Samples of Scored Argument Essays with Reader's Commentaries [b]Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. [b] [b]Sample Argument Topic [b]Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after [b]rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. [b]Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in [b]streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing [b](helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on [b]lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics [b]indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and [b]reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of [b]being severely injured in an accident. [b][b]Please note: All of these sample essays are reproduced as written, [b]although reformatted for this document. Misspellings, typos, grammatical [b]errors, etc. have been retained from the originals. [b][b]Benchmark 6 — Outstanding [b][b][b]The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in [b]accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, [b]it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from [b]occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the [b]wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing [b]in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being [b]severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more [b]significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest [b]financially and psychologically in protective gear. [b]First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds [b]of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and [b]protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn [b]others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the [b]roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring [b]individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. [b]Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, [b]whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. [b]Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is [b]presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The [b]statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if [b]the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those [b]wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and [b]those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a [b]clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. [b][b]The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into [b]account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those [b]who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be [b]generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The [b]skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through [b]careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural [b]caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room [b]rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely [b]on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are [b]relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are [b]generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) [b]may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. [b][b]The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. [b]The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that [b]it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe [b]injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a [b]recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings [b]and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe [b]injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for [b]treatment. [b][b]Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and [b]presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds [b]of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same [b]preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed [b]only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in [b]gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by [b]individual pieces of gear would be helpful. [b][b]The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could [b]provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before [b]conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be [b]made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the [b]benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear [b]could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 6 [b][b]This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful [b]analytical skills. [b]The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious [b]reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and [b]psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive [b]examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the [b]writer exposes several points that undermine the argument: [b][b][b]that preventive and protective gear are not the same [b][b]that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they [b]are, by nature, more responsible and cautious [b][b]that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries [b][b]that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial [b][b]The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is [b]thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, [b]economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction [b]is expressive and precise. [b]In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described [b]in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided [b]fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been [b]scored "6." [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 5 — Strong [b][b]The argument presented is limited but useful. It indicates a possible [b]relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of [b]protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further [b]investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or [b]mitigating roller-skating related injuries. However, the conclusion that [b]protective gear and reflective equipment would "greatly reduce...risk of [b]being severely injured" is premature. Data is lacking with reference to [b]the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, [b]skill and physical coordination of that population. It is entirely [b]possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury [b]is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in [b]emergency situations. [b]Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be [b]reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the [b]various causes of those injuries. The article fails to identify the most [b]prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to [b]correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to [b]those injuries. For example, if the majority of injuries are skin [b]abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the [b]usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are [b]caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, [b]then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurences. However, [b]if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn [b]ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case [b]could be made for training and experience as preventative measures. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 5 [b][b]This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, [b]observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its [b]conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if [b]answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument: [b][b]What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters? [b][b]What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or [b]mitigating rollerskating-related injuries? [b][b]What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes? [b][b]The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible [b]answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper [b]does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as [b]fully as the typical "6" paper, but the clear organization, strong [b]control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more [b]than a score of "4." [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 4 — Adequate [b][b]Although the argument stated above discusses the importance of safety [b]equipment as significant part of avoiding injury, the statistics quoted [b]are vague and inconclusive. Simply because 75 percent of the people [b]involved in roller-skating accidents are not wearing the stated [b]equipment does not automatically implicate the lack of equipment as the [b]cause of injury. The term "accidents" may imply a great variety of [b]injuries. The types of injuries one could incur by not wearing the types [b]of equipment stated above are minor head injuries; skin abrasions or [b]possibly bone fracture of a select few areas such as knees, elbows, [b]hands, etc. (which are in fact most vulnerable to this sport); and/or [b]injuries due to practising the sport during low light times of the day. [b]During any physically demanding activity or sport people are subjected [b]to a wide variety of injuries which cannot be avoided with protective [b]clothing or light-reflective materials. These injuries include inner [b]trauma (e.g., heart-attack); exhaustion; strained muscles, ligaments, or [b]tendons; etc. Perhaps the numbers and percentages of people injured [b]during roller-skating, even without protective equipment, would decrease [b]greatly if people participating in the sport had proper training, good [b]physical health, warm-up properly before beginning (stretching), as well [b]as take other measures to prevent possible injury, such as common-sense, [b]by refraining from performing the activity after proper lighting has [b]ceased and knowing your personal limitations as an individual and [b]athlete. The statistics used in the above reasoning are lacking in [b]proper direction considering their assertions and therefore must be [b]further examined and modified so that proper conclusions can be reached. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 4 [b][b]This adequate response targets the argument's vague and [b]inconclusive "statistics." The essay identifies and critiques the [b]illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the [b]argument's statistics: [b][b]that non-use of equipment may be "automatically" assumed to be the cause [b]of injury [b][b]that "accidents" may refer to minor injuries [b][b]that injuries may result from other causes - skating in the dark, [b]failure to train or warm-up properly, failure to recognize one's [b]physical limitations [b][b]The writer competently grasps the weaknesses of the argument. The ideas [b]are clear and connected, but the essay lacks transitional phrases. [b]Development, too, is only adequate. Control of language is better than [b]adequate. The writer achieves both control and clarity and ably conforms [b]to the conventions of written English. Overall, though, this "4" essay [b]lacks the more thorough development of a typical "5" response. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 3 — Limited [b][b]The argument is well presented and supported, but not completely well [b]reasoned. It is clear and concisely written. The content is logically [b]and smoothly presented. Statistics cited are used to develop support for [b]the recommendation, that roller skaters who invest in protective gear [b]and reflective equipment can reduce their risk of severe, accidental [b]injuries. Examples of the types of protective equipment are described [b]for the reader. Unfortunately, the author of the argument fails to note [b]that merely by purchasing gear and reflective equipment that the skater [b]will be protected. This is, of course, falacious if the skater fails to [b]use the equipment, or uses it incorrectly or inappropriately. It is also [b]an unnecessary assumption that a skater need purchase high-quality gear [b]for the same degree of effectiveness to be achieved. The argument could [b]be improved by taking these issues into consideration, and making [b]recommendations for education and safety awareness to skaters. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 3 [b][b]The first half of this generally well-written but limited response [b]merely describes the argument. The second half of the paper identifies [b]two assumptions of the argument: [b]that people who purchase protective gear will use the gear [b][b]that high-quality gear is more effective than other gear [b][b]Neither of these analytic points is developed adequately; together, [b]however, they are sufficient to constitute "some analysis" and thus [b]warrant a score of "3." [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 2 — Seriously Flawed [b][b]To reduce the accidents from roller skating we should consider about it [b]causes and effects concurrently to find the best solution. Basically the [b]roller-skating players are children, they had less experiences to [b]protect themselves from any kind of dangerous. Therefore, it should be a [b]responsible of adult to take care them. Adult should recommend their [b]child to wear any protective clothing, set the rules and look after them [b]while they are playing. [b]In the past roller-skating is limited in the skate yard but when it [b]became popular people normally play it on the street way) Therefore the [b]number of accidents from roller-skating is increased. The skate [b]manufacturer should have a responsibility in producing a protective [b]clothing. They should promote and sell them together with skates. The [b]government or state should set the regulation of playing skate on the [b]street way like they did with the bicycle. [b][b]To prevent this kind of accident is the best solution but it needs a [b]cooperation among us to have a conscious mind to beware and realize its [b]dangerous. [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 2 [b][b]This seriously flawed response, rather than critiquing the argument, [b]suggests ways for adults and skate manufacturers to ensure that children [b]wear protective clothing. In essence, the writer is uncritically [b]accepting the argument. [b]The response exhibits serious and frequent problems in sentence [b]structure and language use. Errors -- word choice, verb tenses, subject- [b]verb agreement, punctuation -- are numerous and sometimes interfere with [b]meaning: [b][b][b]"...it needs a cooperation among us to have a conscious mind to beware [b]and realize its dangerous." [b][b]This essay earns a score of "2" because it demonstrates both serious [b]linguistic weaknesses and failure to construct a critique based on [b]logical analysis. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 1 — Fundamentally Deficient [b][b]the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly [b]injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents [b]in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. [b]such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reflecting materials such [b]as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have [b]protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that [b]can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, [b]that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the [b]treatment. the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being [b]severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had [b]accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel [b]clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reflecting [b]materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if [b]they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may [b]happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly [b]injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy [b]and money for the treatment. the protective equipment do help to reduce [b]the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% [b]Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing [b]any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads,etc. or any light- [b]reflecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads [b]ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident [b]may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly [b]injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy [b]and money for the treatment. the protective equipment do help to reduce [b]the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% [b]Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing [b]any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light- [b]reflecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads [b]ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident [b]may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly [b]injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy [b]and money for the treatment. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 1 [b][b]This fundamentally deficient response uncritically accepts the reasoning [b]of the prompt: "the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of [b]being severyly injuryed in an accident..." There is no evidence, though, [b]that the writer is able to understand or analyze the argument; what [b]follows, except for a few additional words, merely copies the prompt. [b]This two-sentence response is repeated - verbatim - over and over. [b]Language and usage are equally problematic. The few words that have been [b]added, in combination with the words of the prompt, result in [b]incoherence. In sum, this essay fits all of the scoring guide [b]descriptors for a score of "1." [b][b]