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英亩数,面积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."

　　This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.

　　The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.

　　This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.

　　Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community. What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.

　　Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field. Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.

　　The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.

　　Comments:

　　This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.

　　The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland." Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."

　　The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."

　　Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions. While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this response demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing. It clearly earns a 6.