Rewrite my to meet the rubric and prompt while keeping the original language and words by only doing the least amount of work to meet the requirements. 
Rubrics:
Scoring Rubric for Question 1: Synthesis Essay 6 points
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis magic 
(0-1 points)
4.B
0 points
For any of the following:
• There is no defensible thesis.
• The intended thesis only restates the prompt.
• The intended thesis provides a summary of the issue with no
apparent or coherent claim.
• There is a thesis, but it does not respond to the prompt.
1 point
Responds to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Only restate the prompt.
• Do not take a position, or the position is vague or must
be inferred.
• Equivocate or summarize other’s arguments but not the student’s
(e.g., some people say it’s good, some people say it’s bad).
• State an obvious fact rather than making a claim that requires
a defense.
Responses that earn this point:
• Responds to the prompt rather than restate or rephrase the prompt, and the
thesis clearly takes a position rather than just stating that there are pros/cons.
Additional Notes:
• The thesis may be more than one sentence, provided the sentences are in close proximity.
• The thesis may be anywhere within the response.
• For a thesis to be defensible, the sources must include at least minimal evidence that could be used to support that thesis; however, the student need
not cite that evidence to earn the thesis point.
• The thesis may establish a line of reasoning that structures the essay, but it needn’t do so to earn the thesis point.
• A thesis that meets the criteria can be awarded the point whether or not the rest of the response successfully supports that line of reasoning.
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row B
Evidence
AND
Commentary
(0-4 points)
2.A
4.A
6.A
6.B
6.C
0 points
Simply restates thesis
(if present), repeats
provided information, or
references fewer than two
of the provided sources.
1 point
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least two of the
provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Summarizes the evidence
but does not explain how
the evidence supports the
student’s argument.
2 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least three of
the provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence relates to the
student’s argument, but
no line of reasoning is
established, or the line of
reasoning is faulty.
3 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific evidence
from at least three of
the provided sources to
support all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence supports a line of
reasoning.
4 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific
evidence from at least
three of the provided
sources to support
all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Consistently explains how
the evidence supports a
line of reasoning.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that
earn 0 points:
• Are incoherent or do not
address the prompt.
• May be just opinion with
no textual references
or references that are
irrelevant.
Typical responses that earn
1 point:
• Tend to focus on summary
or description of sources
rather than specific
details.
Typical responses that earn
2 points:
• Consist of a mix of
specific evidence and
broad generalities.
• May contain some
simplistic, inaccurate, or
repetitive explanations
that don’t strengthen the
argument.
• May make one point well
but either do not make
multiple supporting claims
or do not adequately
support more than one
claim.
• Do not explain the
connections or
progression between the
student’s claims, so a line
of reasoning is not clearly
established.
Typical responses that earn
3 points:
• Uniformly offer evidence
to support claims.
• Focus on the importance
of specific words and
details from the sources
to build an argument.
• Organize an argument
as a line of reasoning
composed of multiple
supporting claims.
• Commentary may fail to
integrate some evidence
or fail to support a key
claim.
Typical responses that
earn 4 points:
• Uniformly offer
evidence to support
claims.
• Focus on the
importance of specific
words and details from
the sources to build an
argument.
• Organize and support
an argument as a line of
reasoning composed
of multiple supporting
claims, each with
adequate evidence that
is clearly explained.
Additional Notes:
• Writing that suffers from grammatical and/or mechanical errors that interfere with communication cannot earn the fourth point in this row.
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row C
Sophistication
(0-1 points)
2.A
4.C
6.B
8.A
8.B
8.C
0 points
Does not meet the criteria for one point.
1 point
Demonstrates sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the
rhetorical situation.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Attempt to contextualize their argument, but such attempts
consist predominantly of sweeping generalizations.
• Only hint at or suggest other arguments.
• Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is
ineffective because it does not enhance the student's
argument.
Responses that earn this point may demonstrate sophistication of thought
and/or a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation by doing any of the
following:
1. Crafting a nuanced argument by consistently identifying and exploring
complexities or tensions across the sources.
2. Articulating the implications or limitations of an argument (either the
student’s argument or arguments conveyed in the sources) by situating it
within a broader context.
3. Making effective rhetorical choices that consistently strengthen the force
and impact of the student’s argument.
4. Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.
Additional Notes:
• This point should be awarded only if the sophistication of thought or complex understanding is part of the student’s argument, not merely a phrase
or reference.
Prompt:
Small talk is considered an activity in which people converse politely about unimportant topics. Small talk
can occur in face-to-face interactions as well as in phone calls, e-mails, and text messages. While many
people might not think too much about small-talk exchanges, others consider them an important part of
relationships. In fact, there is growing interest among scholars and journalists in small talk and the extent
to which it is helpful or harmful in our personal and professional development.
Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an
essay that synthesizes material from at least three of the sources and develops your position on what role,
if any, small talk should have in our everyday lives.
Source A (Mannering)
Source B (Schwantes)
Source C (graph)
Source D (Holmes)
Source E (Roberts)
Source F (cartoon)
In your response you should do the following:
● Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
● Select and use evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support your line of
reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary.
Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
● Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
● Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
Source A
Mannering, Lindsay. “The Awkward but Essential Art of Office Chitchat.” The New York Times, 17 Sept.
2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/style/the-awkward-art-of-office-small-talk.html.
The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times.
Every day around the world, an estimated three billion people go to work and 2.9 billion of them avoid
making small talk with their co-workers once they get there.
Their avoidance strategies vary. Some will keep their headphones in and their eyes low. Others will
pantomime receiving an urgent message that requires an immediate, brow-furrowing, life-or-death rapid
response, which incapacitates them from doing pretty much anything else, not excluding riding in, or
communally waiting for, an elevator in their office building; making conversation while heating up
lunch lasagna in the office microwave; walking from the entrance of their office building to the nearest
public transit stop, or to literally anywhere, unless wait, you’re also going there? Because I actually
meant to pop in this fine Persian rug wholesaler. See you tomorrow!
If these strategies sound familiar, if you’ve convinced yourself that avoiding small talk with
co-workers is smart self-preservation, that the risk of saying something “dumb” or offensive or coming
across as socially inept is not worth the reward of connecting with somebody (yes, even if that
connection is a shared concern about it raining), then bad news: Your false logic could be costing you
a promotion. Not to scare you or anything.
Jamie Terran, a licensed career coach in New York City, said that small talk between colleagues and
supervisors builds rapport, which in turn builds trust. “Rapport is the feeling that allows you to extend a
deadline, or overlook smaller mistakes, because it makes it easy for you to remember we’re only human.
Right or wrong, building rapport through interaction with colleagues could be the thing that gets you the
promotion or keeps you in the role you’re in.”
Building rapport applies when you’re interviewing, too. People hire people they want to work with, not
necessarily who’s perfect for the job. Engaging in small talk with your interviewer helps make a positive
impression.
But, how? Small talk, while small and just talk, is intimidating. This is 2019 and we’re all anxious about
something, including a 15-second chat with Janet from accounting about how freaking cold the A/C is in
the conference room. The good news is that you can just go ahead and repurpose your anxiety about
making small talk with your co-workers and worry instead about not making small talk with your
co-workers. See? Easy switch.
Because while small talk can be torture, the absence of it can also make us feel bad about ourselves, like
we’re true failures at life for not being able to connect with a fellow member of the herd, worried deep
down that we will be kicked out of society and left to rot alone on the plains, to pay for our own
streaming services instead of sharing a login.
Here are a few thoughts on how to avoid that feeling.
Remember: You’re More Likable Than You Think
A 2018 study published in Psychological Science showed that people “systematically underestimated
how much their conversation partners liked them and enjoyed their company.”
Think about it: when you have an awkward small talk interaction with a co-worker (it’s stunted, there
were silences, neither of you could think of something to say) do you normally go back to your desk and
think, “Wow, Alex is a terrible conversationalist”? No. You go back to your desk and think, “Wow, I’m a
rotten garbage human being who should be shunned from society.” And Alex is thinking the same thing
about him or herself . . .
A Little Planning Goes a Long Way
If you’re generally anxious in social situations, i.e. human, Ms. Terran suggested coming up with core
questions or stories from which you can pull.
“Whether or not you share personal information about yourself is up to you, but discussing things you
truly care about is always the best strategy,” she said. “Topics relating to your professional field, for
example, an article you saw or book you read, is a great place to start.”
From The New York Times. © 2019 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. Used under license.
Source B
Schwantes, Marcel. “Banning Small Talk From Your Conversations Makes You Happier, Says Science
(Ask Any of These 12 Questions for a Change).” Inc., 12 Sept. 2018,
www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/banning-small-talk-from-your-conversations-makes-youhappier-says
-science-ask-any-of-these-12-questions-for-a-change.html.
The following is excerpted from an article written by a leadership professional.
When you attend a networking event, cocktail party, or meet someone for a business lunch, exchanging
superficial small talk is par for the course.
Sure, questions like What do you do? and Where do you live? are almost necessary to get some
conversational momentum. But how many of us are willing to go deeper? How many of us can say
we are adept at drawing someone into a meaningful conversation that may lead to mutual benefit?
As science discovered, the exchange of the often-rare meaningful interaction in social or business settings
can be the difference between happiness and unhappiness.
Kiss the small talk goodbye, says science
As published in Psychological Science, researchers found that the happiest participants in a study
involving more than 20,000 recorded conversations had twice as many genuine and deep talks as the
unhappiest participants. This confirms what most people know: Surface-level small talk does not build
relationships.
Behavioral scientists Kristen Berman and Dan Ariely tested the theory by hosting a dinner party where
small talk was literally banned. To set some parameters for good conversations, they provided big index
cards with examples of meaningful conversation starters.
Instead of decreasing freedom, “people appeared freer to talk about the things they really wanted to talk
about,” state the authors. In turn, “everyone was happier.”
Entrepreneurs and leaders of every persuasion have seized on the opportunity to socially engage with
captivating questions posed at “Jefferson”-style dinners across the country.
Try Jeffersonian dinners
Jennifer McCrea, senior research fellow at the Hauser Institute for Civil Society at the Kennedy School
at Harvard University, co-authored a book about Jeffersonian dinners called The Generosity Network.
“We were kind of tired of traditional galas and standing cocktail parties where people were making small
talk and then would get pitched to by an organization—and nothing would come out of them,” McCrea
explains. “The genesis is that Thomas Jefferson himself apparently would do dinners like this at his home
and bring in very important people.”
Such events, whether attracting big wigs or neighbors, open up all kinds of possibilities for introverts.
Barry Breaux, a Bay Area physician, hosts such gatherings with simple rules of engagement, including:
● No small talk once discussion starts; no side conversations.
● Confidentiality is a must—respect the privacy of personal stories and information that may be
shared.
● If you disagree with something, attack ideas, not people.
Inc. is a registered trademark of Mansueto VenturesLLC.
Source C
Lenhart, Amanda, et al. “Chapter Two: How Phones Are Used with Friends - What They Can Do and
How Teens Use Them.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, 3 Jan. 2014,
what-they-can-do-and-how-teens-use-them/.
www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/chapter-two-how-phones-are-used-with-friends
The following graph is adapted from a Pew Research Center study of teenagers’mobile-phone usage.
Conducted in 2009, the study surveyed 625 mobile phone users, aged 12–17. Regarding the results
presented in the graph, the researchers note a margin of error of +/- 5%.
Source D
Holmes, Janet. “Doing Collegiality and Keeping Control at Work: Small Talk in Government
Departments.” Small Talk, edited by Justine Coupland, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2000, pp.
32-61.
The following is excerpted from a book of essays with varying perspectives on small talk with the
support of analyses of interactional data in specific social settings.
Paying attention to the face needs of others is a crucial component of ‘doing friendship’ (see Holmes
1995, Coates 1996). In the workplace, the equivalent activity can perhaps be described as ‘doing
collegiality’. . . .
‘Doing collegiality’ involves, in particular, paying attention to the positive face needs of participants, and
small talk is an obvious example of discourse which is oriented to the addressee’s positive face needs.
Indeed, small talk might be considered a core example of positively polite talk. Like complimenting
behaviour, it is designed to signal that the addressee’s wants, ‘or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting
from them’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 101) are appreciated and shared by the speaker. Small talk
typically serves to establish, maintain or renew social relationships (Laver 1975, 1981). In the workplace
the exchange of greetings, complaints about how busy life is, promises to get in touch for lunch, coffee
and so on, are examples of small talk tokens that serve this positive politeness function.
Extract 16
Context: Joan and Elizabeth pass in the corridor
1 E: hi Joan
2 J: hi how are you
3 E: oh busy busy busy
4 J: mm terrible isn’t it
Extract 17
Context: Jon and May pass on the stairs
1 J: hello hello/haven’t seen you for a while\
2 M: /hi\
3 [M:] well I’ve been a bit busy
4 J: must have lunch sometime
5 M: yea good idea give me a ring
ln these extracts, small talk enables these workmates to ‘do collegiality’. They indicate mutual good
intentions as they construct, maintain, repair or extend their collegial relationships. Jon’s use of
‘sometime’ in his invitation is an indication of the largely symbolic status of the interchange, and this is
ratified by May’s equally nonspecific suggestion that he ring her; no precise time or date is mentioned (cf.
Wolfson et al. 1983 on invitations). Reference to how busy one is serves in the workplace as an ideal
small talk token. lt indicates an orientation to the ‘proper’ goals of the workplace, while also providing an
acceptable account of why social relationships receive less attention than might be expected of good
colleagues: in other words ‘busyness’ is an acceptable excuse for perfunctory attention to interpersonal
relationships at work.
As mentioned above, positively polite small talk can also serve a valuable bridging function, a means of
transition to the main business of a workplace interaction. Small talk warms people up socially, oils the
interpersonal wheels and gets talk started on a positive note. . . . Talk about holidays and leisure activities
provide a gentle introduction to work talk. In these extracts, small talk serves what Laver calls an
initiatory function of ‘getting the interaction comfortably underway’ (1975: 221; see also Tannen 1994:
65).
’Reproduced from Small Talk, 1st Edition by Justine, Coupland, published by Routledge. © 2000, Taylor & Francis, ’Reproduced by permission
of Taylor & Francis Books UK.’
Source E
Roberts, David. “Why Small Talk Is so Excruciating.” Vox, 28 Oct. 2017, www.vox.com/
2015/7/7/8903123/small-talk.
The following is excerpted from an article published by a digital media company.
I hate small talk. Hate it.
And when I say I hate it, what I really mean is I’m abysmal at it. Just a total failure.
Here’s how I experience small talk. Say I find myself interacting with a sales clerk, meeting someone at a
party or conference, bumping into a neighbor on the street, any situation that calls for chitchat. The
minute the interaction begins, something inside me—I’d call it a “thought,” but it’s deeper than that,
physical almost—wants to get out of it. My fight-or-flight instincts kick in. It’s like the somatic equivalent
of white noise, louder and louder the longer the interaction goes on. It doesn’t take long before it’s
deafening and I break it off, often in less-than-smooth ways.
The weird thing is, it’s not that I have some general aversion to talking to people. I love talking to people!
. . . And I don’t have generalized social anxiety. I’m perfectly comfortable in a group situation, or
speaking before a crowd, both of which terrify many people. It’s not people in general, or social situations
in general, but specifically one-on-one small talk that is the issue.
The problem, of course, is that small talk precedes big talk in the normal course of human affairs. Most
people feel the need to get comfortable with one another before they jump into the deep end of serious
conversation or ongoing friendship. Which means if you hate and avoid small talk, you are also, as a
practical matter, cutting yourself off from lots of meaningful social interaction, which is a bummer. Also,
research shows that more frequent small talk, even among those who identify as introverts, makes people
happier. Also, despite recent advances in technology, small talk remains an unavoidable part of many
basic life tasks.
So it would be nice to be better at small talk, or at least to understand why I’m so horrible at it. Let’s
take a quick look at the research.
Researchers realize that small talk is no small thing
For all its ubiquity, small talk hasn’t come in for a ton of academic study. The first theoretical account is
generally traced to anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski, in his 1923 essay “The Problem of Meaning in
Primitive Languages.” He noted that a great deal of talk “does not serve any purpose of communicating
ideas” but instead “serves to establish bonds of personal union.” Malinowski termed the exchange of
such talk “phatic communion” (“phatic” from the Greek phatos, for “spoken”). It is speech as social
bonding rather than communication.
Vox.com, writer David Roberts, and Vox Media, Inc. Oct 28, 2017
Source F
Warren, Sofia. Small Talk Vortex. 2017. Fine Art America, fineartamerica.com/featured/
small-talk-vortex-sofia-warren.html.
The following is a cartoon that appeared in the New Yorker magazine in 2017.
My unfinished Essay:
We humans are social creatures. We historically used to be in groups(tribes) in order to go about our daily lives and as a result a great deal of our speech wasn't served towards the purpose of communicating ideas but rather to establish bonds between you and your tribe. The modern equivalent of historical social bonding is small talk. Small talk acts similar to the historical social bonding because as we in modern times use small talk in order to converse politely about unimportant topics and just like our ancestors use language to establish bonds with other people. And as such the role that small talk should have in our everyday lives is a tricky one due to the growing interest among scholars and journalists about the extent to which small tak is helpful or harmful in our personal development. While on one hand small talk replicates our historical social interaction, it can be perceived as redundant and unnecessary due to the superficial nature of small talk. While small talk itself doesn't help build relationships due to its superficial nature, it can be leveraged as a tool to build rapport and establish and strengthen social bonds later in the future.

	A way that we can leverage small talk or how small talk is beneficial to us is that it can help build trust and help you land a promotion. In Source A (Mannering), a licensed career coach, talks about how small talk between colleagues and supervisors helps build rapport, which in turn builds trust. She goes on to talk about how rapport allows others to remember that you are only human and that building rapport through interaction could be the thing that leads you to get the promotion or keep in the role you are in. While the opinion of the person of authority seems logical, the research of two behavioral scientists Kristen Berman and Dan Ariely tested theory that surface-level small talk doesn't not build relationships by banning small talk and providing parameters for good conversations by providing big index cards with examples of meaningful conversation starters, they found that instead of it decreasing freedom people appeared freer to talk about the things they really wanted to talk about.