<ul>
<li>All released anchors come from the pilot test, which did not specifically ask students to cite sources or to use multiple sources. Current Performance Tasks specifically tell students to use multiple sources and to attribute information to reference materials.</li>
<li>The sources on the pilot test differed from those on the practice test. The pilot test included a video. Information from the video was the basis for Source #1 on the practice test.</li>
</ul>

Grade 5

Opinion

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Service Animals

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There no grade-relevant errors with sentence formation.

There are punctuation errors with new-to-grade comma rules, including a missing comma in the final item of a series (&#8220;&#8230;handing him cool drinks, playing a CD and turning the lights on&#8230;&#8221;) and missing commas after introductory elements (&#8220;In the first passage&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;In the second passage&#8230;&#8221;).

There are no errors with capitals.

There are grammar usage errors including several errors with frequently confused words (&#8220;aloud&#8221; for &#8220;allowed,&#8221; &#8220;of&#8221; for &#8220;off,&#8221; &#8220;their&#8221; for &#8220;there&#8221;) and an error with pronouns (&#8220;&#8230;girl that needed&#8230;&#8221; instead of &#8220;girl who needed&#8230;&#8221;).

There are some spelling errors of common words (&#8220;freindly,&#8221; &#8220;writen,&#8221; &#8220;passeges,&#8221; &#8220;whilechair&#8221;).

The response provides minimal evidence for the stated opinion (&#8220;…because they can be helpful in handing people things and being freindly&#8221;).

The response does attribute some minimal and general information to a single specific source.

There is nearly no development of the ideas. For example, paragraph 3 relies solely on a brief summary of the help offered by capuchin monkeys. In paragraph 4, the reference to source #2 is irrelevant as used (dolphins are not service animals as defined in the law); furthermore, the information is inaccurately summarized (the girl did not need help swimming).

Language is simplistic and at times vague (e.g., &#8220;&#8230;they can be helpful in handing people things&#8230;&#8221;).

There is no evidence of any style.

While there is a clear opinion (&#8220;I think that other animals should be aloud in public because they can be helpful in handing people things and being freindly like it is writenin the following passeges&#8221;), the response is too brief and does not maintain the focus.

Other than “In the first/second passage” and “And that is why…” there are no transitions to connect the few details.

There is a brief introduction that explains what the support will be, and there is a brief, repetitive conclusion (&#8220;other animals should be aloud in public&#8221;).

The progression of ideas is inadequate: the support offered seems random with no sentence-to-sentence cohesion. Furthermore, although the first support maintains the focus of the response, the second support (&#8220;So a group of dolphins helped her swim&#8221;) does not maintain the focus (dolphins are not the kind of service animal that would accompany an owner in public).

Exhibits NO control of sentence formation – The first and second sentences in the response are run-ons and demonstrate a lack of control of sentence formation that extends through the rest of the response. In fact, there are more run-ons than correctly formed sentences in this response.

Exhibits NO control of commas – There are too many comma errors to list; however, the second sentence in the second paragraph is representative of the errors that occur throughout the response, including missing commas after introductory elements and in compound clauses: &#8220;but when it comes to other peolpe the animals don’t know them as well or at all and no matter how much you train them there wild you can’t change that.&#8221;
There is also a missing apostrophe in the contraction &#8220;That’s.&#8221;

There is a capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence that begins with “but”.

There is a subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement error in paragraph 2: &#8220;…has learned to know and like its owner.&#8221; There are several errors with frequently confused words. For example, in paragraph 2 alone, there are multiple errors (e.g. &#8220;there&#8221; instead of &#8220;they’re&#8221;).

There are many spelling errors (e.g., &#8220;peolpe,&#8221; &#8220;puting,&#8221; &#8220;imbaressesd,&#8221; &#8220;probaly,&#8221; &#8220;diffrent,&#8221; &#8220;espescily,&#8221; &#8220;coclusion,&#8221; &#8220;sevice,&#8221; &#8220;discused&#8221;).

There are some details, but because the opinion is confusing, the details offer only marginal and inconsistent support.

While there are references to the source materials (monkeys, training, horses), the references are unattributed.

The response seemingly attempts to develop ideas beyond just repeating what’s in the source materials, but these attempts are often confusing and, as presented, contradictory (&#8220;[animals are] wild you can’t change that&#8221; versus &#8220;[dogs] don’t want to hurt people&#8221;). In addition, some inferences are weak (&#8220;…because you didn’t want a dog&#8221;).

Much of the vocabulary is general (e.g., &#8220;all worth it in the end&#8221;), and there is some repetition (&#8220;needs are fitted&#8221;; &#8220;putting [people] in danger&#8221;).

The response can best be described as rambling with loosely connected ideas failing to establish an appropriate style.

The opinion is somewhat confusing: &#8220;To me this law [what law?] will help out a lot of people it will prevent accidents….but when it comes to other people…you are putting everyone around you in danger…that’s just being selfish.&#8221; By the end of the response, it is apparent the writer supports the ban on all service animals other than dogs, but even this clarifying statement does not reflect the task (the law referenced in the prompt allows both dogs and miniature horses).

There are a few transitions (&#8220;But,&#8221; &#8220;That means,&#8221; &#8220;So&#8221;), but some of them are repetitive (e.g., &#8220;To me&#8221;), and overall connections between ideas are inconsistent. While some ideas are connected logically ([because some service animals are wild] &#8220;that means your puting everyone around you in danger….just being selfish&#8221;), other connections are unclear. For example, there is almost no transition between paragraphs 1 and 2, leading readers to suspect that the second paragraph was an afterthought more than a part of a plan for a well-organized opinion article.

This response has a weak introduction that lacks clarity (&#8220;To me this law will help out a lot of people it will prevent accidents&#8221;), and the weak conclusion (&#8220;…so in conclusion the best service animal to me is a dog&#8221;) is tacked on to the end of a sentence that also contains a new “supporting” reason (&#8220;horses in hotels would be a problem&#8221;), which is somewhat contrary to the stated task in the prompt.

The response has too many randomly connected details (&#8220;…dogs are caring and loving animals that don’t want to hurt people. Dogs might be annoying sometimes when there barking or they want to play but to me it’s all worth it in the end&#8221;), and the overall focus of the response is not sustained enough to merit a higher score.

Paragraph 4 isn’t technically a sentence fragment but it is incomplete. Paragraph 5 is a run-on sentence.

There is an unnecessary comma between &#8220;is&#8221; and &#8220;because&#8221; in paragraph 1 and a missing comma after an introductory element (&#8220;&#8230;if the rule were to stay people would stay unharmed&#8221;).

There are no capitalization errors.

Missing antecedents make some of the response unclear (e.g., “This law protects people from getting sick and is a trouble to their owners who carry them around everyday.”).

There are only a few spelling errors (e.g., “peole,” “everyday,” and “resturant&#8221;).

There are a few relevant details, but they fail to develop adequate support for the opinion.

There are vague references to information from the source materials (disease, monkeys, restaurant), but they are unattributed.

There is nearly no development of ideas. The response includes incomplete, and therefore confusing, ideas (e.g., &#8220;dog also sits quietly at shows and things so the&#8221;) and some illogical, as explained, inferences (&#8220;[snake] could swallow someone whole!&#8221;).

Some of the vocabulary is so vague that it could cause confusion. For example, failing to clarify what is meant by the “new” law and “the law should stay” or “if the rule were to stay” is confusing. The use of the word “sheltering” does not compensate for the overall weak language use.

The response states a general opinion (&#8220;I think the new law is very reasonable&#8221;), but fails to clarify what that new law is. Furthermore, there are subsequent references, such as &#8220;if the rule were to stay,&#8221; which cause potential confusion about the opinion.

Some transitions are present (&#8220;also&#8221;; &#8220;But&#8221;; &#8220;Besides&#8221;), but they are repetitive, and ideas seem randomly presented.

The response provides a brief and weak introduction and conclusion that state (and repeat) a simplistic general opinion.

The body of the article begins with a clear focus, but that focus is not fully sustained as minor drifts are evident (&#8220;This law protects people from getting sick and is a trouble to their owners who carry them around everyday, and [a snake] could swallow someone whole!&#8221;).

There are no errors with grade-relevant sentence formation.

There are a few errors with punctuation: two unnecessary commas before dependent clauses in paragraph 5 (&#8220;Most people choose their service animal, so that they can&#8230;&#8221; and &#8220;For example, a service [dog] can’t get their master a drink, like [as] a monkey can&#8221;).

There are no errors with capitalization.

There are relatively few errors with grammar usage: There is an error with the incorrect verb form &#8220;chose&#8221; instead of &#8220;choose.&#8221; There is a minor error with using a single rather than plural noun/antecedent: &#8220;Service animals have many tasks that they help their master accomplish&#8221; (&#8220;master&#8221; should be &#8220;masters&#8221;). There is also an error with pronoun/antecedent agreement (&#8220;A service [dog] can’t get their master&#8230;&#8221;). Note regarding the sentence &#8220;&#8230;the owner needs to be comfortable with their service animal&#8221;: because the gender preference for the “owner” is not clear, the use of “their” is acceptable.

There are few errors with grade-appropriate spelling words (e.g., &#8220;dissabilities&#8221; and &#8220;veteraniarin&#8221; are above grade level words, although the writer might have consulted the sources for correct spelling of both).

This response incorporates a range of evidence from the source materials, but that evidence is inconsistently and/or weakly integrated. For example, in paragraph 4, the response states &#8220;…people with disabilities should be able to choose…&#8221;; yet 2 sentences later, &#8220;I think this because people with disabilities should have the right to choose…&#8221; is used as a support for the previous claim.

The response references information from more than one source, although there is no attribution of source materials.

The elaboration of evidence is inconsistent. For example, body paragraph 2 mostly repeats the same general idea (people should be able to choose what kind of service animal they want), with no elaboration. On the other hand, the opposing point of view is acknowledged and addressed (&#8220;…service animals need to be checked by a veterinarian….&#8221; and &#8220;I understand the fact that people don’t want animals with diseases in public places….&#8221;), which is not required till grade 7, and thus shows an emerging awareness of how to develop an argument. Overall, however, the elaboration is too weak for a higher score.

The language use is sometimes repetitive (&#8220;I think&#8221; which is distractingly repetitive, &#8220;some of [the reasons],&#8221; &#8220;comfort&#8221;/&#8221;comforting,&#8221;) and/or vague (&#8220;it should be different,&#8221; &#8220;many tasks&#8221;).

The style is somewhat appropriate, but occasional lapses distract readers. For example, paragraph 4 uses repetitive language (&#8220;I think that,&#8221; &#8220;I also think that,&#8221; &#8220;I think this because&#8221;) that actually confounds the logic of the argument. Similarly, repetition of words and ideas such as &#8220;comfortable&#8221; interferes with the development of the ideas.

The opinion is clear: the introduction restates the 2011 law, but only states that the writer thinks that law should be “different.” The subsequent support for abandoning the 2011 law is mostly sustained throughout the response. Note: While the 2011 law is inaccurately stated, that flaw does not affect the score for organization.

The use of transitions is uneven. While the response has a few appropriate transitions (&#8220;also&#8221;), other transitions become repetitive (&#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Here are some&#8221;).

The opening demonstrates an emerging sense of effective introductions (it states an opinion and provides enough context—what the law states—to inform the reader). It is, however, needlessly formulaic (&#8220;In this opinion article I will be telling you my opinion…because of many reasons. Here are some of them&#8221;). The conclusion begins by addressing the opposing point of view; this is not required at this grade level, but it is an effective way of transitioning to a conclusion.

The progression of ideas is mostly adequate despite some weaker connections. For example, &#8220;I also think that the service animals need to be checked by a veterinarian to make sure that the animal doesn’t carry a disease around in public places. I think this because people with disabilities should have the right to choose a service animal they are comfortable with.&#8221; As stated, there is no logical connection between the two sentences, causing potential confusion about the relationship between ideas. However, because the qualification about diseased animals is brought back in the final paragraph, this represents more of a minor flaw that does not interfere with overall coherence.

There are no sentence formation errors.

The misplaced preposition (with) in the sentence beginning &#8220;But with dogs,&#8221; interferes with the meaning of the statement. The sentence “People who run business like the idea of the law” has a grammar usage error; “business” needs be plural or have an article. There is an error with frequently confused words in paragraph 5: &#8220;to&#8221; should be “too.”

This response contains adequate evidence from the sources that is generally integrated and relevant.

There is a general attribution to “Source 3”; however, the response also has some very general but unattributed references to other sources (e.g., the reference to monkeys being unpredictable is from Source 1).

The response moves into the low score point 3 category for development, demonstrating an adequate use of some elaborative techniques. For example, logical cause and effect is used to elaborate the supporting details in paragraph 2, which begins with a generalization (&#8220;In public places, there are more people than just you there. So if you bring in a service monkey or snake, it could hurt someone. No one knows what the animal could do next. But with dogs, which we&#8217;ve lived with for hundreds of years, are less likely to hurt someone&#8221;). Although not required at this grade level, acknowledging the opposing opinion is also used for support (&#8220;Other service animals are still allowed in your house or other private places, so don&#8217;t be to bummed out if you love your service pig or something&#8221;). Other extensions/inferences include the references to goats and inferences such as &#8220;[dogs sitting] quietly during lunch meetings.&#8221; The information presented about the new law limiting service animals to dogs is incorrect; the source materials describe the law as pertaining to dogs and small horses. This miscue, however, is relatively minor and doesn’t substantively diminish the overall adequate support for the opinion.

The language used in the writer’s own words is appropriate for the audience and purpose but overall general. There are places where the “paraphrasing” is very close to copying (for example: original source states, “Birds could leave droppings on a store floor. This creates an unhealthy setting for others.” The response version: &#8220;And service birds could leave behind droppings on the ground, which makes for an unhealthy environment&#8221;).

The response creates a generally engaging style (&#8220;Imagine walking to work with a service goat leading you there! Too noisy!&#8221;).

The sustained focus on a clear opinion provides a sense of unity and coherence. Note: “the law” allows for miniature horses as well as dogs, but this omission would be addressed under elaboration, not organization.

Some simple transitions are used (&#8220;So,&#8221; &#8220;But,&#8221; &#8220;also,&#8221; &#8220;Overall&#8221;), but there are also many loosely connected ideas between and among supports.
For example, the focus of paragraph 3 could be tighter, and paragraph 4 uses information from the source materials about business owners liking service dogs, but then jumps to goats with nothing to connect those ideas.

The introduction establishes the opinion (I agree) and provides the reader with context for the issue as well as a formulaic (&#8220;…in this article, I will be explaining why…&#8221;). The concluding paragraph does more than restate the opinion, effectively offering “solace” to those who oppose the law. The final two lines (&#8220;…see you again….Adios!&#8221;) are unnecessary but don’t interfere with the overall adequate conclusion.

The supporting ideas are source-based but fairly general and somewhat randomly selected; hence, the progression of ideas is just adequate.

There is a run-on beginning paragraph 2 (&#8220;The good is that the the men and women who passed the law are right, big service animals can wreck things…that are meant to be quiet&#8221;). Awkwardness due to word choices (e.g., &#8220;enforces service animals…to remain…&#8221;) are stylistic problems but not errors.

There are a few punctuation errors with commas. There is a missing comma after and introductory elements (Paragraph 1 and 2: &#8220;Well if you are not sure this article can help…&#8221;; &#8220;Also animals….&#8221;)
There is a missing comma with independent clauses in the final paragraph (&#8220;…I think the law should change to permit service dogs and monkeys but the monkeys have to be checked…&#8221;). Note: The incorrect use of the semi-colon does not reflect a grade 5 error.

There is a missing article in “What if a disabled person goes out to a restaurant and has snake for a helper…” before “snake.” Note that the pronoun/antecedent agreement in the sentence &#8220;Disabled person…their front or back yard&#8221; constitutes an appropriate pronoun reference.

There is a single spelling error, likely a typo, in the final paragraph: &#8220;II n.&#8221;

The evidence used, compared to the overall evidence available, is adequate and generally well-integrated.

The source references come from a single source and are unattributed.

There is some adequate development of ideas including elaboration via posing a hypothetical situation (e.g., &#8220;What if a disabled person goes out to a restaurant and has snake for a helper who is under control and never does anything bad?&#8221;) and logical conclusions (&#8220;The only way [someone with an unapproved service animal] could go out is if they have someone who is staying with them or a friend&#8221;).

Overall, the vocabulary is adequate for the purpose and audience; there is some general/repetitive language (&#8220;good/bad,&#8221; &#8220;control,&#8221; &#8220;I think&#8221;), but also some more precise language used (e.g., &#8220;flimsy and fragile&#8221;).

There is evidence of style that is appropriate and appeals to the audience&#8217;s sense of fairness (e.g., rhetorical questions, and phrases such as &#8220;…but the workers would just say no, no, and no&#8221;).

There is a clear and effective organizational plan, which is sustained throughout: presentation of pros and cons, leading to a qualified position at the end.

The transitions are adequate, if simplistic (&#8220;Then there is…,&#8221; &#8220;also…,&#8221; &#8220;In conclusion…,&#8221; &#8220;but…&#8221;).

The first paragraph introduces the issue with a rhetorical question and then gives the reader a motive to read further (&#8220;…this article can help you decide…&#8221;). The last two sentences of the introduction are needlessly repetitive (&#8220;I personally think it is good but at the same time bad. There are two sides of this law; the good and the bad&#8221;). The conclusion is brief but does clarify the opinion and promotes the sense of completeness.

One reason this response moves into the top scoring category is the effective progression of ideas. The writer explains the pros (which ends up being the opposing point of view) and cons of the issue and then uses deductive reasoning to come to a clear, qualified opinion in the conclusion (expand the law to include pre-screened and trained monkeys). There are minor gaps that mildly interrupt the flow (e.g., unclear referents: &#8220;…but the workers would just say no, no, and no. It would not be fair to them because it is like they have no rights&#8221;) but do not significantly impact the overall effective progression of ideas. Note that “the law,” as stated in the source materials and writing prompt, includes dogs and small horses. This omission, however, doesn’t impact the organization score.

There is an unnecessary comma in the final paragraph (&#8220;…they have to have another person to help them, or stay at home&#8221;).

There are two errors with the same frequently confused word: &#8220;to&#8221; instead of “too”.

There are two errors &#8220;use&#8221; is misspelled as &#8220;us&#8221; in paragraph 2 and &#8220;the&#8221; is misspelled as &#8220;they&#8221; in the final paragraph.

A variety of source information is nicely integrated throughout the response.

Details are unattributed but do come from various sources.

A variety of elaboration techniques are used effectively. For example, the details from the source about dogs being large is nicely extended with, &#8220;They might be [too] big to get in a car or on a bus.&#8221; Source information that describe tasks monkeys perform (paragraph 2) are nicely extended via commentary/hypothetical scenario (&#8220;Imagine how this would be helpful if you had no arms or couldn&#8217;t us them&#8221;).

The language is generally effective for the purpose and audience (e.g., &#8220;loyal,&#8221; &#8220;troublesome,&#8221; &#8220;blocking&#8221;).

The style is consistent and enhances the argument by appealing to the audience (&#8220;Is this a good thing? Imagine how this would be helpful…&#8221;).

The response first sets up an opinion (&#8220;Is this a good thing?&#8221;) about the service animal law, developing effective support that then leads to an explicit opinion stated (&#8220;[the law] is to limiting&#8221;) in the conclusion.

Transitions are appropriate (&#8220;but…,&#8221; &#8220;For example&#8221;) and sometimes subtle (The final sentence in paragraph 2 nicely segues to the next paragraph: &#8220;And [yet] only dogs are allowed in public spaces&#8221; and &#8220;While service dogs are loving and loyal&#8221;).
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

The introduction is effective in appealing to an audience, clearly explaining the law in question and posing a question about the worth of the law. The conclusion begins with a strong opinion statement and subtly summarizes the argument while providing a generalization about the importance of the argument (&#8220;This takes their freedom away from them&#8221;).

The progression of ideas is generally effective. It can be argued that paragraph 3, which acknowledges the opposing point of view, does not consistently support the opinion (e.g., &#8220;they can have fleas&#8221;). However, addressing the opposition is not required at this grade level, and this minor drift does not detract from the overall logical progression of ideas.

The response consists of three sentences with the second being a long run-on sentence.

There is an unnecessary comma before &#8220;because&#8221; and a missing comma separating independent clauses (&#8220;other animals aren’t taimmed&#8230;&#8221; and &#8220;you really don’t want…&#8221;). Given that the second sentence is a run-on sentence, there is very little accurate use of punctuation other than the end punctuation for each of the three sentences.

There are a few grammar usage errors. &#8220;Tipe&#8221; (in the phrase &#8220;…those tipe of places&#8221;) should be a plural. And there are errors forming participles: &#8220;tammed&#8221; and &#8220;taimmed&#8221; should be “tame” (&#8220;tame animals&#8221; and &#8220;animals aren’t tame&#8221;).

There are many spelling errors throughout the response (e.g., “oppinion,” “tammed,” “aproputly,” “taimmed,” and “tipe”). Note: &#8220;aproputly&#8221; is not a grade 5 word.

Evidence from source materials is minimal and too vague to support the opinion. Some ideas (e.g., unsupervised animals) are irrelevant.

There is no attribution of source materials, and the ideas are too general to associate with resources.

The minimal elaboration (via attempted explanation) is vague, repetitive, and inadequate for the audience and purpose (&#8220;…you really don’t want to take a cat out or other animals, because they are not animals who belong in those tipe of places&#8221;).

The vocabulary is weak and general (&#8220;is ok&#8221;) and/or repetitive (appropriate, behaved).

The response shows little evidence of any style appropriate for the audience of an opinion article.

The response is too brief and vague, offering weak support for the general opinion.

There are no evident transitions to connect the seemingly random ideas.

There is an introduction that states a weak opinion (&#8220;this [new law] is ok&#8221;) and a conclusion (&#8220;…the new law is appropriate for this tipe of situation&#8221;).

This brief response has an unclear progression, and the few general and repetitive details used (&#8220;tame&#8221;/&#8221;untamed&#8221;) are listed in a single rambling sentence and are not always relevant as presented (unsupervised animals).

The first sentence is structurally incomplete (&#8220;I think that….because lets say if you have a snake as a seeing eye pet and you and the snake walk into a restaurant&#8221;).

Relative to the length of the response, there are many punctuation errors. There are missing commas including with compound independent clauses (&#8220;Now everyone leaves the restaurant and the restaurant might go…&#8221;), to set off phrases (&#8220;for instance&#8221;), and after introductory elements (&#8220;Even though another animal may be more fun I….&#8221;). There are errors with apostrophes to show contracted forms: &#8220;its&#8221;/&#8221;it’s&#8221; and &#8220;lets&#8221;/&#8221;let’s.&#8221;

There is a missing preposition and an incorrect article in “All the sudden the monkey….” Toward the end of the first paragraph, &#8220;more easy&#8221; should be “easier.” There are errors with frequently confused words &#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s,&#8221; &#8220;lets&#8221; instead of &#8220;let’s,&#8221; and &#8220;then&#8221; instead of &#8220;than.&#8221;

There are few details from the available source materials. There are also some misinterpretations of source materials (e.g., snakes do not assist the blind).

The response incorporates information from more than one source, but the information is unattributed.

This response demonstrates some cursory use of elaborative techniques. For example, the writer uses hypothetical situations to show the potential effect of having a snake in a restaurant, and the possible destruction caused by a wild monkey – elaboration via cause and effect. While the elaboration is not strong, it shows an emerging understanding of the need to develop ideas. The response also draws a final generalization from the specific examples presented (safety for pet’s owner and other people), again showing an emerging understanding of an audience’s needs.

Vocabulary is overall adequate with some general vocabulary (&#8220;bunch of expensive things&#8221;) but also some more precise language such as &#8220;predictable&#8221; and &#8220;I would rather be safe then sorry&#8221; (a cliché that might be distracting with a higher grade level but acceptable at this grade level). However, given the brevity of the response, the overall use of language is more representative of a score point 2.

The response shows evidence of an attempt to establish style, but the style borders on being inappropriate for a formal writing occasion (&#8220;old lady,&#8221; &#8220;monkey goes mad for who knows what reason&#8221;).

The opinion is stated (&#8220;the new law is necessary&#8221;), but it lacks context because the response never explains what the actual law is. The subsequent response is narrowly focused on safety, and that focus is mostly maintained.

The response includes a few transitions (&#8220;Now,&#8221; &#8220;Or another example,&#8221; &#8220;Also,&#8221; &#8220;…for instance&#8221;).

The introduction is weak, failing to clarify what the law is and combining the weak opinion (&#8220;the new law is necessary&#8221;) with the first supporting reason. On the other hand, the conclusion is much better, going beyond repetition and acknowledging counterclaims (&#8220;another animal may be more fun&#8221;).

The progression of ideas is uneven. Overall, the details focus on safety concerns, providing two examples of scenarios that would cause problems, but then adding a brief and unexplained reference to disease. This reference causes confusion. Specifically, the final two sentences in the first paragraph (&#8220;A dog is…easier to handle. Also animals like that might spread disease&#8221;) are confusing because it’s not clear what animals are being accused of spreading disease; that first sentence refers to dogs, and if it’s the dog being accused of carrying disease, that commentary would not support the opinion.

The final sentence of paragraph 2 is technically a sentence fragment. Then there are a string of similar fragments (e.g., &#8220;Like the capuchin monkey; a highly educational monkey whom can perform activities that an everyday human would do&#8221; and &#8220;Also, a snake that can grab things off the shelf in the grocery store if you are blind&#8221; and &#8220;And a monkey that can open a refigerator. Help you drink out of a straw, and read. Nearly impossible&#8221;). There is also a run-on sentence in paragraph 4: &#8220;The goverment states that the animals could spread disease’s that could harm other humans like a birds droppings on the floor could spread diseases….&#8221;

There is a missing comma between compound independent clauses at the end of paragraph 4: &#8220;No lives were lost because f the monkey and he won an award….&#8221; Also note that errors with semi-colons are not grade 5 conventions.

There is one capitalization error in the third paragraph.

There are many errors distinguishing between and forming plurals/possessives: &#8220;Dog’s&#8221; should be plural &#8220;dogs&#8221;; &#8220;reason’s&#8221; should be &#8220;reasons&#8221;; &#8220;disease’s&#8221; should be &#8220;diseases.&#8221; On the other hand, &#8220;birds droppings&#8221; should be &#8220;bird’s droppings&#8221; and in paragraph 4, &#8220;peoples life&#8221; should be &#8220;people’s lives.&#8221;
There are problems with agreement: &#8220;…human wants to walk just by the position of their knees…&#8221; does not constitute an agreement error. However, in paragraph 4, &#8220;animals could spread sudden fierceness to the other people around him…&#8221; is an agreement error (should be “around them”). There are some inconsistent verb tenses/moods (e.g., final paragraph jumps from past—was—to future—will). &#8220;Whom&#8221; should be &#8220;who&#8221; at the end of paragraph 2, but knowing which case to use is a grade 6 skill.

There are many spelling errors throughout the response (e.g., “dissagree,” “life saver,” “disabillates,” “dierection,” “refigerator,” “they,” and “goverment”).

Adequate evidence from the source material is integrated and relevant. Although there is some inaccurate information (snakes cannot retrieve objects from the top grocery shelf), there is enough accurate and relevant evidence to support the opinion.

The response draws on information primarily from one source (a video from the pilot test materials), but the information is unattributed except for some very vague attribution of those sources (&#8220;&#8230;expert Jennifer trains the monkeys…&#8221; and &#8220;&#8230;animal expert from Helping Hands Christina says&#8230;&#8221;).

The elaboration is somewhat uneven. There is some elaboration via commentary (e.g., &#8220;No car can do that!&#8221;) and summary (&#8220;no lives were lost&#8221;), but in general there is minimal development of accurate ideas beyond paraphrasing the source materials.

There are some concrete words (&#8220;insensible&#8221;) and phrases (&#8220;compeling reasons&#8221;) but also some awkward (&#8220;spread sudden fierceness&#8221;) and general phrasing (&#8220;…expert Jennifer trains the monkeys to know the objects and to be able to open other things&#8221;). Overall, however, the language use is adequate.

There is evidence of an appropriate style including commentary such as &#8220;No car can do that&#8221; and &#8220;Nearly impossible!&#8221; This conversational style seems intended to appeal to the audience.

The opinion is clear (&#8220;I dissagree with this law&#8221;), but the explanation of the issue itself (&#8220;only dogs can be in public places&#8221;) is initially confusing because the law addresses service dogs, not just any dog. Furthermore, the introduction suggests that the response will focus on the capuchin monkey, but the response, in fact, includes other animals as well. Overall, however, the response adequately focuses on the stated opinion throughout.

Transitional strategies are effective. Traditional phrases (&#8220;For example…&#8221;; &#8220;And…&#8221;; &#8220;But…&#8221;; &#8220;Another reason…&#8221;; &#8220;In conclusion…&#8221;) are combine with some more subtle transitions. For example, the sentence &#8220;But the animals could save more lives than they could harm&#8221; effectively transitions between the cons and pros of different service animals. However, there are some awkward transitions (&#8220;Also,&#8221; which introduces instead of adds information).

The introduction is somewhat weak: There is context for the issue (law is explained), but the opinion should be clarified to include only service dogs. The inclusion of the specific example (capuchin monkey) at the end of the introduction is also mildly distracting. The conclusion is brief but moves beyond summary, effectively closing the response without repeating. Overall, taken as a whole, the introduction and conclusion are adequate.

There is a consistent progression of ideas: paragraph 3 explains the training for diverse service animals (despite the introduction focusing on the monkey); paragraph 4 acknowledges the opposing point of view (an above-grade level skill) and then counters it.

The only sentence structure problem is a fragment (&#8220;A frog??&#8221;), which was intended for effect.

There are many missing commas; these errors cause occasional confusion and indicate a lack of control for that skill. Representative examples include missing commas in compound independent clauses (Paragraph 3: &#8220;These animals are all great and I would choose any of them&#8221;). There are also missing commas after introductory elements, including phrases (Paragraph 3: &#8220;From monkeys to pigs what will be next?&#8221;) and clauses (Paragraph 4: &#8220;…if the animal isn&#8217;t allowed to go in neither is the person&#8221;). Sometimes both error types occur in the same sentence (Paragraph 3: &#8220;Although dogs are the most common service animal all of them are just as great and I think having a different animal as a guide would be fun!&#8221;).

There is an error with the pronoun/antecedent reference in paragraph 4 (&#8220;…the person is now not able to go in because it needs its service animal…&#8221;). Note, however, that in the earlier reference from that same paragraph (&#8220;…the human can&#8217;t go in because they need their animal…&#8221;) the agreement is acceptable because of the lack of a clear gender preference.

There are a few spelling errors; however, it’s the same word misspelled more than once (“payed”).

The response provides convincing elaboration of the evidence supporting the opinion. Much of the evidence is well-integrated, although some of the reasons are general (&#8220;even though you may not want the animal in the store&#8221;) or repetitive (&#8220;because they need their animal to see&#8221;; &#8220;because it needs its service animal to get around&#8221;). Overall, the response is lengthy and complex enough to compensate for minor shortcomings.

The details used to support the argument come from more than one source, although none of the sources are attributed.

The response effectively supports the opinion using a variety of development strategies. For example, the ideas in the third body paragraph (paragraph 4) are derived from the source-based inference about the expense of training a service animal (e.g., paying money [to train animals] and then being unable to use them for their intended purpose &#8211; a waste of money). Other inferences also provide logical extensions of the evidence (&#8220;if the animal isn&#8217;t allowed to go in neither is the person&#8221;). In addition, the response develops ideas by personalizing them (&#8220;I would choose any of them for a guide&#8221;; &#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;).

There is some effective language used (&#8220;judge&#8221;; &#8220;stand against&#8221;; &#8220;stand up&#8221;), but the formulaic phrasing used throughout is distracting (&#8220;My reasons are…&#8221;; &#8220;My first reason…&#8221;; &#8220;My second reason…&#8221;; &#8220;My last reason…&#8221;; &#8220;The 3 reasons are…&#8221;) and repetitive (e.g., &#8220;My opinion…&#8221;; &#8220;My…reason…&#8221;; &#8220;I think…&#8221;). Nonetheless, the overall language use is adequate.

There is an evident style that is effective overall. The response begins with a rhetorical question intended to attract the audience (&#8220;Would you stand for an unfair law?&#8221;). The response also personalizes the issue (&#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;) and includes subtle calls to action such as &#8220;we need to let everyone know… and we need to stand up….&#8221; Other stylistic devices, however, are less effective. The weakness of this response is the formulaic approach, which diminishes the overall success of the attempted style.

The opinion is adequate (&#8220;…we should let any kind of animal in a public place that helps people with disabilities&#8221;) if somewhat obscured by generalities (&#8220;My opinion on the new law about only letting service dogs to go with their owner in public places would have to be that I think…&#8221;). The focus on that opinion is sustained throughout.

Transitions are mixed. The formulaic transitions, particularly those in the introduction, conclusion, and between body paragraphs, are distracting. But internal connections, that is those within the body paragraphs, are formulaic but effective. For example, in paragraph 5, the transitions &#8220;Now…&#8221;; &#8220;Since…&#8221;; followed by &#8220;This is…&#8221; effectively connect the ideas and clarify relationships. Note that in paragraph 4, the same strategy is used: &#8220;Now…because…&#8221;; &#8220;This is…&#8221;.

The introduction nicely sets up the issue and the opinion with a rhetorical question intended to attract the audience’s attention. The opinion, however, is nearly lost in the overwrought sentence (&#8220;My opinion on the new law about only letting service dogs to go with their owner in public places would have to be that I think….&#8221;). That opinion is then followed with a listing of the supports. The conclusion also begins with a personal appeal (&#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;) and nicely returns to the idea of “standing for” from the introduction, but then it virtually repeats the “3 reasons” listed in the introduction. This formulaic approach is somewhat distracting but arguably adequate.

The progression of ideas is clear. The response is narrowly focused, concentrating on the “fairness” issue and ignoring the information that argues against some of these animals. For this grade level, this is an adequate approach.

There are some sentence formation errors including a comma splice in the second paragraph (&#8220;They are obedient when trained well, if potty trained these animals won’t destroy&#8230;&#8221;) and a sentence fragment in the fourth paragraph (&#8220;Although, there are many solutions to this law.&#8221; The writer is trying to use the word “although” as a conjunctive adverb, similar to “however,” but “although” is a subordinate conjunction and cannot introduce an independent clause). Overall, however, the sentence formation is adequate.

The greatest numbers of errors for this response fall in the punctuation category. There are missing commas after introductory elements, which is a new-to-grade skill (e.g., &#8220;When thinking about this law you also&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;if potty trained these animals won’t destroy&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Furthermore&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;In addition&#8230;&#8221;); missing commas in compound sentences (e.g., &#8220;Many people may disagree to the law but you have to&#8230;,&#8221; and &#8220;Dogs are wonderful creatures so you can’t really&#8230;&#8221;); an unnecessary comma with a compound element (final sentence in the response); and a missing apostrophe (&#8220;lets&#8221;). Additionally, the period is missing at the end of the student&#8217;s response.

There are no errors with capital letters.

There are a few errors with grammar usage including a subject/verb agreement error (&#8220;&#8230;the other guest in the area become&#8230;&#8221;), and several errors with frequently confused words (&#8220;your&#8221;/&#8221;you’re,&#8221; &#8220;their&#8221;/&#8221;there,&#8221; &#8220;to&#8221;/&#8221;too&#8221;).

There are relatively few errors with grade-appropriate spelling words (e.g., &#8220;detroy,&#8221; &#8220;digusted,&#8221; &#8220;delt&#8221;).

Evidence used throughout the response is well-integrated, using effective and purposeful scenarios as examples to illustrate and clarify ideas, crafting a convincing opinion article for the audience.

Although the response relies heavily on source #3 for support, other sources are also referenced although not attributed.

The support is based on accurate information from the text, and each text detail is developed using an effective elaborative technique. For example, in paragraph 3 the response shows the use of logical cause and effect that goes beyond summary (&#8220;[customers disgusted by an animal’s mess] might not decide to come back. This means that the business would lose money&#8221;). The writer then continues with a effective generalization/commentary based on the evidence (&#8220;It is important to think about the people around you and what they think&#8221;). Although not required at this grade level, the writer elaborates in paragraph 4 by addressing the opposing point of view (&#8220;You may think that the people with disabilities deserve to have any animal they like. Athough, there are many solutions to this law. You can have an additional service pet that is a dog&#8221;).

Precise language effectively paraphrases the source material throughout (&#8220;Although nimble, the monkey has a habit of changing moods fast and frequently&#8221;).

The style is overall effective. For example, the introduction appeals to the reader’s senses before providing a rhetorical question to set up the issue (&#8220;Pets are fun, loving, and especially playful. They lick you when your sad and play with you when you are cheerful. But did you ever think that your pets could help people with disabilities complete their daily routines?&#8221;). The skillful variation of sentence structures also enhances the argument (&#8220;Although nimble, the monkey has a habit of changing moods fast and frequently. In addition they can hurt a person. Birds are to noisy. But the dog is capable of being in public&#8221;).

The opinion is clear (&#8220;…people should not be allowed to bring their service pets into public places unless it is a dog&#8221;). The details support that opinion except for a minor drift in paragraph 3, which doesn’t interfere with the overall cohesion.

The response incorporates a variety of transition words (&#8220;Furthermore&#8221;) and phrases (&#8220;When thinking about this law&#8230;&#8221;). Between paragraphs, the writer utilizes transition statements to set up the next idea (&#8220;&#8230;unless it is a dog&#8230;there aren’t many known as man’s best friend&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;But the dog is capable of being in public&#8230;you also have to think about&#8230;the place you bring your pet&#8221;).

The introduction sets up the context for the opinion expressed in the final line of the first paragraph. The sentence “We only know so much of the intelligence of animals and we can help uncover the mystery by training them to help people!” seems somewhat random; however, the statement &#8220;but you have to draw the line somewhere&#8221; turns the focus from the context and segues nicely into the opinion statement. The conclusion is weaker than the introduction, providing an adequate summary of the previously argued points.

The progression of ideas is somewhat uneven, with some repetition of ideas that interferes with cohesion. Specifically, paragraph 2 highlights the merits of the dog while contrasting the shortcomings of the monkey and the bird: &#8220;the monkey has a habit of changing moods&#8221;; &#8220;Birds are to[o] noisy.&#8221;
It then transitions the argument to business impacts. Paragraph 3 begins by addressing the problem of service animals’ messes, but then it drifts back to information about monkey misbehavior, ending with the random comment about pigs and toy stores.
Paragraph 4 has a somewhat unclear focus. It seems to be addressing the opposing point of view (an above-grade skill), but the attempt to advocate for switching to service dogs becomes confusing (&#8220;Athough, there are many solutions to this law. You can have an additional service pet that is a dog. Dogs are wonderful creatures so you can&#8217;t really make a mistake of switching to another animal or having two&#8221;).
Overall, however, given the complexity of the response, the progression of ideas is adequate.

Paragraph 2 is essentially a run-on sentence and the second sentence of paragraph 4 is a fragmented sentence.

There is an incorrectly used comma in the first sentence of paragraph 1. The first comma should be a question mark. There is an unnecessary comma in the second sentence of paragraph 4. And there are multiple places within the response with missing end punctuation. Additionally, there is an unnecessary apostrophe in “cd’s” in paragraph 3.

The beginning of the second sentence of paragraph 4 should be capitalized.

An incorrect preposition is used in the second sentence of paragraph 1. The preposition “at” should be “as.” Additionally, the commonly confused word “its” in paragraph 1 should be “it’s.”

There are many misspelled words throughout the response (e.g. “qubicle”, “tought”, “intrduced&#8221;, “itces”, etc.)

There is a minimal attempt to develop some source-based details regarding the training of a service monkey. However, although the response is on-topic, it fails to respond to the opinion task. Instead, it summarizes one part of the first source. Therefore, it receives a NS: it is off-purpose.

This short response shows some cohesion: It has a clear introduction and a brief but relevant concluding sentence. There is a progression of ideas, with transitions connecting details describing a service monkey’s training. However, although the response is on-topic, it fails to respond to the opinion task. Instead, it summarizes one part of the first source. Therefore, it receives a NS: it is off-purpose.

There are two comma splices in paragraph 2. Given the length of the response, these two instances do not diminish the overall score in this category.

The response demonstrates a limited use of correct punctuation including missing apostrophes in contractions (“Im,” “wont,” “thats”) and in possessive nouns (“mans”). There are missing commas before a coordinating conjunction in a compound sentence (final paragraph) and after introductory elements (“And when you have a service dog it….”).

The use of capital letters is adequate (“king” should be King).

There are some grammar usage errors, including basic subject/verb agreement (“…not the only one who agree with the law”) and errors with frequently confused words (“won” instead of one, “loose” instead of lose, “to” instead of too). There are minor inconsistencies or shifts with verb tense (e.g., between sentences 1 and 2).

There are a few errors with grade-appropriate spelling (“deceases,” “arond,” “bisinesses”).

Details from source materials are mostly repeated rather than purposefully integrated, and the development is minimal.

Most information comes from a single source that is unattributed.

Most of the vague details used are not developed. Some elaboration attempts result in confusion (&#8220;…monkeys can get mad in a flash…that’s mainly why they made the[m] in the first place&#8221;), inaccurate paraphrasing (most animals carried stuff to get a man sick), or unfounded generalizations (&#8220;…not many people have alergies to dogs&#8221;).

The language use is limited: repetitive (&#8220;I think,&#8221; &#8220;I say,&#8221; &#8220;My opinion,&#8221; &#8220;And,&#8221; &#8220;also&#8221;) and general (&#8220;get mad,&#8221; &#8220;stuff&#8221;).

While it is possible that references such as &#8220;Mccdonalds,&#8221; &#8220;Burger king,&#8221; &#8220;poop,&#8221; and &#8220;hotels [having] to deal with horses and goats!&#8221; are intended to appeal to a 5th grade audience, overall, the style is weak.

The opinion stated in the first sentence is straightforward (&#8220;a good law&#8221;); however, there is no explanation given as to what the new law is, leaving the reader to guess. With no clear direction, there is no clear focus, and the opinion issued in the final paragraph is somewhat ambiguous (&#8220;service dogs are safer than other dogs&#8221;).

There are a few transitional words that are repetitive (&#8220;And&#8221;; &#8220;also&#8221;; &#8220;Finally&#8221;). But even with these transitional words, many of the details seem randomly connected (&#8220;animals like birds…leave droppings. And when you have a service dog it wont hurt you. A service dog could hold its poop…&#8221;).

The introduction is weak, combining an unexplained opinion (with no context explaining what the “new law” is) immediately followed by specific reasons. The conclusion is also weak, starting with a new reason (&#8220;animals can scare children&#8221;) and ending with an opinion statement (&#8220;service dogs are really safer than other dogs&#8221;) that differs from the one implied in the beginning (dogs make the best service animals).

The progression of ideas is unclear. The response lists seemingly random and repetitive reasons, listed in seemingly arbitrary “paragraphs” with no clear connections. For example, the violent behavior of monkeys is mentioned in both paragraphs 2 and 3, and spreading diseases is mentioned in both paragraphs 1 and 2.

Grade 4

Thunderstorms

There is a run-on sentence (“Then, by the time you get your snow stuff on it could be perfectly warm and sunny then by the time you get your shorts and tank top on it could be pouring rain”). The second sentence (“Colorado, well you never know”) can be assumed to be a stylistic fragment.

There are several missing commas separating compound independent clauses (e.g. “There might be more thunderstorms in Florida but when there isn’t one you could get your bathing suit on…”). Given the brevity of the response, these demonstrate partial control of punctuation.

There is a missing capital at the beginning of a sentence (“you…”) and a failure to consistently capitalize the personal pronoun &#8220;I&#8221;.

There are no grade-specific errors with grammar usage.

Given the amount of available specific data, the response shows a weak use of evidence to support the opinion, relying instead on generalities (Florida has the most thunderstorms, which is a generality from both Source 1 and 3, and Colorado has unpredictable weather).

Although there are references to at least two of the sources, there are no attributions.

Although the response is brief, there is some development. Some details are developed with connections to prior knowledge (e.g., “go to Disneyland&#8221;) and some inferences. For example, the response addresses the downside of thunderstorms in Florida by drawing an inference that thunderstorms are more prevalent near the coast, so the writer would move inland. This inference that “the beach…is where the thunderstorms are” could be from the detail that “currents over water” come “into contact with ocean breeze” and push “this heavy air up into the cooler sky, causing an unstable state which leads to lightning and thunder.” That inference is not strongly text-based, but it is not illogical either.

Considering the brevity of the response, the overall language use is weak, with some vague language (e.g., “a lot more fun”; “snow stuff”) and some repetition (e.g. “There”; “If”).

The style is somewhat inconsistent. For example, the second sentence (“Colorado, well you never know”) is a nice appeal to the audience, yet the ending (“And that&#8217;s why…”) and the repeated causal sentences (“If…”) weaken that appeal.

The opinion is a clear choice (“would rather live in Florida”), but the support primarily focuses on listing the negative weather in Colorado. It never does support the stated idea that Florida would be “more fun.”

There are very few transitions, (“There” and “If”) with ideas mostly listed.

There is a clear opinion, but the introduction itself is brief and vague (“it is a lot more fun”). The weak conclusion does nothing more than repeat the opinion (“And that&#8217;s why…”).

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy