The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.

Comments:

After describing the argument as "weak," this strong response goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address

-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods

-- the impact of development on Scott Woods

-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"

The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:

-- whether the school is necessary

-- whether the selected site is appropriate

-- whether some groups might oppose the plan

Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as required for a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing.Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows facility with language.