Act like you are a writing teacher. Here is this prompt and a sample of my students writing. Tell me as a teacher if this sample meets the requirements and give them a score based on the rubric.: 
Prompt:
In 1930 Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi led a nonviolent march in India protesting Britain’s colonial monopoly on
and taxation of an essential resource: salt. The Salt March, as it came to be known, was a triggering moment for the
larger civil disobedience movement that eventually won India independence from Britain in 1947. Shortly before the
Salt March, Gandhi had written to Viceroy Lord Irwin, the representative of the British crown in India. The passage
below is the conclusion of that letter. Read the passage carefully. Then, in a well-written essay, analyze the
rhetorical choices Gandhi makes to present his case to Lord Irwin.
I know that in embarking on non-violence, I shall
be running what might fairly be termed a mad risk.
But the victories of truth have never been won
L without risks, often of the gravest character. ine
5 Conversion of a nation that has consciously or
unconsciously preyed upon another, far more
numerous, far more ancient, and no less cultured
than itself, is worth any amount of risk.
I have deliberately used the word conversion. For
10 my ambition is no less than to convert the British
people through non-violence, and thus to make them
see the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek
to harm your people. I want to serve them even as I
want to serve my own. I believe that I have always
15 served them.
I served them up to 1919, blindly. But when my
eyes were opened and I conceived non-co-operation,
the object still was to serve them. I employed the
same weapon that I have, in all humility, successfully
20 used against the dearest members of my family. If I
have equal love for your people with mine, it will not
long remain hidden. It will be acknowledged by them,
even as the members of my family acknowledged,
after they had tried me for several years. If the people
25 join me, as I expect they will, the sufferings they will
undergo, unless the British nation sooner retraces its
steps, will be enough to melt the stoniest hearts.
The plan through civil disobedience will be to
combat such evils as I have sampled out. If we want
30 to sever the British connection it is because of such
evils. When they are removed, the path becomes easy.
Then the way to friendly negotiation will be open. If
the British commerce with India is purified of greed,
you will have no difficulty in recognizing our
35 independence. I invite you then to pave the way for
immediate removal of those evils, and thus open a
way for a real conference between equals, interested
only in promoting the common good of mankind
through voluntary fellowship and in arranging terms
40 of mutual help and commerce equally suited to both.
You have unnecessarily laid stress upon communal
problems that unhappily affect this land. Important
though they undoubtedly are for the consideration of
any scheme of Government they have little bearing
45 on the greater problems which are above communities
and which affect them all equally. But if you cannot
see your way to deal with these evils and my letter
makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day
of this month, I shall proceed with such co-workers of
50 the Ashram1 as I can take, to disregard the provisions
of the salt laws. I regard this tax to be the most
iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint.
As the independence movement is essentially for the
poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with
55 this evil. The wonder is that we have submitted to the
cruel monopoly for so long. It is, I know, open to you
to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that
there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined
manner, to take up the work after me, and, in the act
60 of disobeying the Salt Act2, to lay themselves open to
the penalties of a law that should never have
disfigured the statute book.
I have no desire to cause you unnecessary
embarrassment, or any at all, so far as I can help. If
65 you think that there is any substance in my letter, and
if you will care to discuss matters with me, and if to
that end you would like me to postpone publication
of this letter, I shall gladly refrain on receipt of a
telegram to that effect soon after this reaches you.
70 You will, however, do me the favour not to deflect
me from my course, unless you can see your way to
conform to the substance of this letter.
This letter is not in any way intended as a threat,
but is a simple and sacred duty, peremptory on a civil
75 resister. Therefore, I am having it specially delivered
by a young English friend who believes in the Indian
cause and is a full believer in non-violence and whom
Providence seems to have sent to me, as it were, for
the very purpose.
1 A spiritual retreat or monastery for a community of Hindus
2 The India Salt Act (1882) enforced the British colonial government’s
monopoly on the collection, manufacture, and sale of salt in India.
Requirements:
1 point
Responds to the prompt with a defensible thesis that analyzes the writer’s
rhetorical choices.
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.
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 passage 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.
4 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific evidence to
support all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Consistently explains how the
evidence supports a line of
reasoning.
AND
Explains how multiple rhetorical
choices in the passage
contribute to the writer’s
argument, purpose, or message. 
Typical responses that earn
4 points:
• Uniformly offer evidence to
support claims.
• Focus on the importance of
specific words and details
from the passage 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.
• Explain how the writer’s
use of rhetorical choices
contributes to the student’s
interpretation of the passage.
Typical responses that earn 3
points:
• Uniformly offer evidence to
support claims.
• Focus on the importance of
specific words and details
from the passage 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
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 1 point:
• Tend to focus
on summary
or description
of a passage
rather than
specific details or
techniques.
• Mention
rhetorical
choices with little
or no explanation.
1 point
Response demonstrates sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding
of the rhetorical situation.
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. Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer’s rhetorical choices
(given the rhetorical situation).
2. Explaining a purpose or function of the passage’s complexities or tensions.
3. Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.
My Student's Sample :
In 1930, Britain still had immense control over India and profited greatly over their many resources. One of them most popularly being salt. The British rule of India taxed its native citizens on salt and other goods, soon beginning a ripple effect of impactful yet nonviolent protests that soon led to India’s independence in 1947. The first of many protests began with the Salt March, led by none other than Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi. Prior to the Salt March occuring, Gandhi wrote to the representative of the British crown in India (Viceroy Lord Irwin) in hopes of persuading the British government in consensually giving India its independence and allowing them to have control over the resources that were rightfully theirs. He attempts to achieve this purpose by establishing his respect for the nation of Britain and its people, assuring Britain it’s benefits over India’s independence and giving a subtle yet firm warning to the British government.

Gandhi intelligently begins and even ends his letter immediately and clearly stating his criticism towards the British rule over India has absolutely no violent or ill intentions. He acknowledges the fact that it could be considered risky to ask for indepence in a peaceful manner but is worth said risk if it can possibly build a strong relationship between two countries “no less cultured” than the other. After establishing India’s respect as a nation for Britain as a whole, he expresses his personal feelings of admiration towards Britain and his desire to serve it as he always has, “I do not seek to harm your people. I want to serve them even as I want to serve my own. I believe that I have always served them.” To further build on that emotional connection, Gandhi goes as far to compare the love he has with Britain to the love he has for his own people or his “family” whomst he countinted to loyally serve even after hearing of the flaws in the monarchy’s  rule of India. Despite the tense relationship between  the two nations Gandhi makes it clear he still views Britain as a respectable ally he adores and has no intention to revolt against whilst building an emotional and personal connection between him and Lord Irwin who was born on British soil.

Gandhi was aware that compliments and flattery towards Britain in itself was not enough to convince them India was worthy of its independence, therefore he lays out his thoughts on how he believes that Britain would continue to benefit greatly from resources even with India’s newly established independence and both parties will receive what they want. Once Britain's “evil” forces are removed from India, the nation will be able to fairly distribute resources among both countries, “When they are removed, the path becomes easy. Then the way to friendly negotiation is open.” Gandhi slightly infers that if British forces cooperate with India as equals, they will gain the resources they desire easily without having to fight the resistance and rightful anger of India’s people. By presenting the idea to the British government of an easier and peaceful way to obtain resources from India, he ultimately portrays India’s independence as something it was assumed to be the opposite of: a win to Britain.

Regardless of his soft demeanor towards Britain in his letter, Gandhi was not afraid to show his eagerness in granting India its independence by subtly heeding Britain multiple warnings on what is to come if they fail to give India what it desires. He first inverses his previous argument by discussing that Britain will fail to thrive in India if the nation is still under British rule, it will be harder for them to stay in power as anger within India and its people will continue to rise after years of unjustful treatment.  He acknowledges that the wrath of the citizens of India is not to be taken lightly, although he does not intend violence or harm towards Britain his words imply a powerful and fearful tone, “If the people join me, as I expect they will, the sufferings they will undergo, unless the British nation sooner retraces it’s steps, will be enough to melt the stoniest hearts.” He lastly adds that even if Britain gives India its independence yet does not end its “greedy” treatment, India will not hesitate to let Britain be aware of its newly born nation that has total control over its own land. Gandhi swiftly shows a serious side to him to assure his point gets across to Britain and is not mistaken as pleading for indepence, but rather respectfully demanding it.

Gandhi seems to achieve his purpose of negotiating the  independence of India by establishing his respect for the nation of Britain and its people, assuring Britain its benefits over India’s independence and giving a subtle yet firm warning to the British government. Although India's independence was not granted directly after this letter was read, it’s promises were fulfilled and India soon got it wanted very soon after with the help of Gandhi's powerful words and actions.