Appendices

Score assigned: 5

Justification: The essay clearly identifies and thoughtfully examines key assumptions in the argument, such as the validity of the survey, the causal link between the river's current state and its lack of use, and the feasibility of the proposed clean-up. Ideas are developed logically with appropriate transitions and supported by clever examples, such as the possibility of natural sulfur deposits causing the smell. The writer demonstrates strong control of language and conventions, despite a few minor errors, aligning perfectly with the criteria for a strong score of 5.

Strengths

• Deconstruction of the survey's validity: effectively challenges the assumption that the survey accurately represents the broader population.
• Interrogating causal relationships: questions the assumed link between water quality and lack of use.
• Creative evaluation of the proposed solution: the distinction between anthropogenic pollution and natural mineral deposits is highly insightful.

Areas for improvement

• Address the temporal assumption regarding the budget timeline.
• Examine the necessity of riverside facilities specifically.
• Explicitly connect unwarranted assumptions to their implications.

Next step

Beyond the Survey: Uncovering Structural Assumptions. Re-read the argument and identify two major assumptions unrelated to survey validity or complaint volume. Write one new body paragraph (150-200 words) analysing one of these structural assumptions.

Score assigned: 5

Justification: The essay provides a strong critique identifying key assumptions regarding survey validity, the causal link between water quality and usage, and the potential effectiveness of the cleanup. The analysis is logically organised and features insightful points, such as the distinction between man-made pollution and natural odours. The writing is clear and fluent with good sentence variety, though it lacks the exhaustive development and rhetorical sophistication required for a score of 6.

Strengths

• Scrutinised the survey evidence by questioning its methodology and sample representativeness.
• Nuanced analysis of smell and water quality, distinguishing remediable from non-remediable causes.
• Identified potential vocal minority bias regarding the complaints.

Areas for improvement

• Examine the logical leap between a clean river and the need for facilities.
• Consider the timing assumption: recent announcement vs. this year's budget.
• Explore alternative reasons for lack of river usage beyond water quality.

Next step

The Counter-Explanation Table. Identify three physical or logistical reasons unrelated to water quality why the river might be unused. For each, write a three-sentence analysis explaining why the clean-up would fail to increase usage.

Score assigned: 2

Justification: The essay largely fails to present a critique based on logical analysis, instead offering the writer's own speculative views. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the argument by confusing the state's plan with the city's budget. The response is poorly organised into a single, disjointed paragraph and lacks meaningful development.

Strengths

• Identified that desire for a clean river does not equal desire to swim in it.
• Questioned survey validity at the start of the essay.
• Observed the timeline issue: cleanup "might take years."

Areas for improvement

• Explicitly connect assumptions to the prompt's conclusion.
• Avoid drifting into policy arguments using outside information.
• Organise into distinct paragraphs, each focused on one assumption.

Next step

Mapping Logical Gaps. Identify three unstated assumptions using the template: "The author assumes that [X], but it is possible that [Y]." Focus strictly on logical gaps, not policy opinions.

Score assigned: 3

Justification: The essay identifies some relevant assumptions, such as the potential unreliability of the survey and that cleaning may not immediately increase usage. However, the analysis is limited and wanders into tangential territory. The development is thin, and the writing contains several mechanical errors.

Strengths

• Correctly identified the survey representativeness issue.
• Raised a valid concern about opportunity costs in the budget.
• Distinguished between wanting a clean river and wanting to use it for recreation.

Areas for improvement

• Develop each assumption into a full paragraph rather than listing them.
• Stay focused on logical flaws rather than general policy concerns.
• Proofread for spelling and grammar errors that impede clarity.

Next step

The Assumption Spotlight. Choose one assumption from your essay. Write a full paragraph (5-7 sentences) that names the assumption, explains why it is necessary for the argument, and describes what happens if it proves false.

Score assigned: 1

Justification: The essay provides little evidence of the ability to critically analyse the argument. While the writer briefly mentions an assumption (that residents enjoy recreation), the rest presents unsupported personal assertions rather than logical analysis. The organisation is incoherent and the writing contains severe errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Next step

Finding the Hidden Assumptions. Read the argument sentence by sentence. For each sentence, ask: "What does the author expect me to believe without proof?" Write down three such hidden beliefs. For each, write one sentence explaining why it might not be true.

Score assigned: 1

Justification: The essay fails to develop a viable point of view on the argument. The attempt at analysis is superficial, consisting of a single restated assumption followed by assertions that lack any supporting evidence. The response is poorly organised, consists of a single undeveloped paragraph, and contains severe and pervasive grammatical errors.

Next step

The 'Because' Chain. Read the argument's conclusion and write: "The author assumes [X] because [Y]." Then ask: "But what if [Y] is wrong?" Write your answer in a complete sentence. Repeat for two more assumptions.

You are an expert writing assessor. Your task is to score a student
essay written for the GRE "Analyse an Argument" task.

## The Argument
[argument text]

## Task Instruction
[task instruction text]

## Scoring Rubric (ETS 6-Point Scale)
[full rubric text]

## Student Essay
[essay text]

## Your Task
Score this essay on a scale of 1 to 6 using the rubric above.
Consider:
- How well the student identifies and examines assumptions
- The quality and depth of analysis
- Organisation and logical flow
- Language use, sentence variety, and control of conventions

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
  "score": <integer 1-6>,
  "justification": "<2-4 sentences>"
}

You are an expert writing teacher providing formative feedback
on a student essay.

[argument and essay text provided]

Provide process-oriented feedback. Focus on the student's
analytical reasoning process, not just the product.

Do NOT assign a score. Focus on:
1. Strengths — specific analytical moves that were effective
2. Areas for improvement — assumptions or logical gaps missed

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
  "strengths": ["<strength 1>", "<strength 2>", "<strength 3>"],
  "areas_for_improvement": ["<area 1>", "<area 2>", "<area 3>"]
}

You are an expert writing teacher designing a targeted practice
activity for a student.

[argument and essay text provided]

Design ONE specific, concrete practice task the student could
complete in 15-30 minutes. The task should:
- Target the student's most significant weakness
- Be actionable and specific
- Include a clear deliverable
- Be appropriately challenging

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
  "task_title": "<short title>",
  "task_description": "<2-3 sentences>",
  "target_skill": "<specific skill targeted>"
}

The following is the opening sentence of a student essay written
for the GRE "Analyse an Argument" task about [topic].

"[first sentence]"

Continue this essay from where it left off. Write the rest of the
essay as you believe it continues.

The following is a student essay written for the GRE "Analyse an
Argument" task. This essay was scored by ETS expert raters on a
scale of 1 to 6.

[essay text]

Without any rubric or scoring guide, what score do you think ETS
assigned to this essay? Consider the overall quality of analysis,
organisation, and writing.

Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
  "ets_score": <integer 1-6>
}

The following student essay was written for a persuasive writing
task used in the PERSUADE 2.0 corpus, a large dataset of scored
student argumentative essays.

Writing prompt: [prompt text]

Essay:
[essay text]

This essay was scored by trained human raters on a 1-6 scale.
What score do you think was assigned?

Respond with ONLY a JSON object:
{
  "guessed_score": <integer 1-6>
}