2-4-4 despite negative impacts, laughter is positive (Certain about the author’s standpoint but not specific, lacking detailed elaboration)

3-6-6 although humor is unprofessional, laughter is positive + reasons (Certain about the author’s standpoint and provide detailed elaboration)

2-4-4 Only to refute single opposing viewpoints, focusing on the evidence and criticizing them, but only pointing out the problems without providing constructive supplements.

3-6-6 The viewpoint is dialectical. It first acknowledges opposing viewpoints and then deepens the core argument, covering multiple dimensions.

(e.g. only say the evidence is effective without stating why it’s effective-> didn’t analyze credibility/ relevance/ sufficiency). 3-6-6

Accurately identifies the central claim & the evidence to support the claims respectively, and state them in the order that aligns with the logic of the article; Analyzes how evidence supports the argument specifically 

1-2-2: The answer changes important information and is too short. 2-4-4: The answer lacks detailed explanations for the argument. 3-6-6: It presents all important ideas in the

passages, meanwhile, it clarifies what exactly the benefits are. Question 2

1-2-2: It doesn't analyze each

paragraph but gives a summary. And the answer is actually restating the argument, which is inaccurate.

2-4-4: When it comes to question 2, the answer lacks clear line of reasoning of each claim but basically introduce them as a whole. 3-6-

6: Mentioned that the refute is actually part of contextualization.

This response shows basic failure to understand the text.

Wrong claim leads no evidence to use.

2,4,4

This response understand about the content about the reading, but failed to analyze how do the author use evidence to support the claims.

3,6,6

This response demostrates a complete understanding, which shows the student accurately understand the author's argument.

Right claims are stated and effectively analyze the evidences to support claims.

1-2-2

Row 1: “Laughter in the workplace causes damage” (directly contradicts the author’s pro-laughter stance). Not relevant to the topic (laughter should be encouraged)

Row 2: “Having a good laugh can benefit your body” (only one claim, no link to workplace outcomes or other ideas).

Row 3: Only identifies some evidence/sources but no evaluation

2-4-4

Row 1: “Humor is crucial for a healthy work environment and has many workplace benefits” (no personal health benefits).

Row 2: “The author says humor isn’t unprofessional, that work-play balance matters, and that laughter helps health and community—but doesn’t explain how health benefits lead to better work performance.”

Row 3: Identifies some evidence but provides limited analysis of credibility/relevance, only states “this source is reputable” without explaining why

3-6-6

Row 1: “Humor and laughter in the workplace should be accepted and seen as positive; laughter benefits include improving immune function, cardiovascular health, and workplace outcomes like focus, morale, creativity, and productivity.”

Row 2: “The author first addresses the stigma that humor is unprofessional, then uses studies to prove laughter boosts immune function and dopamine (improving focus), and finally links these personal benefits to workplace trust and innovation—showing why humor supports a productive team.”

Row 3: 厉害