Argument & Persuasive Writing — English

Finish this sentence honestly first: “Sixth-graders should / should not be allowed to run because…”

A reason answers why; the evidence is the concrete case, fact, or example that makes the reason believable.

Check that your two reasons are genuinely different, not the same idea reworded.

Claim: Sixth-graders should be allowed to run for student council, because leadership ability has nothing to do with how long you have attended the school.

First, barring sixth-graders wastes real talent. Last year a sixth-grader named Dana organized a supply drive that collected over 300 items in two weeks — more than any club managed all year — yet she could not run for a council seat. Students who can already lead should be allowed to lead.

Second, letting sixth-graders run makes the council more representative. Sixth-graders make up nearly a third of the school, but right now no one from that grade has a vote on how activity money is spent. An elected sixth-grade representative would give the largest group in the building an actual voice, which is the whole point of a student council.

Response criteria

• States a clear position on the question in one arguable claim
• Gives at least two distinct reasons that support the claim
• Backs each reason with a specific example, fact, or scenario (not just a restatement)
• Reasons and evidence actually support the stated position

An arguable thesis is one a reasonable person could disagree with. “Social media affects teens” is not arguable; “Social media does teens more harm than good” is.

Replace “good things and bad things” with an actual judgment — which side wins, and on what grounds?

Preview two or three specific reasons so the thesis maps out the whole essay.

Although social media helps teenagers stay connected, it does them more harm than good: constant comparison damages their self-image, endless notifications fragment their attention and sleep, and the pressure to perform online crowds out real friendship.

Response criteria

• Rewrite states one clear, arguable position (not just a topic announcement)
• Removes the “I am going to talk about” announcing language
• Previews at least two specific reasons or angles
• Reads as a focused one-to-two-sentence thesis

Name the opponent's best point, not their weakest. A fair counterclaim might involve buses, sports schedules, or working parents.

Signal the turn with a word like however, yet, or while this is true.

A rebuttal doesn't just repeat your claim louder — it explains why your position still holds despite the objection.

Critics of a later start time raise a real logistical problem: many districts run the same buses for elementary, middle, and high schools in sequence, so pushing middle school an hour later could force costly new routes or leave younger children waiting in the dark. This concern deserves a serious answer. However, several districts that moved to later start times simply swapped the middle- and elementary-school slots rather than buying new buses, since younger children tend to wake earlier anyway. The added sleep matters: adolescents' internal clocks shift later at puberty, and schools that delayed start times have reported fewer tardies and better attendance. In other words, the busing objection is about scheduling, not about whether later starts help students — and scheduling is a solvable problem.

Response criteria

• States a genuine, fairly-worded counterclaim (the other side's strongest point)
• Clearly signals the shift from counterclaim to rebuttal
• Rebuts with reasoning or evidence, not just contradiction
• Keeps the tone fair — does not distort the opposing view

Look for words that assume agreement instead of earning it: “everyone knows,” “obviously,” “that is just a fact.”

A claim needs a because and a for example, not a louder assertion.

Keep the position if you like, but make a reader who disagrees take it seriously.

Weaknesses: First, the paragraph offers no evidence — it leans on “everyone knows” and “that is just a fact,” which assume agreement instead of earning it (a bandwagon appeal). Second, it substitutes name-calling (“cruel,” “terrible,” “any decent person”) for reasoning, so a reader who disagrees is given nothing to actually think about.

Rewrite: Many traditional zoos harm the animals they house. Wide-ranging species such as elephants and polar bears evolved to travel many miles a day, and confining them to enclosures a fraction of that size is linked to what biologists call stereotypic behaviors — repetitive pacing or head-bobbing that researchers treat as signs of distress. For example, one review of captive elephants (cited here as an illustration) found they lived markedly shorter lives than elephants in the wild. If an animal's environment measurably shortens its life and drives abnormal behavior, then that captivity is doing real harm — which is exactly why zoos should be judged by how well they meet each species' needs, not excused simply because they are popular.

Response criteria

• Identifies at least two real weaknesses (e.g., no evidence, bandwagon/“everyone knows,” name-calling, circular repetition)
• Rewrite keeps a clear claim about zoos
• Rewrite adds concrete evidence or a specific example (a labeled hypothetical is fine)
• Rewrite uses reasoning to connect the evidence to the claim and drops the loaded language

Your topic sentence is the sub-claim — something like “The after-school library meets a need students can't meet anywhere else.”

Don't just drop the numbers in; each statistic should be followed by a sentence explaining what it shows.

Reasoning answers “so what?” — connect the evidence back to the decision about keeping the library open.

The after-school library isn't a luxury — for many students it is the only quiet place they have to do their work. In a school survey, 61% of students said they have no quiet place to study at home, which means a majority are trying to concentrate in crowded or noisy spaces every evening. The library answers that need directly: it drew an average of 40 visitors a day last term, and on the days it closed early, the public library down the street reported study rooms overflowing. Those overflow numbers matter because they show the demand doesn't disappear when our doors close — it just moves somewhere less convenient and further from our teachers and resources. If dozens of students use the space daily and have nowhere comparable to go, then closing it doesn't save a need; it simply leaves that need unmet.

Response criteria

• Opens with a topic sentence that states an arguable sub-claim
• Uses at least two of the provided data points as evidence
• Explains what the evidence shows rather than just listing it
• Reasoning links the evidence to the conclusion that the library should stay open

A hook can be a vivid scene, a surprising fact, or a sharp question — but it should point toward your topic.

Context bridges the hook to the thesis: what does the reader need to know about libraries today?

End the paragraph on the thesis so the reader knows exactly where you stand.

Walk into a public library on a Saturday and you will see something libraries were never designed for: teenagers waiting in line not for books but for one of the two computers that stream films for free. Libraries have always been more than book warehouses — they lend tools, host classes, and give people access to things they could not afford on their own. That mission is exactly why public libraries should devote part of their budgets to streaming media: doing so keeps the library relevant to how people actually learn and relax today, extends expensive digital access to families who cannot pay for it, and draws in the very patrons who might otherwise never walk through the door.

Response criteria

• Opens with a genuine hook (scene, question, or striking fact), not the thesis restated
• Includes context that orients the reader on the issue
• Ends with a clear thesis that takes a position
• Thesis previews at least one reason or the line of argument

Sophistication often lives in the word but — grant something true, then show why it doesn't settle the question.

Try a “not X but Y” or “X only when Y” structure to carve out a precise position.

The goal isn't to sit on the fence; it's to stake out a defensible middle sharper than “always” or “never.”

It is tempting to ban AI writing tools outright, and the worry behind that impulse is legitimate: a student who has a chatbot generate an entire essay learns nothing and hands in work that isn't theirs. That concern is real and shouldn't be waved away. But a blanket ban mistakes the tool for the misuse. The problem isn't that a student typed a prompt; it's that the thinking was outsourced. That distinction points to a better rule than “always” or “never”: AI should be allowed as a tutor and not a ghostwriter — fine for brainstorming counterarguments, checking whether a paragraph is clear, or explaining a confusing comment, but not for producing the sentences a student then submits as original work. Framed that way, the goal of schoolwork — learning to think on the page — stays intact, while students still gain fluency with a tool they will certainly use for the rest of their lives. The honest position isn't “for” or “against” AI; it's about drawing the line at the exact point where help becomes replacement.

Response criteria

• Makes a genuine concession to the opposing view (not a straw man)
• Pivots to a clear position of the writer's own
• The position is qualified/nuanced rather than all-or-nothing (conditions, distinctions)
• Reasoning explains why the qualified position is stronger than the extreme versions