Extended Response Item: 6 point value
Reasoning Through Language Arts
Extended Response Scoring Rubric Trait Descriptions
Question Overview:In this extended response question, you must create an argument based on
your evaluation of the validity of the arguments and t he sufficiency of the supporting evidence
presented in a source text. You must present your ideas logically and support your ideas with
relevant and sufficient evidence drawn from the passage. The ability to pull informat ion from the
passage into the presentation of your own ideas requires significant reasoning and planning. This
extended response question requires you to demonstrate your reasoning in your own words and
evaluate informat ion from opposing perspectives.
Trait 1 - Creation of Arguments and Use of Evidence
To earn two points, you must create an argument by making logical cla ims or assertions, offering
text-based reasons as j ust ification, and providing relevant and specific evidence drawn from all
given source texts as support. While your response may provide some analysis of the issue at hand,
the articulated stance should be based primarily on your assessment of which position presented in
the passage(s) is most effectively argued and better supported. You may identify valid arguments
or fallacious reasoning, distinguish between supported and unsupported claims, and/or make
inferences based upon assumptions made by the author(s). Additionally, your response should fully
engage with the topic given in t he prompt and deftly integrate claims, explanations, and textual
evidence.
To earn two points on this specific prompt about Daylight Saving nme, your response would need to
make a claim about which side presented a more effect ive argument. You would need to cite
mult iple reasons from the source text t o support the claim(s). Each of your reasons would need to
be explained logically and be elaborated upon, using relevant evidence from t he source text to
bolster each point and your overall position. Overall, your response would need to develop an
argument indicative of a focused analysis of the arguments presented in the source text.
Trait 2 - Development of Ideas and Organizational Structure
To earn two points on Trait 2, you must employ an effective organizat ional structure within which
ideas are purposefu lly and logically sequenced. Your response should make clear and
understandable connections between ideas, establishing a progression in which one idea logically
leads into the next. Your main points should be fully elaborated upon and closely t ied to relevant
and specific evidence from the text(s). Transitional words or phrases should be used efficiently and
appropriately to cohesively link sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. Advanced vocabulary should be
consistently applied with accuracy, and, in general, the language should be selected thoughtfully
to enhance cla rity and convey a message. Additionally, your response should apply an appropriate
level of formality necessary for communicating in both workplace and academic settings, while also
keeping in mind the purpose of the task, which is to present a well-supported analysis of textbased
arguments.
Trait 3 - Clarity and Command of Standard English Conventions
To earn two points on Trait 3, you must fluently apply standard English conventions to convey ideas
with clarity. In general, your response should contain few or no mechanical errors, and what errors
do exist should not impede readers' understanding. However, because your response will be a draft
written in approximately 45 minutes, there is no expectat ion that it be completely free of errors in
usage and convent ions. Your response should demonstrate competence with a streamlined set of
conventions essential for basic coherence in written communication. These skills incl ude
distinguishing between frequently confused word s, maintaining subject-verb and pronounantecedent
agreement , and adhering to the ru les of punctuation, capitalization, and others
enumerated in Trait 3 of the Scoring Rubric. In addition, your response should contain language
appropriate for expressing your ideas and thoughtfully composed sentences that generally avoid
wordiness and awkwardness. Additionally, the clarity and flow of your response should be enhanced
with varied sentence structure and appropriate application of transitional words and phrases to
connect sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. Two-point responses also sustain writing long enough to
demonstrate sufficient command of basic conventions and usage.
Trait 1 - Creation of Arguments and Use of Evidence
Score: 2
In the argument for daylight savings time, it seems that the pro daylight
savings position has won. The first article brings up several improvements
in the daily lives of Americans which daylight savings time brings about.
The article then uses studies and large scale research to support its
position. In the second article, only smaller scale studies are used,
and the writer uses arguments with no factual basis to support it's anti
daylight savings position.
In the first article, historical facts are supplied to explain why daylight
savings t ime was created - to save energy during the first world war
- and the way it has evolved over the years from a state decision to a
national one. The first argument then cites a study which, though a bit
outdated, proves the effectiveness of DST by revealing that DST saves
about 1% per day on electricity. The study, however, was done in the
1970s and many things in our national energy consumption have changed
since then. The most important change in energy consumption, which
would be effected by daylight savings t ime, is the use of air conditioning.
The increase in daylight hours that DST causes would increase the use of
the now extremely common air condit ioner. If that study from the 1970s
were redone today, this single energy consumer may change the outcome.
The second article cites this technology, which is much more prevalent
now than in the 1970s and certainly more than during the inception of
DST, as a reason that DST does not save the country money on energy
costs. The article had a start t o a very good argument here, but it did
not follow through. If the article had argued that DST, while relevant
and helpful during the first world war, and indeed for a while after, was
now outdated and detrimental to the energy efficiency of the country as
a whole because of the widespread and continued use of air conditioning,
than the tide may have turned in favor of this second article.
The next topic, which is cited by both arguments, is driver and pedestrian
safety. The first article cla ims that the switch from commuting to work
and school in the dark to commuting in the light saves lives. The article
cites nearly 30 years of research that shows a significant drop in crashes
for both vehicular accidents involving pedestrians and involving only
vehicles. The second argument cites the same idea, that daylight savings
changes crash rates, but argues instead that the abrupt transition from
one time to another causes more crashes. The second article, however,
did not read the facts caref ully, because the facts they cite - that
227 pedestrians were killed the week after DST ended, while only 65
pedestrians were killed the week before - suggests that having daylight
savings time in effect was what kept the number down to only 65 in the
week preceeding the change in time. These facts could actually be better
used in the first article as an example of the drastic differences when DST
is in effect and when it is not. The point they were trying to make is that
the shift in time effects a drivers ability to avoid crashes, but the facts
are not quite black and white enough to prove the point beyond a doubt
without giving some validity to the argument for the other side.
The last argument used by the con position cites the adjustment period
for drivers as a valid reason to quit daylight savings t ime. The article,
however, does not support this claim with any hard facts, it merely give
opinionated reasons for belief in this theory. While this adjustment period
is a real thing, the lack of scientific support used by the article hurts the
credibility of the claim being made.
Because of the blunders in fact usage and the flimsy nature of the
arguments on the second article, it is clear that the first argument is the
better researched and supported argument . If the second article were to
make its points more clear and use the research and studies in a different
manner, then that argument would probably pull more weight simply
because of the older time stamp on the first study cited in the argument
for the use of daylight savings time. If the argument of changing times
and outdated information were used, article two would emerge the winner.
Score Explanation: This response opens with a statement of stance
("'n the argument for daylight savings t ime, it seems that the pro
daylight savings time position has won.") and then provides a developed
explanation ("The art icle uses studies and large scale research to support
its position. In the second article, only smaller scale studies are used,
and the writer uses arguments with no factual basis ... "). The writer
supports this cent ral claim with a focused evaluation of the validity of
the arguments in the source text, first highlighting the strength of the
proponents' argument ("The first argument...cites a study which, though a
bit outdated, proves the effectiveness of DST."). The response then points
to the insufficiency of the opposing argument ("The article had a start to
a very good argument here, but it did not follow through.") and goes on
to explains what was missing. As further support, the writer claims the
opponents "did not read the facts [ regarding driver and pedestrian safety]
carefully" and argues that "having daylight savings time in effect was what
kept" pedestrian deaths down. Finally, the writer identifies the opponents'
unsupported claims about the adjustment period for drivers ("The
article ... does not support this claim with any hard facts, it merely gives
opinionated reasons for belief in this theory."). Overall, the response
provides a reasoned, well-developed, and fluidly integrated argument
focused on the validity of the arguments in the source text. Therefore, it
earns a score of 2 for Trait 1.
Trait 2 - Development of Ideas and Organizational Structure
Score: 2
There is much debate as to whether the effects of Daylight Savings Time,
also known as DST, has a positive affect on people or a negative affect
on people. I t has surely been an int eresting debate, because it was
even debated in the late 1700's by Benjamin Franklin! If a great mind
such as Benjamin Franklin was discussing this issue, it is clear that DST
is beneficial to society in many ways. It is even said to save lives! If
something with such a positive impact has so many great results then why
aren't more people in favor of it? Countries such as parts of Arizona and
Hawaii are still skeptical about DST and refuse to take part in it.
DST is something that was introduced in 1918 and after a few
adjustments , it has been used ever since. It wasn't successful at first
because there was not a set time as to when it was supposed to take
place. Once the Uniform Time Act of 1966 was enacted, there were no
negative impacts of DST apparent.
Studies have been done in an attempt to undermine the positive impact
of DST, but the studies do not really show conclusive results that would
benefit their arguements. For example, there was a study done in indiana
that tried to show negative results pertaining to DST. The three year
study showed results that there was an increase in energy spending and it
was concluded that DST caused an increase of air conditioning being used.
The results are not valid, because weather plays a big part in the cost of
energy and whether DST was implemented or not, people would be using
air conditioning. Therefore, there is no real arguement as to why DST
could possibly be bad for our society.
On the contrary, there are many studies that show great results in favor of
DST and showcase just how beneficial DST is to average americans. DST
affects energy costs, reduces crimes, and even saves lives! A study done
in 1970 concluded that an average of 1% in energy costs was saved every
day because of DST. Due to the prolonged amount of light at the end of
the day, people have less need of electricity. DST can also save lives, and
this is due to the fact that more daylight means drivers and pedestrians
do not have to deal with the dark when coming home from work or school.
This has decreased accidents by about 10 percent! DST affects crime
rates as well because people get their errands and duties done during
daylight hours and are safely home by the time it gets dark.
DST is obviously beneficial to society and is much needed to help reduce
costs of energy. The meager results against DST are vastly outnumbered
by the solid results found in support of DST. It is such a great thing to
have, that it should be implemented in other countries and not just our
own. It would greatly benefit other countries who wish to lower energy
costs and reduce crime rates. No matter what debates are brought about,
it can be concluded that DST is a practice that isn't going away!
Score Explanation: This response establishes a clear organizational
structure, opening with historical information about DST to frame the
issue, then discussing both sides of the argument, and finally concluding
with an analysis. This structure allows for a sensible progression of
mostly developed, generally logical ideas. The writer points to a study
that "attempt[s] to undermine" DST in paragraph 3 and then elaborates
on why the conclusions are invalid. The writer goes on to discuss the
idea that the studies "in favor of DST" outweigh those studies that offer
opposition. This discussion establishes a clear connection between main
idea and supporting details within paragraph 4. In general, the writer's
word choices clearly express ideas in the response, and an appropriate
formality of tone is maintained throughout. As a whole, the response is
organized, focused, and developed. Therefore, it earns a score of 2 for
Trait 2.
Trait 3 - Clarity and Command of Standard English Conventions
Score: 2
When Daylight Savings Time (DST) was first considered by Benjamin
Franklin in 1784 in France, there was not an immediate electrical need for
the shift. People were using candles and daylight to compensate for the
darkness, which was not always a great cost to those who made their own
candles. By the time DST was actually implemented in 1918, electricity
had evolved and both and money were being spent on these household
necessities instead of the production of war materials. Families didn't
have to work as hard to bring in extra money or go without any food at
night by instead saving in their energy costs.
Initially, cities were given the choice as to whether or not they wanted
to take advantage of this new t ime system. These cities dictated when
the t ime would change and by how much, which proved to be a disaster
by the 1960's. So many cities across the country were operating
on completely different time schedules, which mainly hindered the
entertainment and travel schedules. If a train were to leave New York City
at 12:00 PM, they could arrive in St. Louis only at 12:00 PM still based on
their t ime preference! The time zones could not be changed, however,
and the eastern coast of the United States will still always be three hours
ahead of the west coast, regardless of an amount of DST.
To fix this complication, Congress enacted the Uniform Time Act of 1966,
but yet this still did not require all cities to adhere to DST. It equalized
when it was supposed to go into effect, which made somewhat of a
smoother transition. Although to this day, there are still parts of Arizona
and all of Hawaii that have not converted to a DST system. These two
areas are in fairly year-round steady temperatures, especially with their
proximity to the equat or, and both enjoy a healthy dose of sunshine on a
regular basis.
For years, scientists and research projects have weighed the benefits and
costs against one another. In the 1970's, it was determined that DST
saves 1% a day in energy costs. This goes along the lines of Benjamin
Franklin's initial thought process that more available sunlight decreases
the need to rely on electricity. It was also noted that the increase in
sunlight saved many lives. Of course, it has always been safer to travel
to and from work or school during the day. Once DST was utilized, there
was between and 8 and 11% decrease in fatal pedestrian accidents and
between a 6 and 10% decrease in fatal vehicle accidents. The crime
rates also decreased because people who were forced to run errands or
spend time outside during the night were not as exposed to the criminal
acts that primarily take place in the dark. Another benefit is within the
realm of safety issues. Before cent ral heat and air, the natural weather
patterns dictated the temperature of homes. In northern and colder
climates, families had to burn fires sometimes overnight in order to keep
themselves thoroughly warm. In these wood-built homes, an unwatched
fire can spark and set the house on fire before anyone could wake up and
escape. In the hot summers, families kept their windows open to provide
a breeze. This let in all different kinds of diseases and illnesses that the
families then became exposed to, and in some cases died from. Or if a
t rusting family left their child's window open at night , a criminal might
take note of that pattern and find an opportunity to kidnap the chi ld or
burglarize the home.
There are many people who theorize that the benefits do not outweigh
the costs by any means. In 2007, California conducted a study
that determined that during that year there was little to no energy
conservation. Another three year study in Indiana concluded that there
was an $8.6 million increase of money spent on energy, and that the
surrounding air pollution increased dramatical ly. It has been said that
this is due to the increase of daylight in warmer climates, resulting in
an increased use of air conditioning. There is a pattern of pedestrian
fatalities increasing immediately after the switch to fa ll DST, primarily
because it becomes darker so much sooner, therefore drivers are not
always as alert and prepared to watch for a pedest rian. A study showed
that there were 227 pedestrians killed in the fa ll time switch compared to
65 killed after the spring time switch. Drivers are also unprepared for the
abrupt time change. I nstead of the time change in the mronings being
gradual and slight, going by just minutes each day, it is the immediate
one hour shift that causes disorientation and adjustment for the drivers.
In the fall, the hour that is moved backwards causes early morning
risers to be traveling in the dark when they are used to a more sunny
time clock. For the spring, those who are employed in predominantly
night-based jobs face glaring sunlight, and sometimes are delayed in
the completion of their projects. There are also those who simply forget
about DST all together, failing to adjust for the time change in their alarm
clocks, and fall into seeral different situations. By forgetting to change
the alarm to be set at midnight instead of 11:00 PM, someone might wake
up an hour later that morning and rush to work, still late regardless. Or
the opposite might occurr, and someone is waking up an hour earlier than
intended and become cranky.
It seems as though by the t ime we are well adjusted to the time change,
it's come around to that point in the year where we have to jump right
back and start all over again. This has caused a lifestyle that revolves
heavily around clocks and time schedules. Back in the early 1900's
when this time change was first being discovered and implemented,
there weren't as many nighttime hazards. Many people didn't own cars
and walked everywhere, thereby decrease the pedestrian versus vehicle
co llisions. The crime rates were almost non-existent in these small
communities where trust was everything. The only thing that many
people saw their nights as being good for was cooling off in warm climates
or sleeping peacef ully. During those t ime periods, people rose and slept
by the sunlight . Alarm clocks, or even clocks in general, had yet to be
developed. Farmers rose when their bodies alerted them that they had
slept enough, worked hard until the sun went down, and slept again
until it was morning time. In this day and age, there are many people
who work overnight jobs and extremely late shifts, and their body clocks
just don't have the ability to adjust to any particular natural schedule.
Especially for those in law enforcement or the medical fields, where
culture has deemed it necessary to remain awake at hours when many
parts of the world are fast asleep.
I personally believe that we don't need to rely on a scientific schedule to
determine when the sun goes up or down, and to regulate what we set
our clocks by. Nature should still be our guide, allowing for the gradual
adjustment that our bodies need to adapt to a time difference. The same
concept occurs with jet lag, and our bodies are unable to catch up and
realize we have changed time zones. Perhaps the areas of the world
that don't utilize this advanced time system are better off. Maybe our
ancestors had it right when they relied on senses and sights to determine
how to live their lives. The problem is, however, that now that our world
depends on these technologies and advancements, how is there ever a
way to just go back to the roots?
Score Explanation: This lengthy response demonstrates competent
application of conventions, including subject-verb agreement, word usage,
and the rules of capitalization and punctuation. The response includes
largely correct sentence structure, and the writer establishes sentence
variety by blending simple and complex sentences while maintaining
clarity (Nature should still be our guide, allowing for the gradual
adjustment that our bodies need to adapt to a time difference. The same
concept occurs with jet lag, and our bodies are unable to catch up and
realize we have changed time zones. Perhaps the areas of the world
that don't utilize this advanced time system are better off.) Transitional
phrases are applied throughout ("To fix this complication, Congress
enacted the Uniform Time Act of 1966, but yet this still did not require all
cit ies to adhere to DST"). The response contains a few errors, but they do
not hinder overall comprehension. As a whole, the response demonstrates
command and is at an appropriate level for on-demand draft writing.
Therefore, it earns a score of 2 for Trait 3.
|
