# data[].attributes.headline
¨lands as 52%, senselessly high punishment for cheating, including expulsion, and even senate members who criticize the use of the honor code.¨

# data[].attributes.subject
¨lands as 52%, senselessly high punishment for cheating, including expulsion, and even senate members who criticize the use of the honor code.¨

# data[].attributes.body
Scoring Guide Elements: "The evidence and explanations used are appropriate and sufficient. The language may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but generally the prose is clear."

Essay Elements: "According to the research cited in Source C, students at colleges with honor codes cheat less. I could see this being true because no matter whether someone is generally a cheater or not, no one wants to be suspended or expelled."

# data[].attributes.body
the ending of the intro "I would also add that it should be student created" can be put elsewhere to make the intro flow more.

# data[].attributes.body
Sample Z is a 4 because there is little original thought, but rather regurgitated information from the original sources that were given. It also doesn't talk about the writer's school specifically so there is not a completely clear argument.

# data[].attributes.body
The writer used too many sources of evidence in the second paragraph; they could've Incorporated one of those pieces of evidence in another paragraph, or only talked about one source per paragraph

# data[].attributes.headline
4- Underdeveloped argument. prose isn't very sophisticated. 

# data[].attributes.subject
4- Underdeveloped argument. prose isn't very sophisticated. 

# data[].attributes.body
Scoring Guide Elements: "The sources may dominate the student's attempts at development".

# data[].attributes.body
Sample J is awkwardly worded (doesn't use sophisticated prose) and doesn't show understanding of the sources. It uses a closed thesis statement and includes evidence as part of the thesis, which should be more based on ideas than facts. Overall the argument isn't well developed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sample Z could be a 4. While it uses evidence to support the student's argument, the connection between the sources and argument is a bit strained. When citing evidence, it just uses another source and says it supports it.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sample Z could be a 4. While it uses evidence to support the student's argument, the connection between the sources and argument is a bit strained. When citing evidence, it just uses another source and says it supports it.

# data[].attributes.body
This essay is strong in its explanation of the actual documents, but it cannot relate any of the samples to its own school or argument. The language is both informal and insufficient to clearly convey its desired message.

Guidlines:
"They develop their argument by synthesizing at least two sources, but the evidence or explanations used may be inappropriate, insufficient, or unconvincing.

# data[].attributes.body
informal: "Once a cheater always a cheater"
summary of sources

# data[].attributes.headline
writer uses many sources without an strong warrant behind them

# data[].attributes.subject
writer uses many sources without an strong warrant behind them

# data[].attributes.body
"source b has a direct quote from the author..... this trusting and relaxed feel around other students.."

# data[].attributes.body
Sample Q is a solid 4 and I'll tell you why. This 4 is the most 4 that I've seen in a long time. This could be huge if true. If you look closely, Q and 4 rhyme, so if you think about it, it's extended symbolism from the beginning.

# data[].attributes.body
Sample Q's argument isn't that justifiable because it only makes sense if the reader knows a"person with no honor". If the reader isn't familiar with that kind of person, it isn't relatable nor a strong argument