Claim, Evidence, Warrant
Claim: Thesis of each paragraph: I scored the essay a 2 on relevance. Claims within each paragraph: I thought the essay was a 2 because… I didn’t score the essay higher because… I didn’t score the essay lower because…
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
Evidence: Quotes from the text Facts from the text Make sure to introduce each quote with “for example,” or “the author states” or “In addition, the author mentions” or something. Facts from the text Use separate pieces of evidence for each claim within your paragraph (some for why you didn’t score it higher, some for why you didn’t score it lower)
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
Warrant: Explain HOW the evidence supports your claim. Explain even things you think are obvious. Restate why you gave the score you gave.
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
More Evidence
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
More Warrant
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
Another Claim
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
One last evidence
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.
One final warrant
I scored the substance of this article as a 2 I scored the substance of this article as a 2. One reason I didn’t score the essay lower is that the author seemed to assume the reader knew a lot of background information about the topic. For example, the author mentioned “California’s Proposition 71” without really explaining what it was—he just assumed the reader would already be familiar with this proposition. He also used many scientific terms such as “IVF,” “embryonic stem cell research,” and “human somatic cell nuclear transfer” without explaining the definitions of these terms. While these are not ridiculously difficult scientific concepts, if a reader didn’t know anything about cloning, that reader would be lost. In addition, he also alludes to Dolly the sheep without explaining the reference to the reader. All these technical terms indicate that the author is assuming a certain level of understanding from the reader, which indicates at least a moderate level of depth. On the other hand, this article is certainly not written for a biologist or scientist, which is why I didn’t score it a 3. It is possible that one could argue it’s written at a college level, but it is certainly not technical enough to count as being written at a professional level. In addition, the tone of the essay is quite informal. For example, the author uses phrases like “Katie, bar the door!” along with loaded language like “lab of horrors” and “the Jihad” to indicate a strong opinion on the topic. A professional essay would be much more neutral.