# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response shows an effective understanding of the passage. The writer demonstrates comprehension of the argument’s central idea by noting that Bogard writes about the necessity of darkness and portrayed the need and importance of darkness in everyday life. This understanding is supported by the writer’s use of important details from the source text, like citing Bogard’s family’s cabin on a Minnesota lake where He describes the Milky Way and the night sky, which 8 out of 10 children born in the United States won’t ever see. The writer also discusses how our bodies need darkness to produce certain hormones which can prevent certain diseases, brings up how animals are dependent upon the darkness and without darkness, “Earth’s ecology would collapse,” references “Starry Night” as an example of how the night sky can be inspiring, and briefly mentions how much turning a light switch on and off is taken for granted and that people in the previous centuries...did not rely on electricity to live their everyday lives. This demonstration of appropriate paraphrasing and quoting from the source text, along with the writer’s understanding of the central idea, demonstrates the writer’s proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

This response offers limited analysis of Bogard’s argument. The writer identifies a few persuasive elements from the passage, like the use of pathos and evidence, but only provides an unexplained claim about how pathos influences readers. The writer states that the passage is building up pathos in the discussion of how 8 out of 10 children... will never know a sky darky enough for the Milky Way and asserts The reader begins to feel pity for those 8 in 10 children who will never get the chance to see the sky in its truest and most real form. The response then moves on without elaborating on this idea, though, and does not try to explain why readers would feel pity because of this statistic or how generating this feeling would lead them to agree with Bogard’s argument to preserve darkness. The writer’s other analytical attempts are ineffective, as they do not develop a claim about what effect the features have on the audience: Bogard does a fabulous job gathering evidence for this argument; the night sky can be inspiring which causes more pathos...causing them to think about the importance of the darkness and beauty of nighttime. However, because the writer has asserted the effect of pity, the response does show a partial understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and exhibits proficient language control. The introduction presents a central claim (He brilliantly gave examples of why darkness is essential; His use of syntax also supports his essay) that the response mostly follows, and the writer uses transitions to clearly signal how Bogard’s ideas develop: Bogard starts out by giving one example; He then portrays how; By this point, Bogard is building; Some other examples that Bogard gives are; Then he goes on to talk about. Some sentences show variation in their structures (It is evident that the world today is dependent upon electricity, and Bogard does a fabulous job gathering evidence for this; After giving examples of how darkness is taken for granted, Bogard provides a solution), and the writer occasionally uses precise word choices: brilliantly; inspiring; necessity. These features are marks of effective organization and language use, demonstrating proficient writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response shows an effective understanding of the passage. The writer demonstrates comprehension of the argument’s central idea by noting that Bogard writes about the necessity of darkness and portrayed the need and importance of darkness in everyday life. This understanding is supported by the writer’s use of important details from the source text, like citing Bogard’s family’s cabin on a Minnesota lake where He describes the Milky Way and the night sky, which 8 out of 10 children born in the United States won’t ever see. The writer also discusses how our bodies need darkness to produce certain hormones which can prevent certain diseases, brings up how animals are dependent upon the darkness and without darkness, “Earth’s ecology would collapse,” references “Starry Night” as an example of how the night sky can be inspiring, and briefly mentions how much turning a light switch on and off is taken for granted and that people in the previous centuries...did not rely on electricity to live their everyday lives. This demonstration of appropriate paraphrasing and quoting from the source text, along with the writer’s understanding of the central idea, demonstrates the writer’s proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

This response offers limited analysis of Bogard’s argument. The writer identifies a few persuasive elements from the passage, like the use of pathos and evidence, but only provides an unexplained claim about how pathos influences readers. The writer states that the passage is building up pathos in the discussion of how 8 out of 10 children... will never know a sky darky enough for the Milky Way and asserts The reader begins to feel pity for those 8 in 10 children who will never get the chance to see the sky in its truest and most real form. The response then moves on without elaborating on this idea, though, and does not try to explain why readers would feel pity because of this statistic or how generating this feeling would lead them to agree with Bogard’s argument to preserve darkness. The writer’s other analytical attempts are ineffective, as they do not develop a claim about what effect the features have on the audience: Bogard does a fabulous job gathering evidence for this argument; the night sky can be inspiring which causes more pathos...causing them to think about the importance of the darkness and beauty of nighttime. However, because the writer has asserted the effect of pity, the response does show a partial understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and exhibits proficient language control. The introduction presents a central claim (He brilliantly gave examples of why darkness is essential; His use of syntax also supports his essay) that the response mostly follows, and the writer uses transitions to clearly signal how Bogard’s ideas develop: Bogard starts out by giving one example; He then portrays how; By this point, Bogard is building; Some other examples that Bogard gives are; Then he goes on to talk about. Some sentences show variation in their structures (It is evident that the world today is dependent upon electricity, and Bogard does a fabulous job gathering evidence for this; After giving examples of how darkness is taken for granted, Bogard provides a solution), and the writer occasionally uses precise word choices: brilliantly; inspiring; necessity. These features are marks of effective organization and language use, demonstrating proficient writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response exhibits effective comprehension of the source text. The writer opens by describing the passage’s central idea (Bogard...has structurely emphasized why darkness is beneficial, and he also recognizes some individuals who are depleting our darkness) and then proceeds to address key details from the source text. These details include the rise in artificial light for people who take “[their] tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed,” which is something that will affect their health because “darkness [produces] the hormone melatonin, and that Paris is reducing light pollution (Even though Paris is “the [famous] city of lights,” they are willing to turn off the monument lights, shop & offices lighting, and also public building lights). The writer also brings up how animals and farmers will be affected by light pollution and Bogard’s mention of what the “vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us.” These references to the source text’s important details, captured through effective quotation and paraphrasing, demonstrate the writer’s proficient comprehension of Bogard’s argument.

ANALYSIS — 3

The writer provides proficient analysis of Bogard’s argument in this response. The most clearly developed point of analysis is the writer’s evaluation of how Bogard’s question about “what this vision of the night sky might inspire” in the viewer serves to hook the reader in. After asserting that This could be emotional for some people in that Everybody...wants to succeed at something, and this question may make people think about how light pollution can affect their future, the writer offers justification for why this would be persuasive: Not all people may care how light pollution may affect the animals...but most people care about themselves and their loved ones. Other analytical attempts in the response only reach the level of assertion as the writer does not attempt to elaborate on these points (As a reader, one may feel guilty...because they know that they are an individual who brings technology to bed; Most people are more sensitive towards animals, rather than just plain facts). However, the writer’s effective analysis of Bogard’s hook, which presents a persuasive effect (making readers think about how light pollution can affect their future) and explains how it functions (most people care about themselves), is sufficient to demonstrate a proficient understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and shows the writer’s effective use of language. The brief introduction presents the source text’s central idea and provides an entry into the writer’s points. Though it does not offer an explicit central claim or thesis, the response’s conclusion does point out the two main elements the writer focuses on: With the use of emotion, and facts, Bogard has completely involved the reader. Topic sentences and other transitions between paragraphs (Bogard uses emotional appeal when he mentions; Bogard also uses emotion to persuade the reader when he asks; Bogard also explains how) show a progression of ideas in the response, as does the internal development within those paragraphs: Bogard points out the people... As a reader, one may feel guilty... Bogard knows that this will interest readers because... This is one example.... The writer also utilizes some more complex sentence constructions (The reductions in lighting will not only save energy, but also help with the light pollution problem; turning off lights can be beneficial in many different ways) and a few precise word choices (Whether an individual loves being baked by the sun, or loves the cool night breeze, dark will always accompany us in our world; One may argue that taking a tablet to bed doesn’t get rid of darkness, it only enlightens them on the latest gossip). Overall, these features demonstrate effective writing skill and proficient language control.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response exhibits effective comprehension of the source text. The writer opens by describing the passage’s central idea (Bogard...has structurely emphasized why darkness is beneficial, and he also recognizes some individuals who are depleting our darkness) and then proceeds to address key details from the source text. These details include the rise in artificial light for people who take “[their] tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed,” which is something that will affect their health because “darkness [produces] the hormone melatonin, and that Paris is reducing light pollution (Even though Paris is “the [famous] city of lights,” they are willing to turn off the monument lights, shop & offices lighting, and also public building lights). The writer also brings up how animals and farmers will be affected by light pollution and Bogard’s mention of what the “vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us.” These references to the source text’s important details, captured through effective quotation and paraphrasing, demonstrate the writer’s proficient comprehension of Bogard’s argument.

ANALYSIS — 3

The writer provides proficient analysis of Bogard’s argument in this response. The most clearly developed point of analysis is the writer’s evaluation of how Bogard’s question about “what this vision of the night sky might inspire” in the viewer serves to hook the reader in. After asserting that This could be emotional for some people in that Everybody...wants to succeed at something, and this question may make people think about how light pollution can affect their future, the writer offers justification for why this would be persuasive: Not all people may care how light pollution may affect the animals...but most people care about themselves and their loved ones. Other analytical attempts in the response only reach the level of assertion as the writer does not attempt to elaborate on these points (As a reader, one may feel guilty...because they know that they are an individual who brings technology to bed; Most people are more sensitive towards animals, rather than just plain facts). However, the writer’s effective analysis of Bogard’s hook, which presents a persuasive effect (making readers think about how light pollution can affect their future) and explains how it functions (most people care about themselves), is sufficient to demonstrate a proficient understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and shows the writer’s effective use of language. The brief introduction presents the source text’s central idea and provides an entry into the writer’s points. Though it does not offer an explicit central claim or thesis, the response’s conclusion does point out the two main elements the writer focuses on: With the use of emotion, and facts, Bogard has completely involved the reader. Topic sentences and other transitions between paragraphs (Bogard uses emotional appeal when he mentions; Bogard also uses emotion to persuade the reader when he asks; Bogard also explains how) show a progression of ideas in the response, as does the internal development within those paragraphs: Bogard points out the people... As a reader, one may feel guilty... Bogard knows that this will interest readers because... This is one example.... The writer also utilizes some more complex sentence constructions (The reductions in lighting will not only save energy, but also help with the light pollution problem; turning off lights can be beneficial in many different ways) and a few precise word choices (Whether an individual loves being baked by the sun, or loves the cool night breeze, dark will always accompany us in our world; One may argue that taking a tablet to bed doesn’t get rid of darkness, it only enlightens them on the latest gossip). Overall, these features demonstrate effective writing skill and proficient language control.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of Bogard’s text. The writer captures the central idea of the source passage (the importance of allowing more darkness to fill the earth for distinct health and ecological reasons) and accurately quotes and paraphrases many important details from the passage that support Bogard’s argument. Moreover, the writer demonstrates an understanding of how these details interrelate. In the third body paragraph, for example, the writer not only presents details from Bogard’s text about the effects of darkness upon nature but also indicates comprehension of how those facts relate to both research on humans and proposed solutions to the problem (Using the facts about animals, Bogard extends the argument beyond humans; Bogard extends the facts to offer various solutions...such as changing LED streetlights...“Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse”). This technique of describing how different details in Bogard’s text relate to each other is also evident in the second body paragraph where the writer connects concerns about our well-being with that of future generations: fear-inducing facts about the sake of our mental and physical health and anxiety for our children or grandchildren. In addition, the response is free of any errors of fact and interpretation, and the writer makes skillful use of textual evidence throughout the response. Overall, then, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task by analyzing three ways Bogard builds his argument (personal observation for credibility, stirring feelings, and startling facts to deliver a powerful argument). Throughout the course of the response, the writer discusses Bogard’s use of these three elements and is able to move past asserting their significance to arrive at an effective analysis of the effects of these techniques on Bogard’s audience. In the second body paragraph, for example, the writer states, Bogard’s statement dissolves any doubt, but builds up new feeling. We finally see the true importance of allowing our world to temporarily succumb to darkness. Through the emotion Bogard evokes, we suddenly feel defensive in preserving the darkness for the sake of our mental and physical health. Effective analysis is also evident in the first body paragraph where the writer discusses the audience’s possible reaction to reading about Bogard’s experience with darkness as a child (The description of nature and the stunningly beautiful imagery creates a feeling of deep respect...as a result, Bogard has undeniable credibility. Bogard knows the power of darkness and through his childhood memories, we lean our ears to listen to him). These points of analysis would have been stronger had the writer perhaps elaborated more on how or why they build Bogard’s argument. However, the writer nevertheless competently evaluates Bogard’s use of personal observation, emotions, and facts and provides relevant and sufficient support for each claim, demonstrating effective analysis.
WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive response. The response includes a precise central claim (Bogard uses personal observation for credibility, stirring feelings, and startling facts to deliver a powerful argument), and each of the subsequent paragraphs remain focused on the topics set forth in that central claim. There is a deliberate progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the response. Moreover, the response demonstrates precise word choice and sophisticated turns of phrase (temporarily succumb to darkness; remains nostalgic about his childhood; dissolves any doubt). The concluding paragraph is skillful for its precise word choice and complex sentence structures (We must see the strength and beauty in the darkness, and remember how our world survived without lights. Light can be acceptable, but too much of it can prove worse than permanent darkness). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of Bogard’s text. The writer captures the central idea of the source passage (the importance of allowing more darkness to fill the earth for distinct health and ecological reasons) and accurately quotes and paraphrases many important details from the passage that support Bogard’s argument. Moreover, the writer demonstrates an understanding of how these details interrelate. In the third body paragraph, for example, the writer not only presents details from Bogard’s text about the effects of darkness upon nature but also indicates comprehension of how those facts relate to both research on humans and proposed solutions to the problem (Using the facts about animals, Bogard extends the argument beyond humans; Bogard extends the facts to offer various solutions...such as changing LED streetlights...“Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse”). This technique of describing how different details in Bogard’s text relate to each other is also evident in the second body paragraph where the writer connects concerns about our well-being with that of future generations: fear-inducing facts about the sake of our mental and physical health and anxiety for our children or grandchildren. In addition, the response is free of any errors of fact and interpretation, and the writer makes skillful use of textual evidence throughout the response. Overall, then, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task by analyzing three ways Bogard builds his argument (personal observation for credibility, stirring feelings, and startling facts to deliver a powerful argument). Throughout the course of the response, the writer discusses Bogard’s use of these three elements and is able to move past asserting their significance to arrive at an effective analysis of the effects of these techniques on Bogard’s audience. In the second body paragraph, for example, the writer states, Bogard’s statement dissolves any doubt, but builds up new feeling. We finally see the true importance of allowing our world to temporarily succumb to darkness. Through the emotion Bogard evokes, we suddenly feel defensive in preserving the darkness for the sake of our mental and physical health. Effective analysis is also evident in the first body paragraph where the writer discusses the audience’s possible reaction to reading about Bogard’s experience with darkness as a child (The description of nature and the stunningly beautiful imagery creates a feeling of deep respect...as a result, Bogard has undeniable credibility. Bogard knows the power of darkness and through his childhood memories, we lean our ears to listen to him). These points of analysis would have been stronger had the writer perhaps elaborated more on how or why they build Bogard’s argument. However, the writer nevertheless competently evaluates Bogard’s use of personal observation, emotions, and facts and provides relevant and sufficient support for each claim, demonstrating effective analysis.
WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive response. The response includes a precise central claim (Bogard uses personal observation for credibility, stirring feelings, and startling facts to deliver a powerful argument), and each of the subsequent paragraphs remain focused on the topics set forth in that central claim. There is a deliberate progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the response. Moreover, the response demonstrates precise word choice and sophisticated turns of phrase (temporarily succumb to darkness; remains nostalgic about his childhood; dissolves any doubt). The concluding paragraph is skillful for its precise word choice and complex sentence structures (We must see the strength and beauty in the darkness, and remember how our world survived without lights. Light can be acceptable, but too much of it can prove worse than permanent darkness). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text through skillful use of paraphrases and direct quotations. The writer briefly summarizes the central idea of Bogard’s piece (natural darkness should be preserved; we must preserve true, unaffected darkness) and presents many details from the source text that support Bogard’s argument, such as referencing the personal anecdote that opens the passage and citing Bogard’s use of Paris’ reputation as “The City of Light.” Although there are few long direct quotations from the source text, the writer is able to succinctly and accurately capture the entirety of Bogard’s argument and is able to articulate how details in the source text interrelate (Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”...urges the readers to weigh the disadvantages of...unnatural, vapid lighting...He then goes on to state how Paris has taken steps to exercise more sustainable lighting practices) and support Bogard’s central claim. The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation with regard to the source text and illustrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response offers an insightful analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task. In the analysis of Bogard’s use of personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions, the writer is able to explain carefully and thoroughly how Bogard builds his argument over the course of the passage. For example, the writer offers a possible reason for why Bogard chose to open his argument with a personal anecdote (In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural darkness void of artificial light) and is also able to describe the overall effect of that choice on his audience: By drawing in his readers with a personal encounter...the author means to establish the potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess...reminiscing for his readers...proves the “irreplaceable value of darkness.” This anecdote provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find credence with the author’s claims. Although each of these sentences by itself may appear to be based on assertions, the way that the writer builds this analysis indicates an understanding of the overall effect of Bogard’s personal narrative, both in terms of its function in Bogard’s argument (boosting the readers’ credence with the author’s claims) and in terms of how it affects his audience (convincing them to fully amass themselves in darkness’s potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery). Therefore, the writer has offered a thorough and well-considered evaluation of Bogard’s choices and decisions in building his argument. This type of insightful analysis is evident throughout the response and indicates advanced analytical skill.

WRITING — 4

The response is cohesive and demonstrates highly effective use and command of language. The response contains a precise central claim (He effectively builds his argument by using personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions), and each body paragraph is tightly focused on those three elements of Bogard’s text. There is a clear, deliberate progression of ideas within paragraphs and throughout the response as a whole. The writer’s brief introduction and conclusion are skillfully written (Writing as a reaction to his disappointment that artificial light has largely permeated the prescence of natural darkness) and perfectly encapsulate both the main ideas of Bogard’s piece as well as the overall structure and argument of the writer’s analysis. There is a consistent use of both precise word choice and insightful turns of phrase that illustrate the writer’s advanced writing skill (the natural magnificence of stars in a dark sky is definite; our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting; the affecting power of an untainted night sky). Moreover, the response features a wide variety in sentence structures and many examples of complex sentences: By doing this, Bogard creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the reality of what Paris is becoming – no longer ‘the city of light’, but moreso ‘the city of light...before 2 AM. Overall, the response demonstrates a strong command of the conventions of written English and exemplifies advanced writing proficiency.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text through skillful use of paraphrases and direct quotations. The writer briefly summarizes the central idea of Bogard’s piece (natural darkness should be preserved; we must preserve true, unaffected darkness) and presents many details from the source text that support Bogard’s argument, such as referencing the personal anecdote that opens the passage and citing Bogard’s use of Paris’ reputation as “The City of Light.” Although there are few long direct quotations from the source text, the writer is able to succinctly and accurately capture the entirety of Bogard’s argument and is able to articulate how details in the source text interrelate (Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”...urges the readers to weigh the disadvantages of...unnatural, vapid lighting...He then goes on to state how Paris has taken steps to exercise more sustainable lighting practices) and support Bogard’s central claim. The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation with regard to the source text and illustrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response offers an insightful analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task. In the analysis of Bogard’s use of personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions, the writer is able to explain carefully and thoroughly how Bogard builds his argument over the course of the passage. For example, the writer offers a possible reason for why Bogard chose to open his argument with a personal anecdote (In telling this brief anecdote, Bogard challenges the audience to remember a time where they could fully amass themselves in natural darkness void of artificial light) and is also able to describe the overall effect of that choice on his audience: By drawing in his readers with a personal encounter...the author means to establish the potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery that genuine darkness can possess...reminiscing for his readers...proves the “irreplaceable value of darkness.” This anecdote provides a baseline of sorts for readers to find credence with the author’s claims. Although each of these sentences by itself may appear to be based on assertions, the way that the writer builds this analysis indicates an understanding of the overall effect of Bogard’s personal narrative, both in terms of its function in Bogard’s argument (boosting the readers’ credence with the author’s claims) and in terms of how it affects his audience (convincing them to fully amass themselves in darkness’s potential for beauty, glamour, and awe-inspiring mystery). Therefore, the writer has offered a thorough and well-considered evaluation of Bogard’s choices and decisions in building his argument. This type of insightful analysis is evident throughout the response and indicates advanced analytical skill.

WRITING — 4

The response is cohesive and demonstrates highly effective use and command of language. The response contains a precise central claim (He effectively builds his argument by using personal anecdote, allusions to art and history, and rhetorical questions), and each body paragraph is tightly focused on those three elements of Bogard’s text. There is a clear, deliberate progression of ideas within paragraphs and throughout the response as a whole. The writer’s brief introduction and conclusion are skillfully written (Writing as a reaction to his disappointment that artificial light has largely permeated the prescence of natural darkness) and perfectly encapsulate both the main ideas of Bogard’s piece as well as the overall structure and argument of the writer’s analysis. There is a consistent use of both precise word choice and insightful turns of phrase that illustrate the writer’s advanced writing skill (the natural magnificence of stars in a dark sky is definite; our world consumed by unnatural, vapid lighting; the affecting power of an untainted night sky). Moreover, the response features a wide variety in sentence structures and many examples of complex sentences: By doing this, Bogard creates a dichotomy between Paris’ traditionally alluded-to name and the reality of what Paris is becoming – no longer ‘the city of light’, but moreso ‘the city of light...before 2 AM. Overall, the response demonstrates a strong command of the conventions of written English and exemplifies advanced writing proficiency.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 1

This response demonstrates little comprehension of Gioia’s text. The response is almost entirely composed of ideas and phrases taken directly from the passage. Although the writer does show that the writer has read the passage by referring to the Wired article (for example, the writer conveys that employers are looking for aptitudes deadely literally in character: not “linear, logical, and analytical talents”) and by including a notable point in the passage (Reading is not [a] timeless universal capability), there is very little evidence that the writer actually understands Gioia’s main argument, and the response is limited to presenting seemingly randomly chosen details from the passage without context or connection to the central idea. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

The writer demonstrates no real understanding of the analytical task and offers no discernible analysis of the source text. The writer does not describe Gioia’s use of evidence, reasoning, or stylistic or persuasive elements, nor does the writer attempt to explain the importance of these elements to Gioia’s argument. The brief response largely consists of ideas and phrases taken directly from the passage. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and insufficient skill in the use and control of language. The writer includes no clear central claim or controlling idea and instead jumps into repeating ideas and phrases from the passage. There is no real organization or progression of ideas, either in paragraphs or in the essay as a whole. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence of the writer’s own writing ability since most of the response is a mash-up of brief snippets of Gioia’s text. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate control of language and writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 1

This response demonstrates little comprehension of Gioia’s text. The response is almost entirely composed of ideas and phrases taken directly from the passage. Although the writer does show that the writer has read the passage by referring to the Wired article (for example, the writer conveys that employers are looking for aptitudes deadely literally in character: not “linear, logical, and analytical talents”) and by including a notable point in the passage (Reading is not [a] timeless universal capability), there is very little evidence that the writer actually understands Gioia’s main argument, and the response is limited to presenting seemingly randomly chosen details from the passage without context or connection to the central idea. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

The writer demonstrates no real understanding of the analytical task and offers no discernible analysis of the source text. The writer does not describe Gioia’s use of evidence, reasoning, or stylistic or persuasive elements, nor does the writer attempt to explain the importance of these elements to Gioia’s argument. The brief response largely consists of ideas and phrases taken directly from the passage. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and insufficient skill in the use and control of language. The writer includes no clear central claim or controlling idea and instead jumps into repeating ideas and phrases from the passage. There is no real organization or progression of ideas, either in paragraphs or in the essay as a whole. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence of the writer’s own writing ability since most of the response is a mash-up of brief snippets of Gioia’s text. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate control of language and writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 2

Only some comprehension of the source text is demonstrated in this response. The writer clearly states Gioia’s central argument (the decline of reading in America amoung teenagers will significantly have a negative affect on society) but provides scant details in support of this argument. The sole body paragraph focuses on the National Association of Manufacturers study. Here, the writer states that the outcomes were very shocking and Poor reading skills ranked second and 38 percent of employees declared that schools taught reading comprehension inefficiently, but provides no further summary or contextualization of this detail. The limited use of details from the passage reflects the writer’s partial understanding of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

Analysis is inadequate in this response because the writer only identifies an element of persuasion (Gioia builds an arguement by including many studies and their outcomes) but does not explain its importance. Instead, the writer summarizes the argument (to persuade his audience that the decline of reading has become an issue within society). The writer then provides information from a study (Poor reading skills ranked second and 38 percent of employees declared), but again does not explain why it is important to Gioia’s argument. The summary in place of analysis shows the writer has little to no understanding of the analytical task. For this reason, the analysis is inadequate.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates little cohesion and limited skill in the use and control of language. There is no clear, organizing central claim, as the introduction only focuses on summarizing the argument (for example, Dana Gioia has a very strong belief that the decline of reading in America). Word choice is repetitive (a negative affect on society; an issue within society; a negative effect), and sentences rely on subject-verb construction (Dana Gioia has; Gioia builds; For example, Gioia references; Dana Gioia’s arguement clearly states). An overall progression of ideas is not apparent beyond the writer’s attempt to bookend the tiny body paragraph with an ineffective introduction and conclusion. The limitations of this response mean it is only partially successful in writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 2

Only some comprehension of the source text is demonstrated in this response. The writer clearly states Gioia’s central argument (the decline of reading in America amoung teenagers will significantly have a negative affect on society) but provides scant details in support of this argument. The sole body paragraph focuses on the National Association of Manufacturers study. Here, the writer states that the outcomes were very shocking and Poor reading skills ranked second and 38 percent of employees declared that schools taught reading comprehension inefficiently, but provides no further summary or contextualization of this detail. The limited use of details from the passage reflects the writer’s partial understanding of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

Analysis is inadequate in this response because the writer only identifies an element of persuasion (Gioia builds an arguement by including many studies and their outcomes) but does not explain its importance. Instead, the writer summarizes the argument (to persuade his audience that the decline of reading has become an issue within society). The writer then provides information from a study (Poor reading skills ranked second and 38 percent of employees declared), but again does not explain why it is important to Gioia’s argument. The summary in place of analysis shows the writer has little to no understanding of the analytical task. For this reason, the analysis is inadequate.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates little cohesion and limited skill in the use and control of language. There is no clear, organizing central claim, as the introduction only focuses on summarizing the argument (for example, Dana Gioia has a very strong belief that the decline of reading in America). Word choice is repetitive (a negative affect on society; an issue within society; a negative effect), and sentences rely on subject-verb construction (Dana Gioia has; Gioia builds; For example, Gioia references; Dana Gioia’s arguement clearly states). An overall progression of ideas is not apparent beyond the writer’s attempt to bookend the tiny body paragraph with an ineffective introduction and conclusion. The limitations of this response mean it is only partially successful in writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 2

Demonstrating limited comprehension of the source text, this response shows an understanding of Gioia’s central idea but not of many of the important supporting details. The first paragraph encapsulates the writer’s understanding of Gioia’s argument: arts participation by Americans has declined severly and that it will negatively affect society....His purpose is to get leaders such as politicians to aid in bringing back literature into America. The writer includes a few details that support this argument, but the details are generally presented without context linking them to the overall argument. For instance, in the first body paragraph, the writer presents the quote that “The declines have been most severe among young adults (18-24),” but only repeats what it means (the young and new generation isn’t involved in the arts as much) and superficially connects it to the argument (it will affect society negatively) without fully interpreting and contextualizing. This pattern continues in the next paragraph, which includes only single quotations of word choice without the larger context as to how they are used in claims that support Gioia’s central idea. For this reason, the response is limited in reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

Partial analysis is demonstrated in this response as the writer identifies elements of Gioia’s argument but does not fully explain their effect. For instance, in the paragraph about diction, the writer notes that the diction is formal and intellectual, which boosts his credebility once again by making him seem very well educated and that may convince the reader that he really knows what he is talking about. Examples of this formal word choice are provided, but no further explanation about why credibility would convince the reader, or what about these particular words made them so formal and intellectual, is provided. The lack of development in this analysis means it is limited in its success. Overall, the student demonstrates only a partial understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 2

With little cohesion and demonstrating limited skill in the use and control of language, this response is an example of a partially successful essay. The writer provides two short body paragraphs that match the central idea’s stated topics: His strategies are evidence to support claims and an intellectual diction. Ideas connect in simplistic ways (In the second paragraph of Gioia’s essay he includes results...This is one of his several examples) within paragraphs, but there is a lack of overall progression and idea development in the essay, as the writer moves too quickly from idea to idea. Sentences have limited variety in both structure and word choice, leading to a repetitive and choppy reading experience: His strategies are evidence to support claims and an intellectual diction. His purpose is to get leaders such as politicians and several mentions of the negative affect on society are two examples. These weaknesses result in an overall limited response.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 2

Demonstrating limited comprehension of the source text, this response shows an understanding of Gioia’s central idea but not of many of the important supporting details. The first paragraph encapsulates the writer’s understanding of Gioia’s argument: arts participation by Americans has declined severly and that it will negatively affect society....His purpose is to get leaders such as politicians to aid in bringing back literature into America. The writer includes a few details that support this argument, but the details are generally presented without context linking them to the overall argument. For instance, in the first body paragraph, the writer presents the quote that “The declines have been most severe among young adults (18-24),” but only repeats what it means (the young and new generation isn’t involved in the arts as much) and superficially connects it to the argument (it will affect society negatively) without fully interpreting and contextualizing. This pattern continues in the next paragraph, which includes only single quotations of word choice without the larger context as to how they are used in claims that support Gioia’s central idea. For this reason, the response is limited in reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

Partial analysis is demonstrated in this response as the writer identifies elements of Gioia’s argument but does not fully explain their effect. For instance, in the paragraph about diction, the writer notes that the diction is formal and intellectual, which boosts his credebility once again by making him seem very well educated and that may convince the reader that he really knows what he is talking about. Examples of this formal word choice are provided, but no further explanation about why credibility would convince the reader, or what about these particular words made them so formal and intellectual, is provided. The lack of development in this analysis means it is limited in its success. Overall, the student demonstrates only a partial understanding of the analytical task.

WRITING — 2

With little cohesion and demonstrating limited skill in the use and control of language, this response is an example of a partially successful essay. The writer provides two short body paragraphs that match the central idea’s stated topics: His strategies are evidence to support claims and an intellectual diction. Ideas connect in simplistic ways (In the second paragraph of Gioia’s essay he includes results...This is one of his several examples) within paragraphs, but there is a lack of overall progression and idea development in the essay, as the writer moves too quickly from idea to idea. Sentences have limited variety in both structure and word choice, leading to a repetitive and choppy reading experience: His strategies are evidence to support claims and an intellectual diction. His purpose is to get leaders such as politicians and several mentions of the negative affect on society are two examples. These weaknesses result in an overall limited response.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

Effective comprehension of the source text is demonstrated in this response. The introduction begins to cement the writer’s understanding of the central idea with statements like Dana talks about how literature diminished and Many people do not admire literature anymore, it is considered a troubling trend, and the writer’s understanding is sharpened later in the response when noting that The decline of literary reading may have a long term social and economic problem and In the future, the more declines we have in reading may effect the knowledge of the people which can cause our nation to be less informed, active and independent minded. The essay contains contextualization of many of the supporting details that Gioia employs in his argument, including summaries of the 2002 survey of Public Participation in the Arts and Daniel Pink’s article in the February issue of Wired magazine. Details are paraphrased without substantive errors and with enough interpretation to show the writer’s comprehension, like The decline of literary reading may have a long term social and economic problem. This is because they do not have the knowledge to pursue the job they want and may not have the social mobility to converse with the people they need to. The understanding illustrated through these details demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

The writer demonstrates little to no understanding of the analytical task by providing only a few identifications of elements of the argument and not explaining their importance. Much of the response is focused on summarizing the source passage, but there are statements like Dana uses actual surveys to support her opinion on the decline of literature and The most terrifying information is in which the writer identifies an argumentative element (surveys; terrifying information) but does nothing to explain why or how it helps Gioia’s persuasiveness and instead links them to summary of the argument (like The most terrifying information is that reading literature is declining mostly by young adults). Because of the focus on summary and not analysis, analysis in this response is inadequate.

WRITING — 3

This response demonstrates the writer’s ability to compose a mostly effective essay. While the introduction establishes the general topic of how literature diminished, it is lacking a clear central idea that orders the remainder of the response. Body paragraphs are focused on different examples of evidence from the source text, and the writer establishes a progression of ideas by linking ideas in simple but clear ways (Author Daniel Pinks states...Basically what he is saying is; The decline of literary reading...This is because they do not have). There is some precise word choice (admire; terrifying; suffering), and sentences have enough variety to avoid repetition. Although some syntax is awkward (Literature is one of the most important knowledge; The young adults are mostly influence and involved in the internet), these mistakes are typical in first-draft, timed writing and do not interfere with the writer’s ability to impart meaning. On balance, this response is proficient in writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

Effective comprehension of the source text is demonstrated in this response. The introduction begins to cement the writer’s understanding of the central idea with statements like Dana talks about how literature diminished and Many people do not admire literature anymore, it is considered a troubling trend, and the writer’s understanding is sharpened later in the response when noting that The decline of literary reading may have a long term social and economic problem and In the future, the more declines we have in reading may effect the knowledge of the people which can cause our nation to be less informed, active and independent minded. The essay contains contextualization of many of the supporting details that Gioia employs in his argument, including summaries of the 2002 survey of Public Participation in the Arts and Daniel Pink’s article in the February issue of Wired magazine. Details are paraphrased without substantive errors and with enough interpretation to show the writer’s comprehension, like The decline of literary reading may have a long term social and economic problem. This is because they do not have the knowledge to pursue the job they want and may not have the social mobility to converse with the people they need to. The understanding illustrated through these details demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

The writer demonstrates little to no understanding of the analytical task by providing only a few identifications of elements of the argument and not explaining their importance. Much of the response is focused on summarizing the source passage, but there are statements like Dana uses actual surveys to support her opinion on the decline of literature and The most terrifying information is in which the writer identifies an argumentative element (surveys; terrifying information) but does nothing to explain why or how it helps Gioia’s persuasiveness and instead links them to summary of the argument (like The most terrifying information is that reading literature is declining mostly by young adults). Because of the focus on summary and not analysis, analysis in this response is inadequate.

WRITING — 3

This response demonstrates the writer’s ability to compose a mostly effective essay. While the introduction establishes the general topic of how literature diminished, it is lacking a clear central idea that orders the remainder of the response. Body paragraphs are focused on different examples of evidence from the source text, and the writer establishes a progression of ideas by linking ideas in simple but clear ways (Author Daniel Pinks states...Basically what he is saying is; The decline of literary reading...This is because they do not have). There is some precise word choice (admire; terrifying; suffering), and sentences have enough variety to avoid repetition. Although some syntax is awkward (Literature is one of the most important knowledge; The young adults are mostly influence and involved in the internet), these mistakes are typical in first-draft, timed writing and do not interfere with the writer’s ability to impart meaning. On balance, this response is proficient in writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Gioia’s text. The writer provides appropriate textual evidence (paraphrases and quotations) to capture both the main ideas of the passage (American arts have changed and that many people are beginning to no longer read and intellectual abilities are decreacing) and some important supporting details (He specifically states “the ability to create artistic and emotional ability...to craft a satisfying narrative,” will disappear if people no longer read). There are no substantive errors of fact or interpretation in this essay. On the whole, the writer demonstrates a complete understanding of Gioia’s argument, especially the relationship between declining literary reading and social awareness (or social encounters). Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The writer demonstrates a limited understanding of the analytical task and offers only a partial analysis of how Gioia builds his argument. The writer identifies some analytical elements of Gioia’s text (such as reasoning, facts, and word choice) and attempts to describe how these elements function in the passage. However, throughout the response, the writer provides only single assertions about elements of argumentation in Gioia’s text, like This causes the audience to think on a broader level and want to be able to express their talents and Gioia inserts this to grab people’s attention, people who teach, such as schools. These instances of analysis, here most commonly found at the end of paragraphs, illustrate some understanding on the writer’s part of how Gioia builds his argument; however, the writer does not provide an effective discussion or evaluation of how evidence, reasoning, or stylistic and persuasive elements are used to build the argument. Overall, this response demonstrates only partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates broadly effective use and control of language. Starting with an effective introductory paragraph that includes a clear central claim (Gioia expresses reasoning, includes evidence, and establishes a word choice. His purpose is to encourage more people to begin reading again in order to maintain a higher intellectual level), the writer structures the essay clearly, if formulaically, around the three points of reasoning, evidence, and word choice. Each paragraph remains on topic, and there is a clear progression of ideas within paragraphs and across the essay as a whole. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone while demonstrating a variety of sentence structures. Although sentence structures are occasionally awkward (Gioia expects that people will notice that they do need to read on past events as well as other counts to be able to relate to society), language errors do not detract significantly from the quality of writing. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Gioia’s text. The writer provides appropriate textual evidence (paraphrases and quotations) to capture both the main ideas of the passage (American arts have changed and that many people are beginning to no longer read and intellectual abilities are decreacing) and some important supporting details (He specifically states “the ability to create artistic and emotional ability...to craft a satisfying narrative,” will disappear if people no longer read). There are no substantive errors of fact or interpretation in this essay. On the whole, the writer demonstrates a complete understanding of Gioia’s argument, especially the relationship between declining literary reading and social awareness (or social encounters). Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The writer demonstrates a limited understanding of the analytical task and offers only a partial analysis of how Gioia builds his argument. The writer identifies some analytical elements of Gioia’s text (such as reasoning, facts, and word choice) and attempts to describe how these elements function in the passage. However, throughout the response, the writer provides only single assertions about elements of argumentation in Gioia’s text, like This causes the audience to think on a broader level and want to be able to express their talents and Gioia inserts this to grab people’s attention, people who teach, such as schools. These instances of analysis, here most commonly found at the end of paragraphs, illustrate some understanding on the writer’s part of how Gioia builds his argument; however, the writer does not provide an effective discussion or evaluation of how evidence, reasoning, or stylistic and persuasive elements are used to build the argument. Overall, this response demonstrates only partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates broadly effective use and control of language. Starting with an effective introductory paragraph that includes a clear central claim (Gioia expresses reasoning, includes evidence, and establishes a word choice. His purpose is to encourage more people to begin reading again in order to maintain a higher intellectual level), the writer structures the essay clearly, if formulaically, around the three points of reasoning, evidence, and word choice. Each paragraph remains on topic, and there is a clear progression of ideas within paragraphs and across the essay as a whole. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone while demonstrating a variety of sentence structures. Although sentence structures are occasionally awkward (Gioia expects that people will notice that they do need to read on past events as well as other counts to be able to relate to society), language errors do not detract significantly from the quality of writing. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text. The writer accurately captures the central idea of Gioia’s passage (the decline of reading will have a negative impact on society). The writer also accurately paraphrases (In 2002, a study showed that reading literature has declined, especially in young adults) and directly quotes important details from the source text, demonstrating effective comprehension. In the first body paragraph, for example, the writer demonstrates an understanding of Gioia’s point that the negative consequences due to the decrease in literary skills affects both the business world and the civic sphere by providing direct quotations from the source text. The inclusion of relevant details and the appropriate use of textual evidence demonstrate a proficient understanding of Gioia’s text.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response offers an effective analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the analytical task. In the first body paragraph, the writer analyzes how Gioia uses facts to establish ethos in the passage (Gioia uses many factual examples of the negative consequences due to the decrease in literary skills. Providing the reader with many examples creates ethos). The writer then goes on to explain the importance of creating ethos: The author is a credible source of information which makes the passage believable and effective. In this extension of the idea, the writer conveys the effect on the audience of Gioia’s factual examples and use of sources. Although the writer later provides an unexplained assertion at the end of the paragraph (This is a good use of literary techniques because it backs up what Gioia is trying to prove to the audience), the response provides more effective analysis again in the next paragraph when the writer discusses the effects of Gioia’s word choice on his audience (By using the words crucial, emotional, and joys, Gioia convinces the reader that it is important to have literary skills and those who don’t are missing out. Using particular words allows Gioia to more easily persuade the audience to agree with his point of view). Although each of those sentences by itself is an assertion, taken together they extend into effective analysis. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use of language. The writer provides a brief but generally effective introduction that lays out a central claim (He uses persuasive techniques and provides the reader with credible facts backing up his claim). The two body paragraphs are loosely structured around Gioia’s word choice and knowledge of the subject (factual examples and different sources). Although the writer takes some time to clarify the controlling idea of the first body paragraph, the details and ideas in that paragraph all work toward supporting the claim that Gioia’s factual examples and sources all agree on the same thing: that there has been a decline in literature. The second body paragraph is more clearly focused and demonstrates a clear progression of ideas. The response also includes an effective conclusion that is evident despite not being separated from the body of the essay by a paragraph break (Gioia builds an arguement based on facts and a variety of sources that agree with his stance on literature. His word choice and knowledge of the subject both play a huge role when defending his claim). The response is free from significant errors that detract from the quality of writing. The minor problems in focus and structure early in the response are typical of even proficient first-draft writing and decrease as the writer progresses through the analysis of Gioia’s argument. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text. The writer accurately captures the central idea of Gioia’s passage (the decline of reading will have a negative impact on society). The writer also accurately paraphrases (In 2002, a study showed that reading literature has declined, especially in young adults) and directly quotes important details from the source text, demonstrating effective comprehension. In the first body paragraph, for example, the writer demonstrates an understanding of Gioia’s point that the negative consequences due to the decrease in literary skills affects both the business world and the civic sphere by providing direct quotations from the source text. The inclusion of relevant details and the appropriate use of textual evidence demonstrate a proficient understanding of Gioia’s text.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response offers an effective analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the analytical task. In the first body paragraph, the writer analyzes how Gioia uses facts to establish ethos in the passage (Gioia uses many factual examples of the negative consequences due to the decrease in literary skills. Providing the reader with many examples creates ethos). The writer then goes on to explain the importance of creating ethos: The author is a credible source of information which makes the passage believable and effective. In this extension of the idea, the writer conveys the effect on the audience of Gioia’s factual examples and use of sources. Although the writer later provides an unexplained assertion at the end of the paragraph (This is a good use of literary techniques because it backs up what Gioia is trying to prove to the audience), the response provides more effective analysis again in the next paragraph when the writer discusses the effects of Gioia’s word choice on his audience (By using the words crucial, emotional, and joys, Gioia convinces the reader that it is important to have literary skills and those who don’t are missing out. Using particular words allows Gioia to more easily persuade the audience to agree with his point of view). Although each of those sentences by itself is an assertion, taken together they extend into effective analysis. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 3

This response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use of language. The writer provides a brief but generally effective introduction that lays out a central claim (He uses persuasive techniques and provides the reader with credible facts backing up his claim). The two body paragraphs are loosely structured around Gioia’s word choice and knowledge of the subject (factual examples and different sources). Although the writer takes some time to clarify the controlling idea of the first body paragraph, the details and ideas in that paragraph all work toward supporting the claim that Gioia’s factual examples and sources all agree on the same thing: that there has been a decline in literature. The second body paragraph is more clearly focused and demonstrates a clear progression of ideas. The response also includes an effective conclusion that is evident despite not being separated from the body of the essay by a paragraph break (Gioia builds an arguement based on facts and a variety of sources that agree with his stance on literature. His word choice and knowledge of the subject both play a huge role when defending his claim). The response is free from significant errors that detract from the quality of writing. The minor problems in focus and structure early in the response are typical of even proficient first-draft writing and decrease as the writer progresses through the analysis of Gioia’s argument. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text in terms of both the central ideas and important details in Gioia’s piece. The writer accurately paraphrases the main idea of Gioia’s text (living in the high-tech 21st century has unfortunately deteriorated the percentage of Americans who read literature). The writer also includes important details from the text that illustrate an effective comprehension of the passage, such as when the writer summarizes the consequences of the decrease in reading on American society (the domino effect of illiteracy into other large aspects of American society such as electing leaders, and the business world). The response is free from errors of fact and interpretation, and the writer’s ability to paraphrase accurately the main ideas and supporting details of Gioia’s piece indicates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

The response offers an effective analysis of the source text, demonstrating a proficient understanding of the analytical task. In the second body paragraph, for example, the writer effectively analyzes Gioia’s use of what the writer calls fearful diction, coming to the conclusion that Upon reading the article, and mulling over how Gioia feels about America’s current reading levels, a reader is inclined to acknowledge that illiteracy is detrimental to American society and something that needs to be repaired. The writer is thus able to articulate the effect of Gioia’s diction on his audience, signaling an understanding of the analytical task. This effective analysis continues when the writer discusses Gioia’s use of eye-opening facts about the consequences of the decline in reading and when the writer suggests the potential effect of Gioia’s argument on his target audience via a hypothetical scenario (By appealing his argument to people who are in control of others...Gioia can put faith into the hope that his audience will make the problem he presented a solution. An example of this would be if a school board official were to read his article, and then...took the necessary actions). Although providing this scenario indicates strong analytical skill on the part of the writer, the discussion is elaborated only enough to demonstrate proficiency and does not demonstrate the thoroughness and insightfulness expected at the advanced level.

WRITING — 4

This response is cohesive and demonstrates highly effective use and command of language. The writer presents a generally skillful introduction, opening with a brief narrative about the pervasiveness of technology in twenty-first-century life before summarizing the passage and providing a thoughtful central claim: Gioia is able to sway his audience to devote more time to the simple task of reading works of intellectual value through fearful diction and compelling consequences associated with being illiterate. The writer uses precise, original word choice and phrases throughout the response (astounding capabilities; the domino effect; mulling over; instilling a sense of urgency; strengthened exponentially). The body paragraphs are each tightly focused and are deliberately structured to advance the writer’s analysis of Gioia’s use of diction, consequences, and audience. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone, contains clear transitions (also; lastly; ultimately) to guide the reader, and ends with a concise and precise summary conclusion (Ultimately, Gioia is able to relay a strong and persuasive argument regarding the decline of Americans reading and why it needs to be fixed through concerned word choice, compelling consequences, and masterfully writing to inspire a specific audience). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text in terms of both the central ideas and important details in Gioia’s piece. The writer accurately paraphrases the main idea of Gioia’s text (living in the high-tech 21st century has unfortunately deteriorated the percentage of Americans who read literature). The writer also includes important details from the text that illustrate an effective comprehension of the passage, such as when the writer summarizes the consequences of the decrease in reading on American society (the domino effect of illiteracy into other large aspects of American society such as electing leaders, and the business world). The response is free from errors of fact and interpretation, and the writer’s ability to paraphrase accurately the main ideas and supporting details of Gioia’s piece indicates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

The response offers an effective analysis of the source text, demonstrating a proficient understanding of the analytical task. In the second body paragraph, for example, the writer effectively analyzes Gioia’s use of what the writer calls fearful diction, coming to the conclusion that Upon reading the article, and mulling over how Gioia feels about America’s current reading levels, a reader is inclined to acknowledge that illiteracy is detrimental to American society and something that needs to be repaired. The writer is thus able to articulate the effect of Gioia’s diction on his audience, signaling an understanding of the analytical task. This effective analysis continues when the writer discusses Gioia’s use of eye-opening facts about the consequences of the decline in reading and when the writer suggests the potential effect of Gioia’s argument on his target audience via a hypothetical scenario (By appealing his argument to people who are in control of others...Gioia can put faith into the hope that his audience will make the problem he presented a solution. An example of this would be if a school board official were to read his article, and then...took the necessary actions). Although providing this scenario indicates strong analytical skill on the part of the writer, the discussion is elaborated only enough to demonstrate proficiency and does not demonstrate the thoroughness and insightfulness expected at the advanced level.

WRITING — 4

This response is cohesive and demonstrates highly effective use and command of language. The writer presents a generally skillful introduction, opening with a brief narrative about the pervasiveness of technology in twenty-first-century life before summarizing the passage and providing a thoughtful central claim: Gioia is able to sway his audience to devote more time to the simple task of reading works of intellectual value through fearful diction and compelling consequences associated with being illiterate. The writer uses precise, original word choice and phrases throughout the response (astounding capabilities; the domino effect; mulling over; instilling a sense of urgency; strengthened exponentially). The body paragraphs are each tightly focused and are deliberately structured to advance the writer’s analysis of Gioia’s use of diction, consequences, and audience. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone, contains clear transitions (also; lastly; ultimately) to guide the reader, and ends with a concise and precise summary conclusion (Ultimately, Gioia is able to relay a strong and persuasive argument regarding the decline of Americans reading and why it needs to be fixed through concerned word choice, compelling consequences, and masterfully writing to inspire a specific audience). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer briefly summarizes the main idea of Gioia’s passage (the author’s concern with literary knowledge declining) and includes an abundance of important details from the text through a mixture of appropriate quotations and paraphrases. Moreover, the writer exhibits an understanding of how details relate to Gioia’s main idea and how this interrelation creates meaning for the reader. For example, the writer points out how Gioia establishes that “the significance of reading has become a persistent them[e] in the new business world” by the author’s use of multiple quotes buy Wired Magazine. The writer then connects that information to a 2001 poll cited in the next paragraph of Gioia’s text (Gioia even puts in a worker’s perspective from the 2001 National Association of Manufacturers poll). The writer, then, shows understanding of how different details in Gioia’s text contribute to an understanding of the whole. The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The writer demonstrates a limited understanding of the analytical task and offers only a partial analysis of how Gioia builds his argument. The writer does identify some important rhetorical elements of Gioia’s text (evidence, reasoning, and diction) and attempts to describe how these elements function in the source text. However, these moments of analysis, all of which focus on Gioia’s use of diction, never move past assertions. For example, in the first body paragraph, the writer identifies Gioia’s use of distinct diction (Stating that [t]he findings in the study are not only “severe”, but also “worrisome”) and then asserts that Adjectives like this add more weight to his words. A pattern of assertion-based analysis continues throughout the response (These bold statements hammer in to the reader just how significant literature really is, in many different aspects of our life). Both of these examples illustrate some limited understanding of the analytical task. However, the writer never attempts to explain, for example, how or why these adjectives or statements persuade the reader or what effect Gioia’s diction has on his audience. For this reason, this response demonstrates only partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive essay. The introductory paragraph includes a precise central claim that lays out the rather complex structure of the response (Gioia uses evidence, reasoning, and diction to persuade us to agree with him on three points, that literary knowledge is declining, that literary knowledge is very important, and that consequences shall ensue if nothing is done about our apathy towards literature). The writer then constructs a tightly controlled response that demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas, both within paragraphs and throughout the response. For example, the second body paragraph (focused on Gioia’s claim that literary knowledge is declining) follows the three-pronged approach, set forth in the opening paragraph, of examining Gioia’s use of evidence, reasoning, and diction. Each paragraph stays on topic while covering each of the three rhetorical elements of Gioia’s argument. The writer uses precise word choice (particularly staggering; consequences shall ensue; an epidemic that is truly detrimental to the nation) and a wide variety of sophisticated sentence structures. This response demonstrates a strong command of standard written English and is virtually free of errors. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer briefly summarizes the main idea of Gioia’s passage (the author’s concern with literary knowledge declining) and includes an abundance of important details from the text through a mixture of appropriate quotations and paraphrases. Moreover, the writer exhibits an understanding of how details relate to Gioia’s main idea and how this interrelation creates meaning for the reader. For example, the writer points out how Gioia establishes that “the significance of reading has become a persistent them[e] in the new business world” by the author’s use of multiple quotes buy Wired Magazine. The writer then connects that information to a 2001 poll cited in the next paragraph of Gioia’s text (Gioia even puts in a worker’s perspective from the 2001 National Association of Manufacturers poll). The writer, then, shows understanding of how different details in Gioia’s text contribute to an understanding of the whole. The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The writer demonstrates a limited understanding of the analytical task and offers only a partial analysis of how Gioia builds his argument. The writer does identify some important rhetorical elements of Gioia’s text (evidence, reasoning, and diction) and attempts to describe how these elements function in the source text. However, these moments of analysis, all of which focus on Gioia’s use of diction, never move past assertions. For example, in the first body paragraph, the writer identifies Gioia’s use of distinct diction (Stating that [t]he findings in the study are not only “severe”, but also “worrisome”) and then asserts that Adjectives like this add more weight to his words. A pattern of assertion-based analysis continues throughout the response (These bold statements hammer in to the reader just how significant literature really is, in many different aspects of our life). Both of these examples illustrate some limited understanding of the analytical task. However, the writer never attempts to explain, for example, how or why these adjectives or statements persuade the reader or what effect Gioia’s diction has on his audience. For this reason, this response demonstrates only partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive essay. The introductory paragraph includes a precise central claim that lays out the rather complex structure of the response (Gioia uses evidence, reasoning, and diction to persuade us to agree with him on three points, that literary knowledge is declining, that literary knowledge is very important, and that consequences shall ensue if nothing is done about our apathy towards literature). The writer then constructs a tightly controlled response that demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas, both within paragraphs and throughout the response. For example, the second body paragraph (focused on Gioia’s claim that literary knowledge is declining) follows the three-pronged approach, set forth in the opening paragraph, of examining Gioia’s use of evidence, reasoning, and diction. Each paragraph stays on topic while covering each of the three rhetorical elements of Gioia’s argument. The writer uses precise word choice (particularly staggering; consequences shall ensue; an epidemic that is truly detrimental to the nation) and a wide variety of sophisticated sentence structures. This response demonstrates a strong command of standard written English and is virtually free of errors. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text and illustrates an understanding of the interrelation between the central idea and important details in Gioia’s piece. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea of Gioia’s text (the levels of interest young Americans have shown in art in recent years have declined and that this trend is a severe problem with broad consequences). The writer then exhibits an understanding of the details in Gioia’s text and how they work together to convey the main point (Gioia is able to build his point; He then immediately follows with; In paragraph 6, Gioia follows up on the point established in paragraph 5). The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

The response demonstrates good understanding of the analytical task by offering an effective analysis of the source text. The writer is able to move past simple identification of and assertions about the analytical elements in Gioia’s text to discuss how these elements contribute to Gioia’s argument. For example, the writer identifies the distinct contrast that Gioia establishes early in the passage between positive changes in American life and the fact that the interest young Americans show in art has declined. The writer then explains that Gioia uses this contrast to establish an emphasis on his primary point by highlighting it as a negative development. The writer then competently evaluates the effect of this element of Gioia’s text by explaining that This literary tool serves a strong purpose by acting as a vehicle to draw the audience into the principle issue addressed by the writing. This pattern of effective analysis continues throughout the remainder of the response and indicates proficient analytical skill. The writer clearly can delineate and evaluate the impact of Gioia’s argumentative moves, but this analysis lacks the thoroughness and completeness needed to receive a higher score. For example, there is no indication of how or why these moves are effective.

WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive response. The response includes a precise central claim (Strategies Gioia employs to support his argument include citation of compelling polls, reports made by prominent organizations that have issued studies, and a quotation from a prominent author). The skillful introduction establishes the framework for the writer’s organizational structure, which is followed throughout the response. Although the subsequent discussion is not laid out as explicitly as the simple three-pronged thesis suggests, each body paragraph remains on topic and demonstrates a deliberate progression of ideas, and the response as a whole remains focused and cohesive. The response contains many examples of sophisticated sentence structure, notable vocabulary, and precise word choice (This dual utilization of claims from two separate sources conveys to Gioia’s audience the sense that the skills built through immersion in the arts are vital to succeeding in the modern workplace which aids in logically leading his audience to the conclusion that a loss of experience with the arts may foreshadow troubling results). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing ability.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text and illustrates an understanding of the interrelation between the central idea and important details in Gioia’s piece. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea of Gioia’s text (the levels of interest young Americans have shown in art in recent years have declined and that this trend is a severe problem with broad consequences). The writer then exhibits an understanding of the details in Gioia’s text and how they work together to convey the main point (Gioia is able to build his point; He then immediately follows with; In paragraph 6, Gioia follows up on the point established in paragraph 5). The response is also free of errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

The response demonstrates good understanding of the analytical task by offering an effective analysis of the source text. The writer is able to move past simple identification of and assertions about the analytical elements in Gioia’s text to discuss how these elements contribute to Gioia’s argument. For example, the writer identifies the distinct contrast that Gioia establishes early in the passage between positive changes in American life and the fact that the interest young Americans show in art has declined. The writer then explains that Gioia uses this contrast to establish an emphasis on his primary point by highlighting it as a negative development. The writer then competently evaluates the effect of this element of Gioia’s text by explaining that This literary tool serves a strong purpose by acting as a vehicle to draw the audience into the principle issue addressed by the writing. This pattern of effective analysis continues throughout the remainder of the response and indicates proficient analytical skill. The writer clearly can delineate and evaluate the impact of Gioia’s argumentative moves, but this analysis lacks the thoroughness and completeness needed to receive a higher score. For example, there is no indication of how or why these moves are effective.

WRITING — 4

The writer demonstrates highly effective use and command of language in this cohesive response. The response includes a precise central claim (Strategies Gioia employs to support his argument include citation of compelling polls, reports made by prominent organizations that have issued studies, and a quotation from a prominent author). The skillful introduction establishes the framework for the writer’s organizational structure, which is followed throughout the response. Although the subsequent discussion is not laid out as explicitly as the simple three-pronged thesis suggests, each body paragraph remains on topic and demonstrates a deliberate progression of ideas, and the response as a whole remains focused and cohesive. The response contains many examples of sophisticated sentence structure, notable vocabulary, and precise word choice (This dual utilization of claims from two separate sources conveys to Gioia’s audience the sense that the skills built through immersion in the arts are vital to succeeding in the modern workplace which aids in logically leading his audience to the conclusion that a loss of experience with the arts may foreshadow troubling results). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing ability.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 1

This response demonstrates little comprehension of the source text. Although the writer includes Summers’s central claim that plastic bags should not be banned from the grocery stores, there are no other textual ideas provided to demonstrate understanding of the argument. Instead, there are the writer’s own ideas about the merits of plastic bags, that they are useful do to the fact that it carries a lot more items than paper bags and that it can support the weight of the items. Without having provided any additional textual details beyond the single idea that Summers believes plastic bags should not be banned, the writer has demonstrated inadequate comprehension of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

The response offers little analysis of the source text, demonstrating ineffective understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer identifies that the article gave out facts and details, the writer doesn’t include examples of facts or details or explain why any particular facts or details would have been persuasive to readers. Thus, the response provides no discernible analysis beyond the mention of facts and details and shows inadequate skill in this dimension.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and inadequate skill in the use of language. The writer’s thesis is borrowed directly from the text of the prompt itself (Summers built an argument to persuade his audience. Because his article gave out facts and details), and the ideas that follow do not connect to that thesis, as the second paragraph merely contains the writer’s own thoughts. There is little evidence that ideas connect logically — sentences end abruptly, and ideas are divided between sentence fragments (This article proves that Summers built an argument to persuade his audience. Because his article gave out facts and details). Ideas are also expressed vaguely (The first reason is that the article explain as to why it would affect us) and problems with subject-verb agreement are prevalent (why plastic bag should not be banned; Plastic bags are useful do to the fact that it carries). Because of these issues, the writing is inadequate.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 1

This response demonstrates little comprehension of the source text. Although the writer includes Summers’s central claim that plastic bags should not be banned from the grocery stores, there are no other textual ideas provided to demonstrate understanding of the argument. Instead, there are the writer’s own ideas about the merits of plastic bags, that they are useful do to the fact that it carries a lot more items than paper bags and that it can support the weight of the items. Without having provided any additional textual details beyond the single idea that Summers believes plastic bags should not be banned, the writer has demonstrated inadequate comprehension of the source text.

ANALYSIS — 1

The response offers little analysis of the source text, demonstrating ineffective understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer identifies that the article gave out facts and details, the writer doesn’t include examples of facts or details or explain why any particular facts or details would have been persuasive to readers. Thus, the response provides no discernible analysis beyond the mention of facts and details and shows inadequate skill in this dimension.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and inadequate skill in the use of language. The writer’s thesis is borrowed directly from the text of the prompt itself (Summers built an argument to persuade his audience. Because his article gave out facts and details), and the ideas that follow do not connect to that thesis, as the second paragraph merely contains the writer’s own thoughts. There is little evidence that ideas connect logically — sentences end abruptly, and ideas are divided between sentence fragments (This article proves that Summers built an argument to persuade his audience. Because his article gave out facts and details). Ideas are also expressed vaguely (The first reason is that the article explain as to why it would affect us) and problems with subject-verb agreement are prevalent (why plastic bag should not be banned; Plastic bags are useful do to the fact that it carries). Because of these issues, the writing is inadequate.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 2

This response demonstrates some comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer indicates an understanding of the main idea of Summers’s argument (Summers argues what the damages of a proposed plastic bag ban would do if the legislation gets passed). The writer also selects some important details from the source text (plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all solid waste; many jobs may be potentially lost due to the bill). However, the writer does not expand on the significance of these details in relation to the main ideas of Summers’s text. The response makes limited and haphazard use of textual evidence with little or no interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

This response demonstrates little understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer identifies some argumentative elements in Summers’s text (his use of fact/examples, reasoning to devolope ideas, and persuasive word choice), the writer does not explain how these elements build Summers’s argument. Instead, the writer only identifies these aspects of the source text and names an example of each, with no further analysis (He uses examples/facts, such as plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all solid waste). There are two moments in which the writer ineffectively attempts to analyze Summers’s use of word choice and reasoning (His excellent word choice that appeals to your mind and He uses reasoning that makes sense to a reader). However, there is not enough textual evidence given to support these claims. For example, the writer does not analyze Summers’s use of specific words and instead falls back into summary of the passage. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and limited skill in the use of language. The response is only one brief paragraph and lacks a recognizable introduction and conclusion. Although there is a central claim, taken directly from the prompt (Summers presents his argument well, and his use of fact/examples, reasoning to devolope ideas, and persuasive word choice build his argument), there is no discernible progression of ideas in the response. Sentences tend to run on and demonstrate grammar errors (His excellent word choice that appeals to your mind such as him saying the politician hopes to bring up the bill again to essentially “recycle rather than trash it.”) Furthermore, sentence structures are repetitive. Because of the brief nature of the response, there is not enough evidence of writing ability to merit a score higher than 1. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 2

This response demonstrates some comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer indicates an understanding of the main idea of Summers’s argument (Summers argues what the damages of a proposed plastic bag ban would do if the legislation gets passed). The writer also selects some important details from the source text (plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all solid waste; many jobs may be potentially lost due to the bill). However, the writer does not expand on the significance of these details in relation to the main ideas of Summers’s text. The response makes limited and haphazard use of textual evidence with little or no interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

This response demonstrates little understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer identifies some argumentative elements in Summers’s text (his use of fact/examples, reasoning to devolope ideas, and persuasive word choice), the writer does not explain how these elements build Summers’s argument. Instead, the writer only identifies these aspects of the source text and names an example of each, with no further analysis (He uses examples/facts, such as plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all solid waste). There are two moments in which the writer ineffectively attempts to analyze Summers’s use of word choice and reasoning (His excellent word choice that appeals to your mind and He uses reasoning that makes sense to a reader). However, there is not enough textual evidence given to support these claims. For example, the writer does not analyze Summers’s use of specific words and instead falls back into summary of the passage. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 1

This response demonstrates little cohesion and limited skill in the use of language. The response is only one brief paragraph and lacks a recognizable introduction and conclusion. Although there is a central claim, taken directly from the prompt (Summers presents his argument well, and his use of fact/examples, reasoning to devolope ideas, and persuasive word choice build his argument), there is no discernible progression of ideas in the response. Sentences tend to run on and demonstrate grammar errors (His excellent word choice that appeals to your mind such as him saying the politician hopes to bring up the bill again to essentially “recycle rather than trash it.”) Furthermore, sentence structures are repetitive. Because of the brief nature of the response, there is not enough evidence of writing ability to merit a score higher than 1. Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 2

This response demonstrates partial understanding of the source text by recognizing Summers’s main argument that plastic shopping bags should not be banned and then by including a few additional details from the source text. The writer cites the fact that tax payers would have to pay money to actually get new bags to be put in every store and that about 2,000 of people would lose their jobs if they take away took away plastic bags. The writer has thus demonstrated understanding of a couple of the points Summers made, but without more textual details or the writer’s own summary of the passage, the response is limited in its demonstration of reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The response provides a little analysis, demonstrating partial understanding of the analytical task. The writer identifies Summers’s use of evidence, getting his audience attention, and by being confident about what he going against, but the writer only addresses finding good evidence in the remaining text. In this discussion, the writer first makes vague claims about the use of evidence in the source text (Summers did a good job of finding good evidence to support what he didn’t want to see happen. In the article every paragraph had some type of evidence whether he agreed with it or disagreed with it.) The writer then goes on to identify that Summers brought up good points like the fact that tax payers would have to pay money to...get new bags...in every store and then asserts that Bringing this up will get tax payers on his side. I don’t think the tax payers would like that because seeing that they have to pay for new bags in stores when stores already have bags, they rather pay for something [else]. Here, the writer has gone beyond merely identifying the presence of analytical features to making a claim about the effect this will have on the audience, creating partial analysis. Without having expanded on this or other ideas about the use of persuasive features, however, analysis remains limited.

WRITING — 2

The response demonstrates limited cohesion and little skill in the use and control of language. Although the writer provides a brief introduction that cites Summers’s main argument and includes the writer’s thesis, the response does not live up to the promise of the thesis. The writer has one additional paragraph after the introduction, which covers good evidence and demonstrates that the writer can connect and sequence some sentences, but without more text, the writer isn’t able to demonstrate cohesion across multiple paragraphs or to address additional elements raised in the thesis. The response also shows weak control of the conventions of standard written English (getting his audience attention; by being confident about what he going against. Why else would someone else get audience?) and loses control in the one attempt at long sentence structure: I don’t think the tax payers would like that because seeing that they have to pay for new bags in stores when stores already have bags, they rather pay for something they that will actually invest like for their kids school instead of something thats going to be wasted anyway. Overall, the response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 2

This response demonstrates partial understanding of the source text by recognizing Summers’s main argument that plastic shopping bags should not be banned and then by including a few additional details from the source text. The writer cites the fact that tax payers would have to pay money to actually get new bags to be put in every store and that about 2,000 of people would lose their jobs if they take away took away plastic bags. The writer has thus demonstrated understanding of a couple of the points Summers made, but without more textual details or the writer’s own summary of the passage, the response is limited in its demonstration of reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

The response provides a little analysis, demonstrating partial understanding of the analytical task. The writer identifies Summers’s use of evidence, getting his audience attention, and by being confident about what he going against, but the writer only addresses finding good evidence in the remaining text. In this discussion, the writer first makes vague claims about the use of evidence in the source text (Summers did a good job of finding good evidence to support what he didn’t want to see happen. In the article every paragraph had some type of evidence whether he agreed with it or disagreed with it.) The writer then goes on to identify that Summers brought up good points like the fact that tax payers would have to pay money to...get new bags...in every store and then asserts that Bringing this up will get tax payers on his side. I don’t think the tax payers would like that because seeing that they have to pay for new bags in stores when stores already have bags, they rather pay for something [else]. Here, the writer has gone beyond merely identifying the presence of analytical features to making a claim about the effect this will have on the audience, creating partial analysis. Without having expanded on this or other ideas about the use of persuasive features, however, analysis remains limited.

WRITING — 2

The response demonstrates limited cohesion and little skill in the use and control of language. Although the writer provides a brief introduction that cites Summers’s main argument and includes the writer’s thesis, the response does not live up to the promise of the thesis. The writer has one additional paragraph after the introduction, which covers good evidence and demonstrates that the writer can connect and sequence some sentences, but without more text, the writer isn’t able to demonstrate cohesion across multiple paragraphs or to address additional elements raised in the thesis. The response also shows weak control of the conventions of standard written English (getting his audience attention; by being confident about what he going against. Why else would someone else get audience?) and loses control in the one attempt at long sentence structure: I don’t think the tax payers would like that because seeing that they have to pay for new bags in stores when stores already have bags, they rather pay for something they that will actually invest like for their kids school instead of something thats going to be wasted anyway. Overall, the response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer provides appropriate textual evidence (in this case, paraphrases) to articulate both the central idea (plastic shoping bags should not be banned) and important details from the passage (all plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all waste, and plastic shoping bags only contribute 0.3 percent to all the waste; Plastic bags produce fewer greenhouse gasses, 80 percent less waste and less water to make them over paper or cotton reusable bags). The writer also demonstrates a proficient understanding of the entirety of Summers’s text by incorporating details from various points throughout Summers’s argument (Plastic bags are also called “single use” bags, but that is not true because people re-use them for garabge bags; eliminating plastic bags would also cause the people who make them and dispose them lose their jobs too). The response, which is essentially summary, is free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

This response demonstrates no understanding of the analytical task, as it is exclusively summary and offers no discernable analysis of Summers’s text. The writer fails to identify aspects of evidence, reasoning, or stylistic and persuasive elements that Summers uses to build his argument and instead only provides a general statement on the quality of the passage (Adam B. Summers brings up several good points as to why plastic shoping bags should not be banned). Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates limited cohesion and writing skill. The response includes an ineffective introduction and conclusion based on the brief, general central claim that opens the response (Adam B. Summers brings up several good points as to why plastic shoping bags should not be banned) and the concluding sentence of the response (Enviornmentalist can try to convince people paper is better than plastic but people should also look at it from the other prespective, and choose, “Paper or Plastic?”). There is no real organization of ideas within paragraphs, and there are no transitions between the two paragraphs that indicate how the ideas in one relate to the other. Although there is some limited progression of ideas over the course of the response, there is little progression of ideas within paragraphs. There are numerous errors that detract from the quality of writing, and the response at times exhibits limited control of language and vague word choice (By cutting of plastic shoping bags people would by more garabge bags wich are plastic so it would defeat the purpose). Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer provides appropriate textual evidence (in this case, paraphrases) to articulate both the central idea (plastic shoping bags should not be banned) and important details from the passage (all plastic bags only make up 1.6 percent of all waste, and plastic shoping bags only contribute 0.3 percent to all the waste; Plastic bags produce fewer greenhouse gasses, 80 percent less waste and less water to make them over paper or cotton reusable bags). The writer also demonstrates a proficient understanding of the entirety of Summers’s text by incorporating details from various points throughout Summers’s argument (Plastic bags are also called “single use” bags, but that is not true because people re-use them for garabge bags; eliminating plastic bags would also cause the people who make them and dispose them lose their jobs too). The response, which is essentially summary, is free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 1

This response demonstrates no understanding of the analytical task, as it is exclusively summary and offers no discernable analysis of Summers’s text. The writer fails to identify aspects of evidence, reasoning, or stylistic and persuasive elements that Summers uses to build his argument and instead only provides a general statement on the quality of the passage (Adam B. Summers brings up several good points as to why plastic shoping bags should not be banned). Overall, this response demonstrates inadequate analysis.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates limited cohesion and writing skill. The response includes an ineffective introduction and conclusion based on the brief, general central claim that opens the response (Adam B. Summers brings up several good points as to why plastic shoping bags should not be banned) and the concluding sentence of the response (Enviornmentalist can try to convince people paper is better than plastic but people should also look at it from the other prespective, and choose, “Paper or Plastic?”). There is no real organization of ideas within paragraphs, and there are no transitions between the two paragraphs that indicate how the ideas in one relate to the other. Although there is some limited progression of ideas over the course of the response, there is little progression of ideas within paragraphs. There are numerous errors that detract from the quality of writing, and the response at times exhibits limited control of language and vague word choice (By cutting of plastic shoping bags people would by more garabge bags wich are plastic so it would defeat the purpose). Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea (plastic bags should not be banned) and important details from the passage—for instance, the environmental impacts of plastic vs. reusable bags (Knowing that making a plastic bag takes up to 70% less energy and can also help our earth because it doesn’t produce green house gases) and the impact of the bag ban on jobs (Summers states that the banning of plastic bags will cost the jobs of 2000 people). The writer summarizes all the major points in Summers’s argument with no substantive errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

This response offers a limited analysis of Summers’s text, indicating only partial understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer attempts to explain how Summers’s use of evidence builds his argument, the writer only asserts the importance of this evidence and its effect on the audience. For example, the fact that plastic bags take 70 percent less energy to make persuades the earth lovers...to side with the no bag ban because it’s not as harmful as the reusible bags. The writer then asserts that this evidence helps build Summers’s argument but does not explain how or why. This pattern of assertion without a follow-up discussion or explanation continues in the subsequent paragraph about the health consequences of reusable bags (when Summers put in the facts that people die from food born illnesses it catches the doctors and people who care about the well being of others...[and] persuades them to not only use the plastic bags but to use cation when using reusible bags). This happens again in the paragraph about job cuts (to the companies and workers this is a valid argument if they want to keep their jobs). Overall, the response demonstrates partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates limited cohesion and writing skill. The response does contain a central claim (Summers gives valid reasons why plastic bags should not be banned). It also contains an introduction and conclusion; however, they are mostly ineffective due to imprecise word choice (Summers provides multiple ways to persuade some one and any one with different beliefs. This build many persusive arguments and cause and effects fact based conclusions). Although each body paragraph is loosely centered on one of three aspects of Summers’s argument (ecological, health, and unemployment consequences of the plastic bag ban), there is limited variety in sentence structures and vague word choice throughout the response (Summers gives examples on how banning plastic bags can lead to worse human damage; when Adam Summers states this it focuses on the renew and reusers where can use plastic bags in the home and daily life. Also being a cheaper alternative). Language and writing errors, such as syntactically awkward sentences, run-on sentences, and sentence fragments, detract from the quality of writing and impede understanding. Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of Summers’s text. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea (plastic bags should not be banned) and important details from the passage—for instance, the environmental impacts of plastic vs. reusable bags (Knowing that making a plastic bag takes up to 70% less energy and can also help our earth because it doesn’t produce green house gases) and the impact of the bag ban on jobs (Summers states that the banning of plastic bags will cost the jobs of 2000 people). The writer summarizes all the major points in Summers’s argument with no substantive errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 2

This response offers a limited analysis of Summers’s text, indicating only partial understanding of the analytical task. Although the writer attempts to explain how Summers’s use of evidence builds his argument, the writer only asserts the importance of this evidence and its effect on the audience. For example, the fact that plastic bags take 70 percent less energy to make persuades the earth lovers...to side with the no bag ban because it’s not as harmful as the reusible bags. The writer then asserts that this evidence helps build Summers’s argument but does not explain how or why. This pattern of assertion without a follow-up discussion or explanation continues in the subsequent paragraph about the health consequences of reusable bags (when Summers put in the facts that people die from food born illnesses it catches the doctors and people who care about the well being of others...[and] persuades them to not only use the plastic bags but to use cation when using reusible bags). This happens again in the paragraph about job cuts (to the companies and workers this is a valid argument if they want to keep their jobs). Overall, the response demonstrates partially successful analysis.

WRITING — 2

This response demonstrates limited cohesion and writing skill. The response does contain a central claim (Summers gives valid reasons why plastic bags should not be banned). It also contains an introduction and conclusion; however, they are mostly ineffective due to imprecise word choice (Summers provides multiple ways to persuade some one and any one with different beliefs. This build many persusive arguments and cause and effects fact based conclusions). Although each body paragraph is loosely centered on one of three aspects of Summers’s argument (ecological, health, and unemployment consequences of the plastic bag ban), there is limited variety in sentence structures and vague word choice throughout the response (Summers gives examples on how banning plastic bags can lead to worse human damage; when Adam Summers states this it focuses on the renew and reusers where can use plastic bags in the home and daily life. Also being a cheaper alternative). Language and writing errors, such as syntactically awkward sentences, run-on sentences, and sentence fragments, detract from the quality of writing and impede understanding. Overall, this response demonstrates partially successful writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text by exhibiting proficient understanding of both the central idea and important details in Summers’s text. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea of the passage (Summers successfully persuades his audience into believing “Paper or Plastic” is a personal right). The writer also both paraphrases and directly quotes important details from the source text (Summers plays with the phrases “weather the storm” and “pony up” to represent the possibilities to come if a bill banning plastic bags is passed; Summers touches upon how plastic bag waste makes up only 0.3 percent out of the 1.6 percent of all munciple solid waste products). Although the response is incomplete, as it ends midsentence, there are enough details provided from the source text to indicate that the writer adequately understands the entirety of Summers’s argument. The response is also free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response offers an effective analysis of Summers’s argument and demonstrates proficient understanding of the analytical task. The writer identifies three persuasive elements—factual evidence, word choice, and emotion—and competently evaluates how these aspects of Summers’s text contribute to building his argument. Moreover, the writer explains, with sufficient support, what effects these persuasive elements have on Summers’s audience. One example of this type of analysis occurs at the beginning of the paragraph analyzing Summers’s use of word choice. The writer first claims that The word choice Summers uses helps lure his readers into his argument. Then, after providing examples of this luring word choice, the writer argues that The usage of words makes the reader feel as if he is in the actual voting process of the bill, taking the rocky road in state government only to get voted down. The writer then continues this analysis by saying that Summers makes the audience feel involved which intrigues the reader further. All of these work to explain the effects of how luring the audience with particular word choice functions in the response. Although this analysis is effective, the response lacks the thoroughness and insight seen in responses scoring higher in this dimension. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 3

The response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use and control of language. The introduction is brief but effectively provides a clear central claim (Adam B. Summers in the essay “Bag ban bad for freedom and environment” uses factual evidence, word choice, and emotion to build his argument). The rest of the response is organized according to this three-pronged structure, with each body paragraph remaining on topic. A clear progression of ideas is demonstrated both within paragraphs and throughout the response. The writer integrates quotations and examples from the source text to connect ideas and paragraphs logically. There is a variety of sentence structures (He writes “I love sea turtles as much as the next guy” to show that he is human too and cares about nature. The claim would touch many readers who are in the same position as Summers; they love nature but think the banning of plastic bags is unreasonable). There are also some examples of precise word choice (helps lure his readers into his argument; taking the rocky road in state government only to get voted down; makes the audience feel involved which intrigues the reader further). Although the response has no conclusion, this does not preclude the response from demonstrating proficient writing overall.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text by exhibiting proficient understanding of both the central idea and important details in Summers’s text. The writer accurately paraphrases the central idea of the passage (Summers successfully persuades his audience into believing “Paper or Plastic” is a personal right). The writer also both paraphrases and directly quotes important details from the source text (Summers plays with the phrases “weather the storm” and “pony up” to represent the possibilities to come if a bill banning plastic bags is passed; Summers touches upon how plastic bag waste makes up only 0.3 percent out of the 1.6 percent of all munciple solid waste products). Although the response is incomplete, as it ends midsentence, there are enough details provided from the source text to indicate that the writer adequately understands the entirety of Summers’s argument. The response is also free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response offers an effective analysis of Summers’s argument and demonstrates proficient understanding of the analytical task. The writer identifies three persuasive elements—factual evidence, word choice, and emotion—and competently evaluates how these aspects of Summers’s text contribute to building his argument. Moreover, the writer explains, with sufficient support, what effects these persuasive elements have on Summers’s audience. One example of this type of analysis occurs at the beginning of the paragraph analyzing Summers’s use of word choice. The writer first claims that The word choice Summers uses helps lure his readers into his argument. Then, after providing examples of this luring word choice, the writer argues that The usage of words makes the reader feel as if he is in the actual voting process of the bill, taking the rocky road in state government only to get voted down. The writer then continues this analysis by saying that Summers makes the audience feel involved which intrigues the reader further. All of these work to explain the effects of how luring the audience with particular word choice functions in the response. Although this analysis is effective, the response lacks the thoroughness and insight seen in responses scoring higher in this dimension. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 3

The response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use and control of language. The introduction is brief but effectively provides a clear central claim (Adam B. Summers in the essay “Bag ban bad for freedom and environment” uses factual evidence, word choice, and emotion to build his argument). The rest of the response is organized according to this three-pronged structure, with each body paragraph remaining on topic. A clear progression of ideas is demonstrated both within paragraphs and throughout the response. The writer integrates quotations and examples from the source text to connect ideas and paragraphs logically. There is a variety of sentence structures (He writes “I love sea turtles as much as the next guy” to show that he is human too and cares about nature. The claim would touch many readers who are in the same position as Summers; they love nature but think the banning of plastic bags is unreasonable). There are also some examples of precise word choice (helps lure his readers into his argument; taking the rocky road in state government only to get voted down; makes the audience feel involved which intrigues the reader further). Although the response has no conclusion, this does not preclude the response from demonstrating proficient writing overall.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text, with the writer showing an understanding of both the central idea (the plastic bag ban would be harmful for consumers and the environment) and important details of the passage (the most common plastic grocery bags, which “make up just 0.3 percent” of solid municipal waste; government regulation of “what kind of container we can use to carry our groceries”). Throughout the response, the writer conveys an understanding of the source text with appropriate use of both quotations and paraphrases. There are also no errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task by offering an effective analysis of the source text. The writer centers the analysis on how Summers conveys his argument through citing statistics, appealing to the audience’s emotions and sense of self-interests, and utilizing sarcastic diction. In each of these areas, the writer competently discusses the effect of Summers’s argumentative strategies. For example, in the first body paragraph, the writer cites some of the statistical evidence in the source text and points out that These statistics appeal to the reader’s logic and ensure that they can follow a logical path to support the author and oppose the ban. Further, the writer states that the statistics cannot be easily argued against. Effective analysis continues in the second body paragraph, in which the writer evaluates Summers’s patriotic asides and the fact that they cause the reader to feel violated by the government and want to look out for his rights. These examples illustrate the writer’s consistent focus on analyzing the effect of various argumentative strategies on the audience, and the writer chooses relevant support for the analysis. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates a highly effective use of language in this cohesive essay. The body paragraphs closely follow the central claim (Adam Summers asserts that the plastic bag ban would be harmful...through citing statistics, appealing to the audience’s emotions and sense of self-interests, and utilizing sarcastic diction) presented in the introduction. There are some slight organizational missteps that lead to a somewhat clumsy progression of ideas. For example, the last sentence of the introductory paragraph, although informative, does not enhance the introduction in any way or provide a smooth segue into the following paragraphs. However, these slight organizational issues are counteracted by a consistent variety of sentence structures and precise word choice (wake of environmental concerns; enhanced by the numbers; patriotic asides; rights the government has impeded; take measures to oppose the bill). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 3

This response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text, with the writer showing an understanding of both the central idea (the plastic bag ban would be harmful for consumers and the environment) and important details of the passage (the most common plastic grocery bags, which “make up just 0.3 percent” of solid municipal waste; government regulation of “what kind of container we can use to carry our groceries”). Throughout the response, the writer conveys an understanding of the source text with appropriate use of both quotations and paraphrases. There are also no errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 3

This response demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task by offering an effective analysis of the source text. The writer centers the analysis on how Summers conveys his argument through citing statistics, appealing to the audience’s emotions and sense of self-interests, and utilizing sarcastic diction. In each of these areas, the writer competently discusses the effect of Summers’s argumentative strategies. For example, in the first body paragraph, the writer cites some of the statistical evidence in the source text and points out that These statistics appeal to the reader’s logic and ensure that they can follow a logical path to support the author and oppose the ban. Further, the writer states that the statistics cannot be easily argued against. Effective analysis continues in the second body paragraph, in which the writer evaluates Summers’s patriotic asides and the fact that they cause the reader to feel violated by the government and want to look out for his rights. These examples illustrate the writer’s consistent focus on analyzing the effect of various argumentative strategies on the audience, and the writer chooses relevant support for the analysis. Overall, this response demonstrates proficient analysis.

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates a highly effective use of language in this cohesive essay. The body paragraphs closely follow the central claim (Adam Summers asserts that the plastic bag ban would be harmful...through citing statistics, appealing to the audience’s emotions and sense of self-interests, and utilizing sarcastic diction) presented in the introduction. There are some slight organizational missteps that lead to a somewhat clumsy progression of ideas. For example, the last sentence of the introductory paragraph, although informative, does not enhance the introduction in any way or provide a smooth segue into the following paragraphs. However, these slight organizational issues are counteracted by a consistent variety of sentence structures and precise word choice (wake of environmental concerns; enhanced by the numbers; patriotic asides; rights the government has impeded; take measures to oppose the bill). Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer provides a brief summary of Summers’s main point in the introductory paragraph (he argues against the possible laws hindering Californians from using plastic bags at grocery stores) and throughout the response uses a mixture of direct quotations and paraphrases to show an understanding of how the central idea and important details from the source text interrelate (He talks about the price increase in Ireland, and the documented health hazards of reusable bags; the existence of legislations [with] intent to stir up a repeat bill). Further, the writer demonstrates an understanding of how the central idea and key details interrelate by consistently relating details to the main argument of the source text. The response is also free from errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task by offering an insightful analysis of Summers’s employment of tactical reasoning and persuasive devices to plead with the audience to take his side. The writer puts forth a thorough evaluation of Summers’s use of evidence, reasoning, and stylistic and persuasive elements by continually analyzing even the smallest features of Summers’s piece. For example, when citing a fact that Summers provides the information that “Plastic bags...make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials,” the writer focuses on The truth in the numbers as well as Summers’s deliberate choice to share the fact’s source and the effect doing so has on Summers’s argument. The writer continues the analysis by broadening the focus to a brief but sophisticated discussion of knowledge as power and the persuasive approach of handing that power to the reader. This type of well-considered evaluation continues throughout the response, during which the writer touches on Summers’s appeals to the ethical and emotional side of individuals and Summers’s use of diction to create something out of the ordinary. The response is focused on relevant and strategically chosen features of the source text in support of the writer’s analysis. Overall, this essay demonstrates advanced analysis

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates highly effective command of language and cohesion. The response is organized around the writer’s claim that readers will likely find themselves nodding in agreement with what Summers has to say, and this isn’t just because he’s right but also because of his use of tactical reasoning and persuasive devices. The response is tightly organized and demonstrates a deliberate progression of ideas, with the writer seamlessly transitioning from point to point. Sentence structures are varied and often sophisticated (While one might view this as selfish, Summers reassures the reader that they are not alone in feeling this way, further contributing to his argument). Word choice is precise without tonal missteps (tactical reasoning; his ingenius qualification only adds to the strength of his argument; disparaging tone of annoyance and anger). The response also shows a strong command of the conventions of standard written English and is virtually free of errors. Minor syntax errors (Summers adds acceptance to those who don’t care to act; and it isn’t for no reason) do not detract from the quality of the writing. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer provides a brief summary of Summers’s main point in the introductory paragraph (he argues against the possible laws hindering Californians from using plastic bags at grocery stores) and throughout the response uses a mixture of direct quotations and paraphrases to show an understanding of how the central idea and important details from the source text interrelate (He talks about the price increase in Ireland, and the documented health hazards of reusable bags; the existence of legislations [with] intent to stir up a repeat bill). Further, the writer demonstrates an understanding of how the central idea and key details interrelate by consistently relating details to the main argument of the source text. The response is also free from errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task by offering an insightful analysis of Summers’s employment of tactical reasoning and persuasive devices to plead with the audience to take his side. The writer puts forth a thorough evaluation of Summers’s use of evidence, reasoning, and stylistic and persuasive elements by continually analyzing even the smallest features of Summers’s piece. For example, when citing a fact that Summers provides the information that “Plastic bags...make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials,” the writer focuses on The truth in the numbers as well as Summers’s deliberate choice to share the fact’s source and the effect doing so has on Summers’s argument. The writer continues the analysis by broadening the focus to a brief but sophisticated discussion of knowledge as power and the persuasive approach of handing that power to the reader. This type of well-considered evaluation continues throughout the response, during which the writer touches on Summers’s appeals to the ethical and emotional side of individuals and Summers’s use of diction to create something out of the ordinary. The response is focused on relevant and strategically chosen features of the source text in support of the writer’s analysis. Overall, this essay demonstrates advanced analysis

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates highly effective command of language and cohesion. The response is organized around the writer’s claim that readers will likely find themselves nodding in agreement with what Summers has to say, and this isn’t just because he’s right but also because of his use of tactical reasoning and persuasive devices. The response is tightly organized and demonstrates a deliberate progression of ideas, with the writer seamlessly transitioning from point to point. Sentence structures are varied and often sophisticated (While one might view this as selfish, Summers reassures the reader that they are not alone in feeling this way, further contributing to his argument). Word choice is precise without tonal missteps (tactical reasoning; his ingenius qualification only adds to the strength of his argument; disparaging tone of annoyance and anger). The response also shows a strong command of the conventions of standard written English and is virtually free of errors. Minor syntax errors (Summers adds acceptance to those who don’t care to act; and it isn’t for no reason) do not detract from the quality of the writing. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing skill.

# data[].field_overview.value
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer shows an understanding of Summers’s highly plausible argument and the important specifics that add detail to one of Summers’s central claims: that plastic bags really are the correct choice. The writer accurately paraphrases ideas from Summers’s text throughout the essay (These “other purposes” can be for lining trash bins, picking up after your dog on a walk, collecting kitty litter, and many more things we use plastic bags for), and the writer skillfully incorporates direct quotations within the response (people are misled about all of the waste that plastic bags cause when Summers writes, “... plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds”). The writer also understands how the details in Summers’s text interrelate to convey the main point of the piece (valid claims that are backed up with crucial evidence; Summers uses his words and research to reason with the reader; These past two claims are connected well because they both draw the reader back to the idea; Summers has...credible evince, but his use of persuasion [is] what capture[s] the reader). The response is free from errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task by offering an insightful analysis of the source text. Rather than relying on assertions as analysis, the writer thoroughly evaluates how Summers uses words and research to reason with the reader, how Evidence is a key component, and how Persuasive elements...make this passage successful. The writer is able to fully discuss each of these aspects of Summers’s piece, using relevant examples from the source text as support for the writer’s analysis. For example, the writer uses Summers’s claim that “The plastic bag ban would threaten the roughly 2,000 California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry” to discuss the guilt the writer perceives the reader feels in reaction to this claim. The writer also explains how Summers uses this claim in conjunction with discussion of alternate uses for plastic bags to stress the economic benefits of using plastic bags. The writer consistently focuses on the features of Summers’s text that are most relevant and offers well-considered evaluations throughout the response. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced analysis.

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates highly effective command of language and cohesion. Beginning with the skillful introduction, the writer constructs a response that demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas, starting with an examination of Summers’s claims and evidence and ending with emphasis on the use of persuasive elements. This skillful control over organization occurs at the body paragraph level as well, as the writer connects pieces of evidence from different parts of the source text within each paragraph. The writer’s word choice is precise (a highly plausible argument, a key component, The inclusion of this agency), and sentence structures are varied and sophisticated. This response demonstrates a strong command of written English and is virtually free of errors. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
READING — 4

This response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text. The writer shows an understanding of Summers’s highly plausible argument and the important specifics that add detail to one of Summers’s central claims: that plastic bags really are the correct choice. The writer accurately paraphrases ideas from Summers’s text throughout the essay (These “other purposes” can be for lining trash bins, picking up after your dog on a walk, collecting kitty litter, and many more things we use plastic bags for), and the writer skillfully incorporates direct quotations within the response (people are misled about all of the waste that plastic bags cause when Summers writes, “... plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds”). The writer also understands how the details in Summers’s text interrelate to convey the main point of the piece (valid claims that are backed up with crucial evidence; Summers uses his words and research to reason with the reader; These past two claims are connected well because they both draw the reader back to the idea; Summers has...credible evince, but his use of persuasion [is] what capture[s] the reader). The response is free from errors of fact or interpretation. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced reading comprehension.

ANALYSIS — 4

This response demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task by offering an insightful analysis of the source text. Rather than relying on assertions as analysis, the writer thoroughly evaluates how Summers uses words and research to reason with the reader, how Evidence is a key component, and how Persuasive elements...make this passage successful. The writer is able to fully discuss each of these aspects of Summers’s piece, using relevant examples from the source text as support for the writer’s analysis. For example, the writer uses Summers’s claim that “The plastic bag ban would threaten the roughly 2,000 California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry” to discuss the guilt the writer perceives the reader feels in reaction to this claim. The writer also explains how Summers uses this claim in conjunction with discussion of alternate uses for plastic bags to stress the economic benefits of using plastic bags. The writer consistently focuses on the features of Summers’s text that are most relevant and offers well-considered evaluations throughout the response. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced analysis.

WRITING — 4

This response demonstrates highly effective command of language and cohesion. Beginning with the skillful introduction, the writer constructs a response that demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas, starting with an examination of Summers’s claims and evidence and ending with emphasis on the use of persuasive elements. This skillful control over organization occurs at the body paragraph level as well, as the writer connects pieces of evidence from different parts of the source text within each paragraph. The writer’s word choice is precise (a highly plausible argument, a key component, The inclusion of this agency), and sentence structures are varied and sophisticated. This response demonstrates a strong command of written English and is virtually free of errors. Overall, this response demonstrates advanced writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response offers little or no analysis or ineffective analysis of the source text and demonstrates little or no understanding of the analytical task.

The response identifies without explanation some aspects of the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s choosing,

Or numerous aspects of the response’s analysis are unwarranted based on the text.

The response contains little or no support for claim(s) or point(s) made, or support is largely irrelevant.

The response may not focus on features of the text that are relevant to addressing the task,

Or the response offers no discernible analysis (e.g., is largely or exclusively summary).

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response offers little or no analysis or ineffective analysis of the source text and demonstrates little or no understanding of the analytical task.

The response identifies without explanation some aspects of the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s choosing,

Or numerous aspects of the response’s analysis are unwarranted based on the text.

The response contains little or no support for claim(s) or point(s) made, or support is largely irrelevant.

The response may not focus on features of the text that are relevant to addressing the task,

Or the response offers no discernible analysis (e.g., is largely or exclusively summary).

# data[].field_overview.value
As you read the passage below, consider how Paul Bogard uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Paul Bogard, “Let There Be Dark.” ©2012 by Paul Bogard. Originally published in Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2012.
Paragraph 1
At my family’s cabin on a Minnesota lake, I knew woods so dark that my hands disappeared before my eyes. I knew night skies in which meteors left smoky trails across sugary spreads of stars. But now, when 8 of 10 children born in the United States will never know a sky dark enough for the Milky Way, I worry we are rapidly losing night’s natural darkness before realizing its worth. This winter solstice, as we cheer the days’ gradual movement back toward light, let us also remember the irreplaceable value of darkness.
Paragraph 2
All life evolved to the steady rhythm of bright days and dark nights. Today, though, when we feel the closeness of nightfall, we reach quickly for a light switch. And too little darkness, meaning too much artificial light at night, spells trouble for all.
Paragraph 3
Already the World Health Organization classifies working the night shift as a probable human carcinogen, and the American Medical Association has voiced its unanimous support for “light pollution reduction efforts and glare reduction efforts at both the national and state levels.” Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing, and our bodies need darkness for sleep. Sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and depression, and recent research suggests one main cause of “short sleep” is “long light.” Whether we work at night or simply take our tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed, there isn’t a place for this much artificial light in our lives.
Paragraph 4
The rest of the world depends on darkness as well, including nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish and reptiles. Some examples are well known—the 400 species of birds that migrate at night in North America, the sea turtles that come ashore to lay their eggs—and some are not, such as the bats that save American farmers billions in pest control and the moths that pollinate 80% of the world’s flora. Ecological light pollution is like the bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems several billion years in the making. Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...
Paragraph 5
In today’s crowded, louder, more fast-paced world, night’s darkness can provide solitude, quiet and stillness, qualities increasingly in short supply. Every religious tradition has considered darkness invaluable for a soulful life, and the chance to witness the universe has inspired artists, philosophers and everyday stargazers since time began. In a world awash with electric light... how would Van Gogh have given the world his “Starry Night”? Who knows what this vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us, in our children or grandchildren?
Paragraph 6
Yet all over the world, our nights are growing brighter. In the United States and Western Europe, the amount of light in the sky increases an average of about 6% every year. Computer images of the United States at night, based on NASA photographs, show that what was a very dark country as recently as the 1950s is now nearly covered with a blanket of light. Much of this light is wasted energy, which means wasted dollars. Those of us over 35 are perhaps among the last generation to have known truly dark nights. Even the northern lake where I was lucky to spend my summers has seen its darkness diminish.
Paragraph 7
It doesn’t have to be this way. Light pollution is readily within our ability to solve, using new lighting technologies and shielding existing lights. Already, many cities and towns across North America and Europe are changing to LED streetlights, which offer dramatic possibilities for controlling wasted light. Other communities are finding success with simply turning off portions of their public lighting after midnight. Even Paris, the famed “city of light,” which already turns off its monument lighting after 1 a.m., will this summer start to require its shops, offices and public buildings to turn off lights after 2 a.m. Though primarily designed to save energy, such reductions in light will also go far in addressing light pollution. But we will never truly address the problem of light pollution until we become aware of the irreplaceable value and beauty of the darkness we are losing.

Write an essay in which you explain how Paul Bogard builds an argument to persuade his audience that natural darkness should be preserved. In your essay, analyze how Bogard uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Bogard’s claims, but rather explain how Bogard builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.processed
As you read the passage below, consider how Paul Bogard uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Paul Bogard, “Let There Be Dark.” ©2012 by Paul Bogard. Originally published in Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2012.
Paragraph 1
At my family’s cabin on a Minnesota lake, I knew woods so dark that my hands disappeared before my eyes. I knew night skies in which meteors left smoky trails across sugary spreads of stars. But now, when 8 of 10 children born in the United States will never know a sky dark enough for the Milky Way, I worry we are rapidly losing night’s natural darkness before realizing its worth. This winter solstice, as we cheer the days’ gradual movement back toward light, let us also remember the irreplaceable value of darkness.
Paragraph 2
All life evolved to the steady rhythm of bright days and dark nights. Today, though, when we feel the closeness of nightfall, we reach quickly for a light switch. And too little darkness, meaning too much artificial light at night, spells trouble for all.
Paragraph 3
Already the World Health Organization classifies working the night shift as a probable human carcinogen, and the American Medical Association has voiced its unanimous support for “light pollution reduction efforts and glare reduction efforts at both the national and state levels.” Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing, and our bodies need darkness for sleep. Sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and depression, and recent research suggests one main cause of “short sleep” is “long light.” Whether we work at night or simply take our tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed, there isn’t a place for this much artificial light in our lives.
Paragraph 4
The rest of the world depends on darkness as well, including nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish and reptiles. Some examples are well known—the 400 species of birds that migrate at night in North America, the sea turtles that come ashore to lay their eggs—and some are not, such as the bats that save American farmers billions in pest control and the moths that pollinate 80% of the world’s flora. Ecological light pollution is like the bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems several billion years in the making. Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...
Paragraph 5
In today’s crowded, louder, more fast-paced world, night’s darkness can provide solitude, quiet and stillness, qualities increasingly in short supply. Every religious tradition has considered darkness invaluable for a soulful life, and the chance to witness the universe has inspired artists, philosophers and everyday stargazers since time began. In a world awash with electric light... how would Van Gogh have given the world his “Starry Night”? Who knows what this vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us, in our children or grandchildren?
Paragraph 6
Yet all over the world, our nights are growing brighter. In the United States and Western Europe, the amount of light in the sky increases an average of about 6% every year. Computer images of the United States at night, based on NASA photographs, show that what was a very dark country as recently as the 1950s is now nearly covered with a blanket of light. Much of this light is wasted energy, which means wasted dollars. Those of us over 35 are perhaps among the last generation to have known truly dark nights. Even the northern lake where I was lucky to spend my summers has seen its darkness diminish.
Paragraph 7
It doesn’t have to be this way. Light pollution is readily within our ability to solve, using new lighting technologies and shielding existing lights. Already, many cities and towns across North America and Europe are changing to LED streetlights, which offer dramatic possibilities for controlling wasted light. Other communities are finding success with simply turning off portions of their public lighting after midnight. Even Paris, the famed “city of light,” which already turns off its monument lighting after 1 a.m., will this summer start to require its shops, offices and public buildings to turn off lights after 2 a.m. Though primarily designed to save energy, such reductions in light will also go far in addressing light pollution. But we will never truly address the problem of light pollution until we become aware of the irreplaceable value and beauty of the darkness we are losing.

Write an essay in which you explain how Paul Bogard builds an argument to persuade his audience that natural darkness should be preserved. In your essay, analyze how Bogard uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Bogard’s claims, but rather explain how Bogard builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.value
As you read the passage below, consider how Dana Gioia uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Dana Gioia, “Why Literature Matters.” ©2005 by Dana Gioia. Originally published in the New York Times, April 10, 2005.
Paragraph 1
[A] strange thing has happened in the American arts during the past quarter century. While income rose to unforeseen levels, college attendance ballooned, and access to information increased enormously, the interest young Americans showed in the arts—and especially literature—actually diminished.
Paragraph 2
According to the 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, a population study designed and commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts (and executed by the US Bureau of the Census), arts participation by Americans has declined for eight of the nine major forms that are measured... The declines have been most severe among younger adults (ages 18–24). The most worrisome finding in the 2002 study, however, is the declining percentage of Americans, especially young adults, reading literature.
Paragraph 3
That individuals at a time of crucial intellectual and emotional development bypass the joys and challenges of literature is a troubling trend. If it were true that they substituted histories, biographies, or political works for literature, one might not worry. But book reading of any kind is falling as well.
Paragraph 4
That such a longstanding and fundamental cultural activity should slip so swiftly, especially among young adults, signifies deep transformations in contemporary life. To call attention to the trend, the Arts Endowment issued the reading portion of the Survey as a separate report, “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.”
Paragraph 5
The decline in reading has consequences that go beyond literature. The significance of reading has become a persistent theme in the business world. The February issue of Wired magazine, for example, sketches a new set of mental skills and habits proper to the 21st century, aptitudes decidedly literary in character: not “linear, logical, analytical talents,” author Daniel Pink states, but “the ability to create artistic and emotional beauty, to detect patterns and opportunities, to craft a satisfying narrative.” When asked what kind of talents they like to see in management positions, business leaders consistently set imagination, creativity, and higher-order thinking at the top.
Paragraph 6
Ironically, the value of reading and the intellectual faculties that it inculcates appear most clearly as active and engaged literacy declines. There is now a growing awareness of the consequences of nonreading to the workplace. In 2001 the National Association of Manufacturers polled its members on skill deficiencies among employees. Among hourly workers, poor reading skills ranked second, and 38 percent of employers complained that local schools inadequately taught reading comprehension.
Paragraph 7
The decline of reading is also taking its toll in the civic sphere... A 2003 study of 15- to 26-year-olds’ civic knowledge by the National Conference of State Legislatures concluded, “Young people do not understand the ideals of citizenship... and their appreciation and support of American democracy is limited.”
Paragraph 8
It is probably no surprise that declining rates of literary reading coincide with declining levels of historical and political awareness among young people. One of the surprising findings of “Reading at Risk” was that literary readers are markedly more civically engaged than nonreaders, scoring two to four times more likely to perform charity work, visit a museum, or attend a sporting event. One reason for their higher social and cultural interactions may lie in the kind of civic and historical knowledge that comes with literary reading...
Paragraph 9
The evidence of literature’s importance to civic, personal, and economic health is too strong to ignore. The decline of literary reading foreshadows serious long-term social and economic problems, and it is time to bring literature and the other arts into discussions of public policy. Libraries, schools, and public agencies do noble work, but addressing the reading issue will require the leadership of politicians and the business community as well...
Paragraph 10
Reading is not a timeless, universal capability. Advanced literacy is a specific intellectual skill and social habit that depends on a great many educational, cultural, and economic factors. As more Americans lose this capability, our nation becomes less informed, active, and independent-minded. These are not the qualities that a free, innovative, or productive society can afford to lose.

Write an essay in which you explain how Dana Gioia builds an argument to persuade his audience that the decline of reading in America will have a negative effect on society. In your essay, analyze how Gioia uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Gioia’s claims, but rather explain how Gioia builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.processed
As you read the passage below, consider how Dana Gioia uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Dana Gioia, “Why Literature Matters.” ©2005 by Dana Gioia. Originally published in the New York Times, April 10, 2005.
Paragraph 1
[A] strange thing has happened in the American arts during the past quarter century. While income rose to unforeseen levels, college attendance ballooned, and access to information increased enormously, the interest young Americans showed in the arts—and especially literature—actually diminished.
Paragraph 2
According to the 2002 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, a population study designed and commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts (and executed by the US Bureau of the Census), arts participation by Americans has declined for eight of the nine major forms that are measured... The declines have been most severe among younger adults (ages 18–24). The most worrisome finding in the 2002 study, however, is the declining percentage of Americans, especially young adults, reading literature.
Paragraph 3
That individuals at a time of crucial intellectual and emotional development bypass the joys and challenges of literature is a troubling trend. If it were true that they substituted histories, biographies, or political works for literature, one might not worry. But book reading of any kind is falling as well.
Paragraph 4
That such a longstanding and fundamental cultural activity should slip so swiftly, especially among young adults, signifies deep transformations in contemporary life. To call attention to the trend, the Arts Endowment issued the reading portion of the Survey as a separate report, “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.”
Paragraph 5
The decline in reading has consequences that go beyond literature. The significance of reading has become a persistent theme in the business world. The February issue of Wired magazine, for example, sketches a new set of mental skills and habits proper to the 21st century, aptitudes decidedly literary in character: not “linear, logical, analytical talents,” author Daniel Pink states, but “the ability to create artistic and emotional beauty, to detect patterns and opportunities, to craft a satisfying narrative.” When asked what kind of talents they like to see in management positions, business leaders consistently set imagination, creativity, and higher-order thinking at the top.
Paragraph 6
Ironically, the value of reading and the intellectual faculties that it inculcates appear most clearly as active and engaged literacy declines. There is now a growing awareness of the consequences of nonreading to the workplace. In 2001 the National Association of Manufacturers polled its members on skill deficiencies among employees. Among hourly workers, poor reading skills ranked second, and 38 percent of employers complained that local schools inadequately taught reading comprehension.
Paragraph 7
The decline of reading is also taking its toll in the civic sphere... A 2003 study of 15- to 26-year-olds’ civic knowledge by the National Conference of State Legislatures concluded, “Young people do not understand the ideals of citizenship... and their appreciation and support of American democracy is limited.”
Paragraph 8
It is probably no surprise that declining rates of literary reading coincide with declining levels of historical and political awareness among young people. One of the surprising findings of “Reading at Risk” was that literary readers are markedly more civically engaged than nonreaders, scoring two to four times more likely to perform charity work, visit a museum, or attend a sporting event. One reason for their higher social and cultural interactions may lie in the kind of civic and historical knowledge that comes with literary reading...
Paragraph 9
The evidence of literature’s importance to civic, personal, and economic health is too strong to ignore. The decline of literary reading foreshadows serious long-term social and economic problems, and it is time to bring literature and the other arts into discussions of public policy. Libraries, schools, and public agencies do noble work, but addressing the reading issue will require the leadership of politicians and the business community as well...
Paragraph 10
Reading is not a timeless, universal capability. Advanced literacy is a specific intellectual skill and social habit that depends on a great many educational, cultural, and economic factors. As more Americans lose this capability, our nation becomes less informed, active, and independent-minded. These are not the qualities that a free, innovative, or productive society can afford to lose.

Write an essay in which you explain how Dana Gioia builds an argument to persuade his audience that the decline of reading in America will have a negative effect on society. In your essay, analyze how Gioia uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Gioia’s claims, but rather explain how Gioia builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.value
As you read the passage below, consider how Adam B. Summers uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Adam B. Summers, “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.” ©2013 by Adam B. Summers. Originally published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 13, 2013.
Paragraph 1
Californians dodged yet another nanny-state regulation recently when the state Senate narrowly voted down a bill to ban plastic bags statewide, but the reprieve might only be temporary. Not content to tell us how much our toilets can flush or what type of light bulb to use to brighten our homes, some politicians and environmentalists are now focused on deciding for us what kind of container we can use to carry our groceries.
Paragraph 2
The bill... would have prohibited grocery stores and convenience stores with at least $2 million in gross annual sales and 10,000 square feet of retail space from providing single-use plastic or paper bags, although stores would have been allowed to sell recycled paper bags for an unspecified amount. The bill fell just three votes short of passage in the Senate... and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, who sponsored the measure, has indicated that he would like to bring it up again, so expect this fight to be recycled rather than trashed.
Paragraph 3
While public debate over plastic bag bans often devolves into emotional pleas to save the planet or preserve marine life (and, believe me, I love sea turtles as much as the next guy), a little reason and perspective is in order.
Paragraph 4
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds (not just grocery bags) make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags, which are the most common kind of plastic grocery bags, make up just 0.3 percent of this total.
Paragraph 5
The claims that plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags or cotton reusable bags are dubious at best. In fact, compared to paper bags, plastic grocery bags produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, require 70 percent less energy to make, generate 80 percent less waste, and utilize less than 4 percent of the amount of water needed to manufacture them. This makes sense because plastic bags are lighter and take up less space than paper bags.
Paragraph 6
Reusable bags come with their own set of problems. They, too, have a larger carbon footprint than plastic bags. Even more disconcerting are the findings of several studies that plastic bag bans lead to increased health problems due to food contamination from bacteria that remain in the reusable bags. A November 2012 statistical analysis by University of Pennsylvania law professor Jonathan Klick and George Mason University law professor and economist Joshua D. Wright found that San Francisco’s plastic bag ban in 2007 resulted in a subsequent spike in hospital emergency room visits due to E. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter-related intestinal infectious diseases. The authors conclude that the ban even accounts for several additional deaths in the city each year from such infections.
Paragraph 7
The description of plastic grocery bags as “single-use” bags is another misnomer. The vast majority of people use them more than once, whether for lining trash bins or picking up after their dogs. (And still other bags are recycled.) Since banning plastic bags also means preventing their additional uses as trash bags and pooper scoopers, one unintended consequence of the plastic bag ban would likely be an increase in plastic bag purchases for these other purposes. This is just what happened in Ireland in 2002 when a 15 Euro cent ($0.20) tax imposed on plastic shopping bags led to a 77 percent increase in the sale of plastic trash can liner bags.
Paragraph 8
And then there are the economic costs. The plastic bag ban would threaten the roughly 2,000 California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry, although, as noted in the Irish example above, they might be able to weather the storm if they can successfully switch to producing other types of plastic bags. In addition, taxpayers will have to pony up for the added bureaucracy, and the higher regulatory costs foisted upon bag manufacturers and retailers will ultimately be borne by consumers in the form of price increases.
Paragraph 9
Notwithstanding the aforementioned reasons why plastic bags are not, in fact, evil incarnate, environmentalists have every right to try to convince people to adopt certain beliefs or lifestyles, but they do not have the right to use government force to compel people to live the way they think best. In a free society, we are able to live our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. That includes the right to make such fundamental decisions as “Paper or plastic?”

Write an essay in which you explain how Adam B. Summers builds an argument to persuade his audience that plastic shopping bags should not be banned. In your essay, analyze how Summers uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Summers’s claims, but rather explain how Summers builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.processed
As you read the passage below, consider how Adam B. Summers uses

evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.

reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.

stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to the ideas expressed.

Adapted from Adam B. Summers, “Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.” ©2013 by Adam B. Summers. Originally published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 13, 2013.
Paragraph 1
Californians dodged yet another nanny-state regulation recently when the state Senate narrowly voted down a bill to ban plastic bags statewide, but the reprieve might only be temporary. Not content to tell us how much our toilets can flush or what type of light bulb to use to brighten our homes, some politicians and environmentalists are now focused on deciding for us what kind of container we can use to carry our groceries.
Paragraph 2
The bill... would have prohibited grocery stores and convenience stores with at least $2 million in gross annual sales and 10,000 square feet of retail space from providing single-use plastic or paper bags, although stores would have been allowed to sell recycled paper bags for an unspecified amount. The bill fell just three votes short of passage in the Senate... and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, who sponsored the measure, has indicated that he would like to bring it up again, so expect this fight to be recycled rather than trashed.
Paragraph 3
While public debate over plastic bag bans often devolves into emotional pleas to save the planet or preserve marine life (and, believe me, I love sea turtles as much as the next guy), a little reason and perspective is in order.
Paragraph 4
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds (not just grocery bags) make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags, which are the most common kind of plastic grocery bags, make up just 0.3 percent of this total.
Paragraph 5
The claims that plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags or cotton reusable bags are dubious at best. In fact, compared to paper bags, plastic grocery bags produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, require 70 percent less energy to make, generate 80 percent less waste, and utilize less than 4 percent of the amount of water needed to manufacture them. This makes sense because plastic bags are lighter and take up less space than paper bags.
Paragraph 6
Reusable bags come with their own set of problems. They, too, have a larger carbon footprint than plastic bags. Even more disconcerting are the findings of several studies that plastic bag bans lead to increased health problems due to food contamination from bacteria that remain in the reusable bags. A November 2012 statistical analysis by University of Pennsylvania law professor Jonathan Klick and George Mason University law professor and economist Joshua D. Wright found that San Francisco’s plastic bag ban in 2007 resulted in a subsequent spike in hospital emergency room visits due to E. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter-related intestinal infectious diseases. The authors conclude that the ban even accounts for several additional deaths in the city each year from such infections.
Paragraph 7
The description of plastic grocery bags as “single-use” bags is another misnomer. The vast majority of people use them more than once, whether for lining trash bins or picking up after their dogs. (And still other bags are recycled.) Since banning plastic bags also means preventing their additional uses as trash bags and pooper scoopers, one unintended consequence of the plastic bag ban would likely be an increase in plastic bag purchases for these other purposes. This is just what happened in Ireland in 2002 when a 15 Euro cent ($0.20) tax imposed on plastic shopping bags led to a 77 percent increase in the sale of plastic trash can liner bags.
Paragraph 8
And then there are the economic costs. The plastic bag ban would threaten the roughly 2,000 California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry, although, as noted in the Irish example above, they might be able to weather the storm if they can successfully switch to producing other types of plastic bags. In addition, taxpayers will have to pony up for the added bureaucracy, and the higher regulatory costs foisted upon bag manufacturers and retailers will ultimately be borne by consumers in the form of price increases.
Paragraph 9
Notwithstanding the aforementioned reasons why plastic bags are not, in fact, evil incarnate, environmentalists have every right to try to convince people to adopt certain beliefs or lifestyles, but they do not have the right to use government force to compel people to live the way they think best. In a free society, we are able to live our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. That includes the right to make such fundamental decisions as “Paper or plastic?”

Write an essay in which you explain how Adam B. Summers builds an argument to persuade his audience that plastic shopping bags should not be banned. In your essay, analyze how Summers uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument. Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.

Your essay should not explain whether you agree with Summers’s claims, but rather explain how Summers builds an argument to persuade his audience.

# data[].field_overview.value
Essay Practice Tests

# data[].field_overview.processed
Essay Practice Tests

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) and of most important details and how they interrelate, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the text.

The response is free of errors of fact or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes skillful use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating a complete understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates thorough comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) and of most important details and how they interrelate, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the text.

The response is free of errors of fact or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes skillful use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating a complete understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) and important details.

The response is free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes appropriate use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating an understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates effective comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) and important details.

The response is free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes appropriate use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating an understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates some comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) but not of important details.

The response may contain errors of fact and/or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes limited and/or haphazard use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating some understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates some comprehension of the source text.

The response shows an understanding of the text’s central idea(s) but not of important details.

The response may contain errors of fact and/or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes limited and/or haphazard use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating some understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates little or no comprehension of the source text.

The response fails to show an understanding of the text’s central idea(s), and may include only details without reference to central idea(s).

The response may contain numerous errors of fact and/or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes little or no use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating little or no understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates little or no comprehension of the source text.

The response fails to show an understanding of the text’s central idea(s), and may include only details without reference to central idea(s).

The response may contain numerous errors of fact and/or interpretation with regard to the text.

The response makes little or no use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating little or no understanding of the source text.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response offers limited analysis of the source text and demonstrates only partial understanding of the analytical task.

The response identifies and attempts to describe the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing, but merely asserts rather than explains their importance,

Or one or more aspects of the response’s analysis are unwarranted based on the text.

The response contains little or no support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response may lack a clear focus on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response offers limited analysis of the source text and demonstrates only partial understanding of the analytical task.

The response identifies and attempts to describe the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing, but merely asserts rather than explains their importance,

Or one or more aspects of the response’s analysis are unwarranted based on the text.

The response contains little or no support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response may lack a clear focus on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response offers an insightful analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task.

The response offers a thorough, well-considered evaluation of the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing.

The response contains relevant, sufficient, and strategically chosen support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response focuses consistently on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response offers an insightful analysis of the source text and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the analytical task.

The response offers a thorough, well-considered evaluation of the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing.

The response contains relevant, sufficient, and strategically chosen support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response focuses consistently on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response offers an effective analysis of the source text and demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task.

The response competently evaluates the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing.

The response contains relevant and sufficient support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response focuses primarily on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response offers an effective analysis of the source text and demonstrates an understanding of the analytical task.

The response competently evaluates the author’s use of evidence, reasoning, and/or stylistic and persuasive elements, and/or feature(s) of the student’s own choosing.

The response contains relevant and sufficient support for claim(s) or point(s) made.

The response focuses primarily on those features of the text that are most relevant to addressing the task.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response is cohesive and demonstrates a highly effective use and command of language.

The response includes a precise central claim.

The response includes a skillful introduction and conclusion. The response demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the essay.

The response has a wide variety in sentence structures. The response demonstrates a consistent use of precise word choice. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a strong command of the conventions of standard written English and is free or virtually free of errors.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response is cohesive and demonstrates a highly effective use and command of language.

The response includes a precise central claim.

The response includes a skillful introduction and conclusion. The response demonstrates a deliberate and highly effective progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the essay.

The response has a wide variety in sentence structures. The response demonstrates a consistent use of precise word choice. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a strong command of the conventions of standard written English and is free or virtually free of errors.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use and control of language.

The response includes a central claim or implicit controlling idea.

The response includes an effective introduction and conclusion. The response demonstrates a clear progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the essay.

The response has variety in sentence structures. The response demonstrates some precise word choice. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a good control of the conventions of standard written English and is free of significant errors that detract from the quality of writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response is mostly cohesive and demonstrates effective use and control of language.

The response includes a central claim or implicit controlling idea.

The response includes an effective introduction and conclusion. The response demonstrates a clear progression of ideas both within paragraphs and throughout the essay.

The response has variety in sentence structures. The response demonstrates some precise word choice. The response maintains a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a good control of the conventions of standard written English and is free of significant errors that detract from the quality of writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates little or no cohesion and limited skill in the use and control of language.

The response may lack a clear central claim or controlling idea or may deviate from the claim or idea over the course of the response.

The response may include an ineffective introduction and/or conclusion. The response may demonstrate some progression of ideas within paragraphs but not throughout the response.

The response has limited variety in sentence structures; sentence structures may be repetitive. The response demonstrates general or vague word choice; word choice may be repetitive. The response may deviate noticeably from a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a limited control of the conventions of standard written English and contains errors that detract from the quality of writing and may impede understanding.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates little or no cohesion and limited skill in the use and control of language.

The response may lack a clear central claim or controlling idea or may deviate from the claim or idea over the course of the response.

The response may include an ineffective introduction and/or conclusion. The response may demonstrate some progression of ideas within paragraphs but not throughout the response.

The response has limited variety in sentence structures; sentence structures may be repetitive. The response demonstrates general or vague word choice; word choice may be repetitive. The response may deviate noticeably from a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a limited control of the conventions of standard written English and contains errors that detract from the quality of writing and may impede understanding.

# data[].field_overview.value
The response demonstrates little or no cohesion and inadequate skill in the use and control of language.

The response may lack a clear central claim or controlling idea.

The response lacks a recognizable introduction and conclusion. The response does not have a discernible progression of ideas.

The response lacks variety in sentence structures; sentence structures may be repetitive. The response demonstrates general and vague word choice; word choice may be poor or inaccurate. The response may lack a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a weak control of the conventions of standard written English and may contain numerous errors that undermine the quality of writing.

# data[].field_overview.processed
The response demonstrates little or no cohesion and inadequate skill in the use and control of language.

The response may lack a clear central claim or controlling idea.

The response lacks a recognizable introduction and conclusion. The response does not have a discernible progression of ideas.

The response lacks variety in sentence structures; sentence structures may be repetitive. The response demonstrates general and vague word choice; word choice may be poor or inaccurate. The response may lack a formal style and objective tone.

The response shows a weak control of the conventions of standard written English and may contain numerous errors that undermine the quality of writing.

# data[].field_overview.value
In this article, Paul Bogard talks about the dark. Paul gives many ideas about light and dark. It seems like Paul is a person who likes the dark. He is facinated in the night skies. He gives many pros and cons about the dark. The dark isn’t always dark there could be a little light in the dark to, as Paul says. Paul says that the night sky can be beautiful too. The more dark the less electric bill to pay and easier to deal with. Rise with the sun and rise like the moon. The night sky may be dark, but there always be a little to make it even better.

We can save energy by using the light of the day and the moon from the dark. Paul uses lots of pros and cons to explain his wonderful ideas.

# data[].field_overview.processed
In this article, Paul Bogard talks about the dark. Paul gives many ideas about light and dark. It seems like Paul is a person who likes the dark. He is facinated in the night skies. He gives many pros and cons about the dark. The dark isn’t always dark there could be a little light in the dark to, as Paul says. Paul says that the night sky can be beautiful too. The more dark the less electric bill to pay and easier to deal with. Rise with the sun and rise like the moon. The night sky may be dark, but there always be a little to make it even better.

We can save energy by using the light of the day and the moon from the dark. Paul uses lots of pros and cons to explain his wonderful ideas.

# data[].field_overview.value
Paul Bogard builds a very persuasive argument to persuade his audience that natural darkness should be preserved. Bogard uses many features such as touch, feeling, seeing or even our own senses. Touching all of these features within Bogard’s essay will make his argument stronger on wheather natural darkness should be preserved.

One of the senses Bogard uses within his essay is touch. He concludes that many species depend on the darkness. I think that this is an important part to Bogard’s essay because it is showing that not only humans depend on this. Darkness tends to evolve all over the world for a variety of things.

Another sense that Bogard uses is feeling. He compares the rythm into which light and dark days exist. Many medical centers have concluded that are bodies need darkness to produce many different hormones and to continue with processes to keep us alive. Paul shows how many different characteristics affect how important darkness is to a human body.

In Bogard’s essay he talks about many different religious tradition that vaule darkness. I think that this topic Bogard uses appeals to emotion to many different religious groups. Giving evidence of a historical artist Van Gogh adds a lot of emotion to this particular essay.

In Bogard’s essay he provides information about technologies that are determining different light fixtures. Comparing how cities and towns across the world are changing thier ways of light is going to be wasted.

I think that Bogard’s essay is particulary strong. He uses a lot of evidence with emotion. Providing a variety of different examples on how darkness should be perserved gives a lot of power to the ideas that are expressed.

# data[].field_overview.processed
Paul Bogard builds a very persuasive argument to persuade his audience that natural darkness should be preserved. Bogard uses many features such as touch, feeling, seeing or even our own senses. Touching all of these features within Bogard’s essay will make his argument stronger on wheather natural darkness should be preserved.

One of the senses Bogard uses within his essay is touch. He concludes that many species depend on the darkness. I think that this is an important part to Bogard’s essay because it is showing that not only humans depend on this. Darkness tends to evolve all over the world for a variety of things.

Another sense that Bogard uses is feeling. He compares the rythm into which light and dark days exist. Many medical centers have concluded that are bodies need darkness to produce many different hormones and to continue with processes to keep us alive. Paul shows how many different characteristics affect how important darkness is to a human body.

In Bogard’s essay he talks about many different religious tradition that vaule darkness. I think that this topic Bogard uses appeals to emotion to many different religious groups. Giving evidence of a historical artist Van Gogh adds a lot of emotion to this particular essay.

In Bogard’s essay he provides information about technologies that are determining different light fixtures. Comparing how cities and towns across the world are changing thier ways of light is going to be wasted.

I think that Bogard’s essay is particulary strong. He uses a lot of evidence with emotion. Providing a variety of different examples on how darkness should be perserved gives a lot of power to the ideas that are expressed.

# data[].field_overview.value
In “Let there be dark,” Paul Bogard talks about the importance of darkness.

Darkness is essential to humans. Bogard states, “Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing, and our bodies need darkness for sleep, sleep. Sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and depression and recent research suggests are main cause of “short sleep” is “long light.” Whether we work at night or simply take our tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed, there isn’t a place for this much artificial light in our lives.” (Bogard 2). Here, Bogard talks about the importance of darkness to humans. Humans need darkness to sleep in order to be healthy.

Animals also need darkness. Bogard states, “The rest of the world depends on darkness as well, including nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish and reptiles. Some examples are well known—the 400 species of birds that migrate at night in North America, the sea turtles that come ashore to lay their eggs—and some are not, such as the bats that save American farmers billions in pest control and the moths that pollinate 80% of the world’s flora. Ecological light pollution is like the bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems several billion years in the making. Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...” (Bogard 2). Here Bogard explains that animals, too, need darkness to survive.

# data[].field_overview.processed
In “Let there be dark,” Paul Bogard talks about the importance of darkness.

Darkness is essential to humans. Bogard states, “Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing, and our bodies need darkness for sleep, sleep. Sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and depression and recent research suggests are main cause of “short sleep” is “long light.” Whether we work at night or simply take our tablets, notebooks and smartphones to bed, there isn’t a place for this much artificial light in our lives.” (Bogard 2). Here, Bogard talks about the importance of darkness to humans. Humans need darkness to sleep in order to be healthy.

Animals also need darkness. Bogard states, “The rest of the world depends on darkness as well, including nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish and reptiles. Some examples are well known—the 400 species of birds that migrate at night in North America, the sea turtles that come ashore to lay their eggs—and some are not, such as the bats that save American farmers billions in pest control and the moths that pollinate 80% of the world’s flora. Ecological light pollution is like the bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems several billion years in the making. Simply put, without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...” (Bogard 2). Here Bogard explains that animals, too, need darkness to survive.

# data[].field_overview.value
In Paul Bogard’s essay “Let there be Dark” he emphasizes the importance of natural darkness. Bogard begins his argument by first providing a story from his personal experience, appealing to the reader by adding imagery. “I knew night skies in which meteors left smoky trails across sugary spreads of stars.” In this sentence, Bogard depicts the beauty of natural darkness using detail. Bogard continues with comparing his personal perspective of natural darkness in the past to society’s perspective in the present. “Today, though, when we feel the closeness of night fall, we reach quickly for a light switch.” Implying that the times have definitely changed and natural darkness’s value has been lost in society, replaced with artificial light. This example gives Bogard a sense of voice and his use of comparison is definitely effective.

Bogard supports his claims about natural darkness’s underrated value by providing the reader with evidence of health problems that the opposite replacement, artificial light, can cause. “Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing.” Oh, no! Not cancer! Right there is a quick attention grabber to any reader previously bored by Bogard’s constant opinions because now there are facts, and a fact relating to the reader is the best persuasion, especially when it relates to there health or well-being. Cancer, because who wants a terminal illness over an action as simple as flipping a switch on a night light when it’s too dark for your comfort?

# data[].field_overview.processed
In Paul Bogard’s essay “Let there be Dark” he emphasizes the importance of natural darkness. Bogard begins his argument by first providing a story from his personal experience, appealing to the reader by adding imagery. “I knew night skies in which meteors left smoky trails across sugary spreads of stars.” In this sentence, Bogard depicts the beauty of natural darkness using detail. Bogard continues with comparing his personal perspective of natural darkness in the past to society’s perspective in the present. “Today, though, when we feel the closeness of night fall, we reach quickly for a light switch.” Implying that the times have definitely changed and natural darkness’s value has been lost in society, replaced with artificial light. This example gives Bogard a sense of voice and his use of comparison is definitely effective.

Bogard supports his claims about natural darkness’s underrated value by providing the reader with evidence of health problems that the opposite replacement, artificial light, can cause. “Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin, which keeps certain cancers from developing.” Oh, no! Not cancer! Right there is a quick attention grabber to any reader previously bored by Bogard’s constant opinions because now there are facts, and a fact relating to the reader is the best persuasion, especially when it relates to there health or well-being. Cancer, because who wants a terminal illness over an action as simple as flipping a switch on a night light when it’s too dark for your comfort?

# data[].field_overview.value
Paul Bogard is very persuasive throughout this published work. He explains and persuades that natural darkness should be preserved. In the beginning, he makes his argument by giving a statistic about children born in the United States and how their experiences with a true dark night are different from when he was a child himself. He says, “8 out of 10 children born in the United states will never know a sky dark enough for the Milky Way, I worry we are rapidly losing night’s natural darkness before realizing it’s worth.”

Next, he explains that as soon as night time hits, everyone automatically reaches for a light switch. He explains that the “World Health Organization classifies working the night shift as probable human carcinogen...” He says that humans need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin. Melatonin keeps certain cancers from developing. We also need darkness for sleep. Not having enough sleep leads to other health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and depression. He says that humans have too much artificial light that comes from things like cell phones when we go to bed.

He also tells us that not only do humans rely on natural darkness but so do nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish, and reptiles. So many different species rely on darkness to live like birds that migrate, sea turtles that lay their eggs, and bats that control pests for farmers crops. “Ecological light pollution is like a bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems... without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...”

He says that even though our world is on-going and at such a fast pace, we can still provide “solitude, quiet and stillness.” He questions how could we have such nice things such as Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” without natural darkness?

He talks about our nights are growing brighter and brighter. Back in the 1950’s compared to now, the United States was really dark and now it’s bright and lit up all the time. He says that only a small percentage of people on Earth today know what a true dark night is.

He offers a solution to this problem. He says we can go to what Europe has done to shrink artificial light use. And even what Paris has done: Use LED lights and streetlights and cut off big light/energy users after a certain time.

Paul Bogard has a lot of argumentative statements that prove we are more corrupt people by using more artificial light instead of natural darkness. He says it affects our ecosystems and can be related to diseases that are common in a lot of people.

# data[].field_overview.processed
Paul Bogard is very persuasive throughout this published work. He explains and persuades that natural darkness should be preserved. In the beginning, he makes his argument by giving a statistic about children born in the United States and how their experiences with a true dark night are different from when he was a child himself. He says, “8 out of 10 children born in the United states will never know a sky dark enough for the Milky Way, I worry we are rapidly losing night’s natural darkness before realizing it’s worth.”

Next, he explains that as soon as night time hits, everyone automatically reaches for a light switch. He explains that the “World Health Organization classifies working the night shift as probable human carcinogen...” He says that humans need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin. Melatonin keeps certain cancers from developing. We also need darkness for sleep. Not having enough sleep leads to other health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and depression. He says that humans have too much artificial light that comes from things like cell phones when we go to bed.

He also tells us that not only do humans rely on natural darkness but so do nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish, and reptiles. So many different species rely on darkness to live like birds that migrate, sea turtles that lay their eggs, and bats that control pests for farmers crops. “Ecological light pollution is like a bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting ecosystems... without darkness, Earth’s ecology would collapse...”

He says that even though our world is on-going and at such a fast pace, we can still provide “solitude, quiet and stillness.” He questions how could we have such nice things such as Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” without natural darkness?

He talks about our nights are growing brighter and brighter. Back in the 1950’s compared to now, the United States was really dark and now it’s bright and lit up all the time. He says that only a small percentage of people on Earth today know what a true dark night is.

He offers a solution to this problem. He says we can go to what Europe has done to shrink artificial light use. And even what Paris has done: Use LED lights and streetlights and cut off big light/energy users after a certain time.

Paul Bogard has a lot of argumentative statements that prove we are more corrupt people by using more artificial light instead of natural darkness. He says it affects our ecosystems and can be related to diseases that are common in a lot of people.

# data[].field_external_description
This practice score report is provided by College Board for your personal use to help you prepare for test day. These scores are non-college reportable and cannot be sent to colleges or scholarship programs.

# data[].field_external_description
See what it's like to take a digital exam in the Bluebook app.

# data[].field_external_description
Take full-length practice tests in the digital testing app, Bluebook™, review results in My Practice, and use Official Digital SAT Prep on Khan Academy for free, tailored practice of the skills you need to improve.

# data[].field_internal_description
Review your practice test scores, dig deeper into your performance, and learn your strengths before test day.

# data[].field_overview.value
You performed at the Medium level for this domain. You have a solid understanding of this domain’s basic skills, but complex skills are challenging. Push yourself by practicing both medium and hard questions in this domain.

# data[].field_overview.processed
You performed at the Medium level for this domain. You have a solid understanding of this domain’s basic skills, but complex skills are challenging. Push yourself by practicing both medium and hard questions in this domain.

# data[].field_overview.value
You performed at the Easy level for this domain. You’re still learning the skills associated with this domain, and that’s okay! With more practice, you can build your knowledge.

# data[].field_overview.processed
You performed at the Easy level for this domain. You’re still learning the skills associated with this domain, and that’s okay! With more practice, you can build your knowledge.