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 argument about Scott Woods being undeveloped land seem to be a well thought out. The community has thought long and hard about what they wanted to do with the land. They do not want any homes or shopping malls on the land because it would not benefit the community as a natural parkland. By building the school on the vacant land is not benfiting the community as natural parkland either. There would be the same type of construction and traffic. That is very contradictory in itself. I think that the community would have to meet again and decide exactly was is best for this particular community and the children in the community. The presentation sounded so close and shut about what was going to be done about the land that it seemed usless for anybody to try to purchase it and do anything with the land. So if the Morganton community want something such as a school being built on the land that should have been what they voted on in the first place. They look very indecisive and even controlling. These are not very good ways to accomplish or do business.

　　Comments:

　　The opening sentences of this limited response seem to agree with the argument, describing it as "well thought out." However, the writer begins to construct a critique in the fourth sentence, identifying and briefly describing one flawed assumption: if the community members want to retain natural parkland, they will not be able to do so by building a school on that land.

　　This is the only analysis in the response, marking it as "plainly flawed." The remaining five sentences fail to develop or add to this critique. Some are tangential ("I think that the community would have to meet again???") and others are irrelevant ("They look very indecisive and even controlling").

　　The writing demonstrates limited language control. There are missing words, syntax errors, and several grammatical errors. For these reasons, the essay earns the score of 3.