Extended Response Samples

Question (1)

The following articles present arguments both in favor of and against

enforcing school uniforms for all students. In your response, analyze both
positions presented in the two articles and explain which one is best
supported. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources
to support your response.

Passage 1

There are many reasons why enforcing school uniforms for all students
is the correct thing to do. First, students’ behavior improves, and they
tend to perform better academically when they wear a uniform. Second,
not having to make clothing decisions makes mornings easier for both
the child and the parent. Third, it enforces controls on acceptable school
attire and reduces bullying for those children who cannot afford the
latest expensive sneakers or other fashionable clothes.
Educators and experts who support school uniforms agree that uniforms
contribute positively to the behavior of students and that they perform
better when there is less of a focus on fashion in the classroom and more
on learning. A recent study by Virginia Draa, an assistant professor at
Youngstown State University, followed 64 schools in Ohio and
concluded that those schools with uniform policies had improved
records in attendance, graduation, and suspension rates. Uniforms make
students feel more professional and give them a sense of school pride,
which encourages them to behave accordingly.

When students know exactly what they have to wear each day for
school, mornings become much easier because there is no debate on
what clothes the students want to wear to school. Things like modesty
issues are no longer a problem, and the problems of offensive t-shirts
and gang colors are eliminated. In addition, teachers are spared the extra
task of having to monitor their students’ attire and send home offenders
when a school uniform policy is in place.Experts who support the school
uniform policy also believe that wearing uniforms decreased bullying and
teasing related to clothes. This opinion appears to be supported by
experience — for example, a school district in North Jersey recently
reported that implementing school uniforms has directly reduced bullying.
After all, not everyone can afford the latest fashion accessories, and
clothes can be used as a powerful weapon to tease and intimidate poor
students. School uniforms even the playing field because everyone is

1
dressed the same. This allows students to focus on developing their
personality rather than their sense of fashion. Today’s students already
have too many distractions, so doesn’t it make sense to remove yet
another one by enforcing a strict school uniform policy in all schools that
helps students focus on their studies, reduces undesirable behavior, and
fosters a sense of pride and belonging in their school?

Passage 2
Some people think that all students should be forced to wear school
uniforms — but they are idiots who don’t know what they are talking
about. Forcing people to wear school uniforms is immoral, makes them
oblivious to the latest fashion trends, and makes everyone look and act
like little robots.

First of all, forcing students to wear school uniforms is immoral since it

restricts the student’s right to free expression and goes against the idea of
a free society. I thought we lived in America — not communist Russia!
What gives a school administrator (who probably earns less in one year
than what I spend on clothes in a month) the right to force his stupid
ideas of what clothing is appropriate on me and everyone else? If
students should have to wear uniforms, then it only makes sense that the
teachers should be forced to wear them too. Let’s see how they like
being told what to wear!

And have you seen the state of most school uniforms? To say that they
are ugly would be a major understatement. I wouldn’t be seen dead
wearing a below-the-knee length pleated skirt and buckled shoes —
yuck! Get a grip, people! Not only are school uniforms as ugly as sin,but
they also make everyone look the same. How am I supposed to judge
whether a new girl in my class is worthy of my company if I can’t
immediately dismiss her based on her lack of fashion sense (or her lack
of ability to afford designer clothes)? What’s the point of being able to
afford the latest Mui Mui shoes and Gucci tops if I can’t flaunt them in
front of everyone at school each day?

In conclusion, imposing school uniforms on students is immoral, stupid,

and should obviously be illegal!

2
3
4
Question (2)

The minimum age required to apply for a driver’s license varies

from state to state. Although most states require drivers to be 16 or
17, in some states like Alaska, 14-year-olds can apply for their
learner’s permit. Some safety experts and politicians have proposed
raising the minimum driving age to 18. The following articles
present arguments both in favor of and against raising the minimum
driving age. In your response, analyze both positions presented in
the two articles and explain which one is best supported. Incorporate
relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your
response.

Passage 1

Watching your child get behind the wheel for the first time when you
don’t yet trust him to clean up his own room can be a scary moment for
any parent. Scientific evidence shows that the brain of an average teen
operates very differently from that of an average adult and that younger
teens often make careless decisions that can put their own lives and the
lives of others in danger. The typical teenager’s mind is easily distracted;
texting while driving, chatting with friends who are passengers, and
speeding to impress their peers are all examples of dangerous behaviors
that the typical teen is more likely to engage in while driving.

Smartphones and other similar technological distractions appear to be

much more important to younger teenagers. A sudden phone call from a
best friend (or a crush) seems much more important to them than paying
attention to the road. By the age of 18, however, there has been an
adjustment in the teenager’s brain that makes this technology appear not
so important.

Drinking and driving is a problem at all ages, but it is more so for

younger teens. Younger teenagers have a particularly low tolerance for
alcohol, which can lead to devastating results once they get behind the
wheel. The average 16-year-old is simply not mature enough to make
responsible decisions — so why take the risk?

Younger teens are also not experienced enough to be trusted to handle

the multitude of potentially life-or-death decisions that driving requires.
This problem is compounded by the average teenager’s ‘need for speed.’
Whether they are speeding to impress their friends or simply for the
cheap thrill it gives them, teenagers pose a significant risk to their own

5
safety and the safety of others.
Keeping teenagers safe is the number one argument for raising the
minimum driving age. Data provided by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety show that twice as many fatal crashes involve 16- to 17-
year-olds than 18- to 19-year-olds, so it simply makes sense to raise the
minimum driving age.

Passage 2

Recently, some politicians have proposed raising the minimum driving

age to 18 years old in order to reduce the number of fatalities each year
due to teen-related driving accidents. They often cite the age of young
teen drivers as the leading cause of road accidents and suggest that
simply by raising the minimum driving age, the problem will be
resolved. Although the motives of these politicians may be noble, they
have actually misunderstood the root of the problem, and the solution
they propose may actually make things worse.
It is not the age of the driver that matters — it is the driver’s experience
that counts.

No matter at what age a teenager first begins to drive, he or she begins

with zero driving experience. An 18-year-old who is a new driver has
just as little experience behind the wheel as a 16-year-old novice. Data
from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety backs this up by
showing that raising the driving age does not actually prevent teen driver
crashes — it just delays them. According to their statistics, the death rate
due to driving accidents in Connecticut (where the driving age is 16) is
the highest among 16-year-olds, but in New Jersey (where the minimum
licensing age is 17), it is the highest among 17-year-olds. So it is not the
age of the driver that matters — it is the inexperience of the driver that
leads to some accidents.
Kate Willette of Seattle's SWERVE Driving School agrees. “It’s careful
and extensive training, more than age, that prepares teenagers to be safe
drivers,” she argues.

Also, raising the minimum driving age to 18 would prevent many

teenagers from getting the proper driving training they need to become
safe, reliable drivers. Many high schools offer driver's education classes,
and many relatives who are experienced drivers are happy to give their
son or daughter driving lessons on the weekends. But if a teenager
cannot legally start learning to drive until the age when he or she may

6
have already left home, there may not be anyone nearby to teach him or
her to drive safely.Because inexperience (rather than age) appears to be
the main cause of many accidents, then raising the driving age to 18 or 30
or even 50 won’t help. Teens have to get their driving experience
somehow, and the only place they can do that is behind the wheel.

Sample Answer:

In the discussion as to whether the minimum driving age should be

raised to 18 years old, both authors made several claims to support
his point of view, however the author of Passage 2 did a much better job
of supporting his claims with clear, documented facts, and
testimony from leading experts. In contrast, many of the claims by
the author of Passage 1 were not supported by any evidence
whatsoever and appear to be based more in opinion rather than in
fact.

The author of Passage 1 begins by stating that, “Scientific evidence

shows that the brain of an average teen operates very differently
from that of an average adult,” but he fails to provide this “scientific
evidence.” If the evidence exists then the author should show it — he
can’t simply refer to such evidence and hope that we will take him at
his word.

The author of Passage 1 then claims that, “technological

distractions appear to be much more important to younger
teenagers,” and that, “By the age of 18, however, there has been an
adjustment in the teenager’s brain that makes this technology appear
not so important.” Once again the author offer no supporting
evidence to these statements so an intelligent reader is forced to take
them with a pinch of salt.

The author of Passage 1 also claims that, teenagers have a ‘need for
speed’ and that “drinking and driving is a problem at all ages but it
is more so for younger teens.”

Yet again, the author does not offer a single shred of evidence to
support these rather dubious claims. He also appears to be unaware
that the minimum drinking age is 21 which would actually mean that
teenagers are less likely to drink and drive compared to older
drivers.

7
In contrast, the author of Passage 2 offers a variety of evidence for
his more balanced statements and he correctly gets to the heart of
the issue by focusing more on the inexperience of the driver rather
than the driver’s age.

He cites evidence from the data collected by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety to show that raising the driving age does not actually
prevent teen driver crashes — it simply just delays them. This data
compared two states with different driving ages and clearly showed that
17 year-old drivers were no safer on the road than 16
year-old drivers.

The author of Passage 2 also points out that raising the minimum
driving age to 18 may actually make the problem worse by
preventing teenagers from getting the expert training and driving
education they need to become safe, reliable drivers. He supports
this claim with a very logical argument by pointing out that if a
teenager cannot legally start learning to drive until the age when he
or she may have already left home, there may not be anyone nearby
to teach him or her to drive safely. He also quotes from leading
experts in the field such as Kate Willette of Seattle’s SWERVE
Driving School to back up his claim that “It’s careful and extensive
training, more than age, that prepares teenagers to be safe drivers.”

Both authors may have had the same goal in mind — to reduce fatal
road accidents — but only the author of Passage 2 used real
evidence to support his argument. Also, by applying a logical, fact
based argument to the problem, the author of Passage 2 appears to
have ‘hit the nail on the head’ by focusing on the driver’s
inexperience rather than the age of the driver. After all, “Teens have
to get their driving experience somehow and the only place they can
do that is behind the wheel.”

8
Question (3)

Directions: The following articles present arguments both in favor of

and against a topic. In your response, analyze both positions presented
in the two articles and explain which one is best supported. Use
relevant and specific evidence from the articles to support your
response.

Passage One

We all want our tap water to be safe and drinkable. Unfortunately,

this is not always the case. Tests of municipal water supplies across
America raise concerns. They have found traces of pesticides, and
residues of industrial and agricultural chemicals, as well as traces
of pharmaceuticals and other contaminants. There is real concern
about the effects of long-term exposure to these chemicals, even in
trace amounts.

The EPA monitors and has standards for only a few chemicals.
However, there are traces of more than 100,000 manmade
chemicals in municipal water. Despite all the purification
measures, they remain. They include antibiotics, and industrial
pollutants. Tests have found traces of pesticides, including atrazine
and glyphosate, linked to reproductive and neurological issues and
cancer. Dissolved chemicals are not removed during filtration as
long as they are below limits set by the EPA.Municipalities filter their
water, and also add treatment chemicals, including fluoride. Many people
are concerned about fluoridation of water and its health effects. Water
treatment plants use chlorine to sterilize and remove bacteriological
contaminants. As these treatment chemicals break down, the by-products
remain in the water and are potentially harmful.

Even when municipal water is perfectly clean, tap water in your

home still can be contaminated. In older parts of town, lead pipes
were once common. Lead pipes are still in use on many older
areas, and that lead leaches into the water in the pipes. Lead
ingestion can lead to developmental delays and neurological
problems.

Bottled water is always an option for drinking water. However,

some bottlers merely add extra filtration to the same municipal

9
water that comes from your tap. Others don’t even do that before
bottling. Studies have discovered contaminants in many brands of
bottled water.

The only real safe answer is some form of home filtration. The
least expensive way to improve your drinking water somewhat is
to use a jug with a charcoal filter cartridge. That filter removes
chlorine, lead, and unpleasant tastes or odors. This is an effective
and inexpensive choice. More extensive systems, ranging from
distillation systems to high-quality filtration, will do much more,
even removing dissolved chemicals from the water supply.
Despite municipal efforts, city water supplies still have trace
contaminants. If you want the taste of truly clean water, use bottled
water and supplement that with a filtration system that covers your
house. These systems provide you with exceptionally clean water,
free of the many chemical impurities that municipal water systems
do not remove.

Passage Two

Municipal drinking water is clean and safe. It comes from two

main sources: ground waters or surface water. That water is filtered,
treated, and distributed in a safe manner throughout our
cities. Municipalities have done this for nearly 200 years and
improved the process continuously.

Municipalities started chlorinating water at the turn of the last

century after several severe outbreaks of disease. Jersey City was
the first, starting in 1908. In the subsequent two decades, childhood
diseases from municipal water declined by 90 percent and major
infectious diseases by two thirds. More recently, the water
treatment process has been improved to remove dissolved
chemicals, improve taste, and even reduce tooth decay. The
delivery system too has been improved by removing old lead pipes,
once a cause for concern.

Water flows through coarse screens to remove debris, and then

filtration removes fine particles. Flocculants remove suspended
solids, and chlorination removes disease-causing organisms. Some
municipalities treat water with ozone or ultraviolet light rather than
chlorine for extra safety. Adding activated charcoal before final

10
filtration removes organic compounds and improves taste. The
final step is aeration to reduce further dissolved chemicals that
affect the taste of water.

The EPA sets standards for more than 60 contaminants, from

bacteria to filtration residues and organic and inorganic chemicals.
That includes microorganisms such as cryptosporidium and
coliform bacteria. The standards set limits on permissible levels of
the breakdown chemicals of chlorine and other treatment
chemicals. Metals such as cadmium and chromium, asbestos, and
arsenic are also monitored. Municipal water systems must meet all
of these standards. The EPA monitors treatment plants to ensure
compliance.

Municipal water can have an “off” taste. Absolutely pure water has
no taste, but the water we drink is not just H2O. Rains, snows, and
runoff from various sources leach chemicals from the soil. Most of
these are harmless natural salts. They add their own taste to the
water. Sometimes, algae or agricultural runoff in surface water also adds
an unpleasant odor and taste. None of this makes the drinking
water unsafe.

Municipal water treatment guarantees clean and safe water. The

water is so safe, in fact, that nearly one-third of bottled water is
simply municipal water repackaged by bottlers. Why bother with
bottled water or extra filtration when your municipal supply is
perfectly safe?

Sample Answer:

The two passages present different views. One argues that municipal
water is safe, the other that municipal water can’t be trusted. Both
passages present some facts to back their positions, but passage two
presents the stronger case.

Both passages present some data to support their arguments. Passage

one argues that municipal water supplies cannot be trusted. It states
that trace chemicals remain despite all filtration. It further argues that
the EPA monitors only a few chemicals in the water supply. It states
that many trace elements remain in the water, including medication,
pesticides and industrial pollution.

11
However, passage two contradicts part of this. It states that the EPA
has standards for over 60 chemicals. It discusses some specific
examples of chemicals and bacteria in the water, and it states that the
EPA monitors to ensure the water supply reduces these to safe levels.
It also mentions the use of charcoal to remove chemicals and the
replacement of chlorine with ozone or ultraviolet light. All these
steps remove trace pollutants. These statements are specific and
strongly contradict passage one, making a stronger case.

The safety of the water supply is reinforced by the second passage’s

argument that water filtration has eliminated outbreaks of diseases
spread by municipal water. The data for that is old, but still valid.
The second passage also uses the fact that water bottlers use city
water to makes a strong case for its safety.

Both passages even address the issue of foul-smelling and bad-tasting

water. People are naturally concerned when city water smells or tastes
bad. The first passage suggests filtration to remove odors and lead. The
second passage explains that taste and odor are not a
safety issue. It identifies the source of the odor and taste, which is
reassuring and reinforces the case that municipal water is safe.

The first passage discusses the use of additional filters in the home.
It argues that extra filters are the only way to ensure that trace
contaminants are removed. The second passage does not deal
specifically with the issue of pesticide or medication residues.
However, the first passage does not explain at what levels these
contaminants are found, only that there are traces. By definition,
trace contaminants are just that, traces. Nothing in the first passage
explains why people need to be worried about traces of chemicals.
Only one statement suggests that these trace amounts might be
harmful, and even that offers no supporting evidence.

The second passage makes a more convincing case because it

presents more evidence. It has clear examples of EPA standards and
of efforts to deal with lead in pipes. It also successfully addresses
taste and odor problems. The other passage never expands on the one
area of concern it does present, the presence of trace contaminants.
The second passage makes the better case.

12
Question (4)

In your response, analyze the relationship between Passage 2 and

the enduring truth expressed in the quotation from Justice Harlan in
Passage 1. How well does Passage 2 relate Justice Harlan’s
statement to the ideas of affirmative action? Incorporate relevant
and specific evidence from the quotation and the passage, as well
as your knowledge of affirmative action, to support your analysis.

Passage 1
Quotation: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are
equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.” —
John Marshall Harlan, Supreme Court Justice, 1896

Passage 2
Affirmative action in the United States arose from the effort to
ameliorate the disparate access of historically disadvantaged groups to
employment and educational opportunities.
With its inception in governmental executive orders, affirmative action
meant only positive action designed to remedy the present effects of past
discrimination.

The earliest use of the modern-day term affirmative action can be found
in Executive Order 10925 initiated by President John F. Kennedy. It
specifically refers to nondiscrimination in the employment processes of
federal contractors: The contractor will take affirmative action to
ensurethat applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during
employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.
Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains the following reference
to affirmative action: In administering a program regarding which the
recipient [of federal funding] has previously discriminated against
persons on the ground of race, color, or national origin, the recipient
must take affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior
discrimination.

Broadly conceived, affirmative action can be understood as positive

action through programs initiated by governmental entities that benefit
certain groups. Harvard legal scholar Randall Kennedy defines
affirmative action as “policies that offer individuals deemed to be
affiliated with a beneficiary group a preference over others in

13
competitions for employment, education, or other valued resources.”
The courts, bureaucracy, and the legislature have all been involved in
interpreting affirmative action.

We examine the decisive turning point in judicial thought that moved

from remedial, disparate-impact affirmative action designed to address a
legal wrong to a singular, non remedial rationale based on the educational
benefits of diversity as a “compelling state interest.”
We further highlight the Supreme Court’s interpretive shift in relation to
the Equal Protection Clause from protection of the rights of minorities to
protection of the rights of all citizens, including White Americans. This
interpretation has been the centerpiece of subsequent legal challenges to
affirmative action.

Source: Affirmative Action at a Crossroads by Edna Chun and Alvin

Evans (Wiley).

Sample Answer:

Passage 2 does a good job in relating how Justice Harlan’s enduring

truth, that “all citizens are equal before the law,” can be applied to
the arguments for and against affirmative action. According to the
passage, affirmative action was intended to uphold Justice Harlan’s
sentiments, but the passage later describes how these new laws may
have unintentionally discriminated against non-minority citizens and
how recent court cases are trying to restore the balance.Passage 2 begins
by showing that Justice Harlan’s profound ideals have not always been
applied throughout the history of the United States, and how this disparity
led to the need for affirmative action to protect the rights of
underprivileged minorities.

According to Passage 2, when affirmative action first began in the

1960’s, it was intended as “positive action through programs
initiated by governmental entities that benefit certain groups.”
Executive Order 10925, signed by President Kennedy, and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 are examples of government policies that benefit
certain disadvantaged groups (who had been treated unfairly in the
past) in an attempt to restore the balance of equal rights for all
citizens. In this respect, the passage successfully argues that
affirmative action appears to uphold Justice Harlan’s enduing truths.

14
This makes sense, because, as President Lyndon Johnson said in
1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by
chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race
and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just
believe that you have been completely fair.”

However, Passage 2 also mentions that not everyone agreed with the
ideas of affirmative action and that some non-minority citizens soon
began to view the new laws in a very different way. The passage
suggests that some white Americans believe that affirmative action
actually undermines Justice Harlan’s enduring truth by
discrimination against non-minority citizens. The subsequent
lawsuits filed by these ‘underprivileged’ whites led to “a decisive
turning point in judicial thought,” which stopped focusing on “the
rights of minorities to protection of the rights of all citizens,
including White Americans.”

Although one may argue that the views of the opponents of

affirmative action may not be based in reality (since white men make
up less than 50% of the college-educated workforce but account for
the vast majority of high-paying jobs, including CEO positions, law
firm partnerships, and tenured college faculty positions!) the
passage still does a good job linking their viewpoint back to Judge
Harlan’s original point.Passage 2 does not appear to take one side in the
debate and retains a neutral tone that simply informs the reader about the
reasoning behind the two points of view. Hence, the passage is able to
successfully examine how Justice Harlan’s truth can be used by both
the proponents and opponents of affirmative action to argue the pros
and cons of the new laws that were intended to make the Constitution
“color-blind” and ensure that “all citizens are equal before the
law.”

15
When reviewing your essay, ask yourself the following questions:

 Have I responded to the prompt?

 Is my point of view clearly stated?
 Do my ideas flow in a logical order?
 Have I provided enough evidence to support my point of view?
 Are there any errors in punctuation (commas, periods, semicolons,
apostrophes,
 and so on)?
 Are there any misspelled words?
 Does my essay consist of 4 to 7 paragraphs with 3 to 7 sentences each?
 Is my essay 300 to 500 words of writing?

RLA EXTENDED RESPONSE VOCABULARY

16
17