Answer Key: Analyzing Argument and Rhetoric

The author is against closing the campus — they want Lincoln High to keep an open campus at lunch. Full credit for any prediction that names the pro-open-campus / anti-closure position. Accept close wording ("wants students to be able to leave for lunch," "opposes the closed-campus plan").

"A 2019 district survey found that 61% of students skipped lunch…" → C (logos) — data/reasoning.
"As a nurse who works with teenagers, I have seen…" → A (ethos) — appeal to the speaker's credibility/experience.
"Imagine your own child sitting hungry through fifth period…" → B (pathos) — appeal to emotion.
All three correct = full credit; grade for reasonable effort on this warm-up.

From paragraph [2]: the student council surveyed 480 students, and 61% said they skip lunch entirely on days they cannot leave campus (because of allergies, religious dietary rules, or the cafeteria running out of food). Accept any answer citing the 61% figure or the "more than half skip lunch" finding.

Lincoln High should keep an open campus at lunch (the board should not close the campus during lunch). Accept any accurate restatement of that position. Reject a supporting reason offered as the claim (e.g., "students are hungry" is a reason, not the claim itself).

Accept any correct sentence for each appeal. Best examples:
Ethos (paragraph [3]): "According to Dr. Alvarez, the school nurse who has worked with teenagers for fifteen years…" / "Her years of firsthand experience carry more weight…" — appeal to the credibility and experience of an expert.
Pathos (paragraph [4]): "Now picture your own younger brother or sister sitting through fifth period with an empty stomach and a pounding head…" — appeal to emotion.
Logos (paragraph [2], also [5]): "our student council surveyed 480 students… 61% of students said they skip lunch entirely" — appeal to data and reasoning. (Paragraph [5]'s neighboring-district attendance result also counts as logos.)
Full credit if the student pairs each appeal with a genuinely matching sentence and a correct paragraph number. Watch for appeal mix-ups (see misconceptions).

Paragraph [2] = STRONG. It cites specific, verifiable data from a named source (a student-council survey of 480 students; 61% skip lunch) and gives concrete reasons (allergies, dietary rules, cafeteria running out). The evidence is factual, quantified, and directly relevant to whether the campus should stay open.
Paragraph [6] = WEAK. It relies on a bandwagon claim ("everyone knows…"), an insult/loaded assertion that no one who "really cares" would disagree, and a single anecdote ("my cousin… says it's 'totally fine'"). None of it is factual, sourced, or relevant proof.
Full credit if the student labels [2] strong and [6] weak and gives a valid reason for each (factual/relevant/sourced vs. bandwagon/anecdote/unproven assumption).

Counterargument: supporters of closing the campus worry that students who leave for lunch are more likely to be late, skip class, or get hurt crossing the busy street.
Rebuttal: the author agrees the concern is fair but argues the answer is not to "lock everyone in." Instead, a neighboring district kept its campus open and cut tardies by adding a crossing guard and a sign-out system, and its after-lunch attendance improved — so the real problems can be solved without closing the campus.
Full credit for stating the opposing safety/tardiness concern and explaining that the author answers it with a workable alternative (guard + sign-out) rather than dismissing it.

8a — C. "A student-council survey of 480 students found that 61% skip lunch entirely on days they cannot leave." This is specific, quantified, sourced, and directly relevant to keeping the campus open.
Why the others are weaker: A (a cousin's opinion) is an anecdote; B ("everyone knows…") is a bandwagon claim; D ("has always caused a few problems") is vague and actually cuts against the author.
8b: Accept any sentence explaining that C is stronger because it is concrete, sourced data directly tied to the claim, while the others are opinion, bandwagon, or vague.

This is analysis, not summary. A strong response takes a position on how convincing the argument is and defends it by examining two specific appeals or pieces of evidence. Model response:
"Overall, this argument is mostly convincing because its central support is strong, though a few weak spots undercut it. Its most effective move is the logos in paragraph [2]: the survey showing 61% of 480 students skip lunch is concrete, sourced, and directly tied to the claim, so it makes the harm feel real rather than assumed. The ethos in paragraph [3] adds to this — the nurse's fifteen years of experience make her testimony credible, and the author uses it to turn hunger from an opinion into a health problem. The argument weakens only in paragraph [6], where bandwagon claims and a cousin's anecdote replace evidence; if the author had cut that paragraph, the case would be stronger. Because the strongest paragraphs rely on relevant data and credible testimony, the argument is more persuasive than not."
Full credit for: (a) a clear judgment of effectiveness (the Claim), (b) two specific appeals or pieces of evidence with paragraph numbers, and (c) reasoning that evaluates quality (why each is strong or weak) — not just naming them. A response that only retells what each paragraph says has summarized, not analyzed; score it low on reasoning.

The revision should remove the bandwagon ("everyone knows"), the insult ("no one who really cares…"), and the cousin anecdote, and replace them with real evidence or an appeal used elsewhere. Model revision:
"Some will say an open campus has always caused a few problems, and that is true — every policy does. But the solution is to fix those problems, not to punish the majority. The neighboring district in paragraph [5] shows this works: with a crossing guard and a sign-out system, it kept its campus open and improved attendance. Pairing that fix with the survey data — 61% of students going hungry on closed days — makes the case that an open campus, managed well, protects both safety and health."
Full credit for a rewritten paragraph that (a) eliminates the weak reasoning and (b) substitutes accurate, relevant support drawn from the essay ([2], [3], or [5]).

Articulate: accept any accurate one-sentence restatement of the claim ("Lincoln High should keep an open campus at lunch / should not close the campus").
Connect: accept any of the three appeals with a valid reason — most students will name the logos of the survey (paragraph [2]) or the ethos of the nurse (paragraph [3]); the pathos in [4] is defensible if the student explains its effect. What matters is that the appeal is correctly identified and justified.
Extend: accept any reasonable weak spot + fix — e.g., "paragraph [6] uses bandwagon and an anecdote; replace it with data," or "the pathos in [4] has no source; pair it with the survey." More than one answer is defensible.