (it includes a modified/qualified claim and ends with a perfunctory but adequate call to action).

The progression of ideas is uneven. The claim states the writer’s opposition to 3D printers in libraries, and paragraph 2 supports that position. But paragraph 3 provides caveats—conditions under which 3D printers might be used in libraries. Presumably the argument progresses from acknowledging that the problems with piracy cannot be controlled, and therefore restrictions are necessary to avoid legal problems. But the reader has to do too much of the interpreting about the argumentative logic here.
Further, there is no clear causal relationship between needing to have strict rules in place (&#8220;…This [signing a strict policy] secures the library from being blamed for such piracy and makes the users be more responsible while using the 3D printer…&#8221;) and the subsequent statement declaring that anti-piracy rules would mean the library was being true to its educational mission (&#8220;…they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes…&#8221;).
Then, this argument leads to a similarly flawed conclusion: &#8220;Having a 3D printer means the library IS promoting learning…, contrary to the beliefs of H Rundle…&#8221;).

The address of the opposing point of view is confusing. Because the ultimate claim is modified from that stated at the beginning, the opposing point of view becomes part of the support. But paragraph 3 has a very loose focus, attempting to argue for limiting liability but then shifting focus to a misleading summary of details in Source 5 (&#8220;contrary to the beliefs of H. Rundle&#8221;), and failing to deal with that author’s primary distinction between tangible and intangible outcomes.

There is a missing hyphen between “world” and “changing” in the second paragraph. There are unnecessary commas after “creativity” in multiple paragraphs (e.g. “given the opportunity to express their creativity, and…”).

The “D” in “3D” is a lowercase “d” throughout the entire response.

In paragraph 3, the word &#8220;where&#8221; is inaccurately used; it should be “whereby,” or the sentence could be revised (e.g., &#8220;…an agreement stating that they agree…&#8221;). There are some minor inconsistencies with verb mood (e.g., “would” is correctly used throughout except for the occasional use of “can,” which should be “could”).

Of the available resources, minimal details are used, and they are weakly integrated.

The response is too general to identify what sources are referenced, although there is information from at least two sources, which are not attributed.

Paragraph 2, the only body paragraph offering supporting reasons, adds a specific detail about the cost of 3D printers. Beyond that, there is little substance except to repeat a vague reference to “ideas” (&#8220;world-changing idea,&#8221; &#8220;express their idea,&#8221; &#8220;revolutionary idea&#8221;) with no concrete explanations, inferences, or examples offered. The only attempted elaboration is the hypothetical and general reference to a potentially lost revolutionary “idea.” Paragraph 3 summarizes information in a weak attempt to develop an address of the opposing point of view.

The language used is mostly general and repetitive (in particular, the vague word &#8220;idea&#8221; is used throughout). The occasional effective word choices (&#8220;myriad,&#8221; &#8220;revolutionary,&#8221; &#8220;world-changing&#8221;) are insufficient for a higher score in this category.

There is little evidence of any style that would strengthen the argumentative purpose.

This brief response mostly maintains focus on the somewhat general claim that a 3D printer would be beneficial for the library.

Despite some repetition, (&#8220;However&#8221;), most transitions (e.g., &#8220;As a result,&#8221; &#8220;if….then&#8230;,&#8221; &#8220;also,&#8221; &#8220;In conclusion&#8221;) connect ideas adequately.

The introduction is general and repetitive, although the claim is clear (3D printer would be beneficial for the library). The conclusion is weak, basically repeating the same information as in the introduction with the exception of a seemingly random and vague idea that &#8220;The increased traffic would also help the library.&#8221;

The progression of ideas is somewhat weak, especially given the brevity of the response. The major support for the claim is centered around the idea of creativity that could potentially provide a ground-breaking “idea.”
However, this lone reason is presented in the introduction, in paragraph 2, and again in the concluding paragraph, using the same general terms. For example, from paragraph 1: &#8220;Everyone would have access to an expensive tool for creativity, and be given the opportunity to express their ideas.&#8221; From paragraph 2: &#8220;However, if that same person did not have a 3d printer in the first place to use, then that revolutionary idea may have been lost, and society would have lost a potentially world changing idea.&#8221; From paragraph 4: &#8220;Many people would be given the opportunity to express their creativity, and create things that would benefit the world.&#8221; It would seem that these three sentences, which express the same basic idea, are interchangeable.
Paragraph 3 acknowledges a single general reason against having 3D printers (copyright problems) even though the introduction mentions that there are “very few reasons.” Overall, the response is not convincing and feels incomplete.

Paragraph 3 provides a basic summarization of source information to address the counterclaim. However, without even an explanation of what the actual copyright issue is, this address is somewhat simplistic (e.g., it’s not likely that a user agreement would “easily” solve the problem).

While there are no sentence formation errors, there are some mostly minor problems with sentence structure. For example, the final sentence of the response lacks parallel structure (&#8220;…reasons include possible law violation, unnecessary spending, and that it serves no educational purpose…&#8221;).

There are a couple of unnecessary commas (e.g., “only get themselves into trouble, but also get…”and “warning for the 3D Printer, or a caveat”).

The third sentence in paragraph 5 begins with an unclear pronoun reference (&#8220;It even states…&#8221;). The final sentence in paragraph 4 also begins with the unclear referent &#8220;It,&#8221; which is then paired with &#8220;promotes them,&#8221; causing confusion because a printer cannot “promote.”
Paragraph 4 also lacks agreement between pronoun and antecedent (&#8220;…the public needs to educate themselves…&#8221;). There are some shifts in verb mood: for example, paragraph 3 jumps between the subjunctive &#8220;could&#8221; and indicative &#8220;can&#8221; several times.

There are a couple of spelling errors (e.g., “unneccessary” is misspelled twice, and “provlems”). Also, “book shelves” should be one word.

The supporting details are mostly adequately integrated and developed except for the somewhat general address of the opposing point of view.

The details come from a variety of sources with some, but inconsistent, attribution.

The development of ideas is overall adequate despite some inconsistency. For example, paragraph 2 integrates relevant source information about the high cost of 3D printers and then explains potential negative effects: &#8220;This money could be spent on more book shelves, tables, desks, lighting, water, and more.&#8221; Paragraph 3 mostly summarizes the information from sources #2 and #3, but then logically concludes: &#8220;The library can avoid unneccessary lawsuits by not providing a 3D Printer to a community that may or may not know the law or when copyright does or does not protect an object.&#8221; Paragraph 4 effectively summarizes information from source #5, but there is no elaboration beyond the paraphrased source details. Paragraph 5, however, lacks explanations that would clarify the general evidence used (&#8220;Although there is a warning for the 3D Printer, or a caveat emptor…&#8221;; &#8220;…people can work out their problems if there are any…&#8221;).

There are some vague statements (&#8220;…people can work out their problems if there are any…&#8221;) and other phrases such as “may or may not” that fail to clarify or strengthen the argument. However, there are also some strong word choices (&#8220;imperative,&#8221; &#8220;focus,&#8221; &#8220;at risk&#8221;) that contribute to an overall adequate use of language to support the argumentative purpose.

The style is not distinctive, but it is appropriate and consistent.

The claim is clear (&#8220;the library is not an appropriate place for hosting the 3D Printer&#8221;), and the response mostly maintains that focus throughout.

Overall, the transitions are adequate to provide coherence in the response despite some weaknesses. For example, some transition phrases are repetitive (&#8220;Another reason why the library should not have 3D Printers is because&#8221;; &#8220;the most significant reason why the library should not provide 3D Printers is because&#8221;). Some other supporting paragraphs are choppy and could benefit from clearer connections (e.g., paragraphs 3 and 4). On the other hand, paragraph 5 has some more subtle transition devices embedded (e.g., &#8220;Even though&#8230;it is…&#8221;; &#8220;Despite Source 3’s statements…the government can still…&#8221;), and some other transition words (&#8220;However,&#8221; &#8220;Ultimately&#8221;) contribute to adequate overall cohesion.

The introduction initially attracts the audience with a generalized statement about the “greatness” of 3D printers and then nicely explains what 3D printers are. The strong claim is clear to readers. The introduction ends with a list of reasons that will be developed to support the claim. The conclusion begins with a strong reiteration of the claim and an impact statement about potential “risk,” but that statement is then followed by a list of the reasons mostly repeated from the introduction. Nonetheless, the introduction and conclusion are overall adequate.

Although the argument progresses adequately overall (adhering to the roadmap presented in the introduction), there are some minor weaknesses. For example, paragraph 5 is intended to address the opposing point of view, but it would be more clearly relevant if paragraph 3, which also focuses on the legal problems, and paragraph 5 were combined or adjacent. Paragraph 5 does, however, segue well into the concluding paragraph’s mention of “risks.”

Paragraph 5 is focused on acknowledging the opposing point of view (&#8220;Even though…it is better&#8221;; &#8220;Despite…the government can still…&#8221;), addressing the single issue of copyright infringement.

There is a run-on sentence in the third paragraph (“The library can state on the rules that any copyrighted or illegal use of the printer, the library is not help reliable and the object being printed will not be able to be printed”). Although many of the sentences are a bit awkward, there are no sentence formation errors.

There are two missing commas with compound independent clauses (“…the library is…and the object being printed will not be able to be printed” and “…the library will stay out of it and only the people doing the printing will be…”) and two missing commas after introductory elements (“If the library ever needed an object, tool, or anything else that can be printed by the 3-D printer then….” and “To conclude the library…”). Although these comma errors are well below grade level, they are just one kind of punctuation error.

There are errors with pronoun/antecedent agreement with &#8220;community&#8221;/&#8221;they&#8221; occurring in both the second and third paragraph. There is an error with frequently confused words &#8220;then&#8221; and &#8220;than&#8221; (“The parts could be cheaper to print out then go to…” and “…but if the library takes many precautions than the library will stay out of it…”). Shifts in verb mood are distracting and cause confusion throughout (as one example: “…the library should buy a 3-D printer is because the library will not be held…”).

There are a few spelling errors (e.g., “alot,” “buisness,” and “libray”).

The details provided are general, weakly integrated, and repetitive.

There are some references to source materials, with vague attribution to sources 1 and 2.

There is minimal effective elaboration of details. For example, paragraph 3 supposedly presents reasons why 3D printers would be useful to patrons. The attempted elaboration via hypothetical example (&#8220;The printer could be used to make auto parts….cheaper [than] an auto part dealer&#8221;) seems somewhat unlikely or unconnected to source materials. And then, paragraph 5 basically repeats the same reason as did paragraph 3: the 3D printer would be useful to librarians who may need &#8220;objects, tools, or anything else,&#8221; with no elaboration. The information in paragraph 4 attempts to summarize information from source 1, with no extension.

Inaccurate word choices cause some confusion (e.g., &#8220;the library will not be held reliable&#8221; should be “the library would not be held liable”). Other word choices are vague, repetitive, and sometimes confusing (e.g., objects, tools, or anything else).

There is little evidence of any style to enhance the argumentative purpose.

While the position is evident, it is lumped in with the roadmap for the response (&#8220;Our local library should buy a 3-D printer because…&#8221;). Although the response stays focused on that claim, the support is often too general and/or repetitive to achieve unity.

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy