Give me a generalized essay outline i can use to easily score full points on the essay.
Example:
There is a debate on whether Urban rewilding is the next step to ecological restoration, as its goal is to restore
natural processes and habitats in more urban areas. Rewilding is a worthwhile, beneficial approach to preserving
nature, as well as implementing it into more city environments.
 Enforcing the idea of rewilding in attempts to conserve nature and increase green space sparks opportunity.
Writers Jepson, Paul, and Frans Schepers argue that the process "reflects innovation and creates the possibility for a
common, but differentiated (situated) mode of conservation" (Document B). Saving as much wildlife as possible is a
consistent motive in today's society. In this case, the fresh concept of rewilding will do more good than harm, if
anything at all. There is also a matter of future generations to be recognized. Yes, everyone has heard the cliche of
"think about the kids and the world they will live in someday," but it stands just as strong. In Document C, Dr. Scott
proposes a question to his audience of those who may have their doubts. He asks "If people don't spend any time
outside, why are they going to care about their local places let alone the national parks in the distance?" (Document
C). Although childhood experiences have evolved over generations, embracing the outdoors should not be
something that turns into a fairy tale to future children.
 Despite the great effects rewilding may have, there are its downsides as well. Writer Lincoln Garland lists off
negatives such as "degradation by trampling, visual and noise disturbance, fire, invasive species, effects of predatory
pets etc." (Document D). Sure, going through with the idea of rewilding isn't going to be an entire, shall I say, "walk
in the park." However, the benefits in the end will outweigh the difficulties along the way, and the goal of restoring
nature will have one more task ticked off the list. When taking the time to look, the statistics are right before one's
eyes. Sarah Fastnacht provides the numbers, and they are promising. Going through with rewilding will result in
"more than 70% projected extinctions of plants and animals [being] counteracted by restoring only 30% of priority
areas" (Document A). Although there is hard work and brain power to be put in, even a little can go a long way.
 The rewilding process is one that is worthwhile, and a concept that should be strongly considered. Without
innovative ideas and change, society is always going to be wishing for a more ecological friendly world, rather than
living in one.
Scoring Commentary:
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-3-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found in the last sentence of paragraph 1: “Rewilding is a worthwhile,
beneficial approach to preserving nature, as well as implementing it into more city environments.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response uses specific evidence from Sources B and C to support its line of reasoning, as in
paragraph 2: “Writers Jepson, Paul, and Frans Schepers argue that the process ‘reflects innovation
and creates the possibility for a common, but differentiated (situated) mode of conservation’
(Document B).” However, the commentary following this evidence—“Saving as much wildlife as
possible is a consistent motive in today’s society. In this case, the fresh concept of rewilding will do
more good than harm, if anything at all”—implies this source citation is self-evident and therefore
does not integrate it well into the line of reasoning.
The response works more deftly with Source C, introducing it with a qualified claim: “Yes, everyone
has heard the cliche of ‘think about the kids and the world they will live in someday,’ but it stands
just as strong” (paragraph 2). The commentary that follows the evidence—“Although childhood
experiences have evolved over generations, embracing the outdoors should not be something that
turns into a fairy tale to future children”—does a better job of explaining how the evidence supports
a line of reasoning.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response does not situate the argument within a broader context, and while its style is
competent, it does not rise to the level of consistently vivid or persuasive. However, the response
earned the point in Row C for identifying and exploring complexities or tensions across the sources
in paragraph 3. After accurately identifying a counterclaim to the response’s thesis in Source D and using an apt quotation from that source, the response both summarizes Source D’s position and
introduces a refutation: “Sure, going through with the idea of rewilding isn’t going to be an entire,
shall I say, ‘walk in the park.’ However, the benefits in the end will outweigh the difficulties along the
way, and the goal of restoring nature will have one more task ticked off the list.” The response uses
Source A as evidence to support this claim before continuing its line of reasoning by stating that
although “there is hard work and brain power to be put in, even a little can go a long way.”
Rubric:
Scoring Rubric for Question 1: Synthesis Essay 6 points
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis
(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.