CHAPTER 6
RLA Extended Response
Note: Throughout this chapter we may refer to the extended response as an essay or simply a response. These are all the same thing.
The GED® Reasoning Through Language Arts (RLA) test includes an extended-response item. For this item, you will read two nonfiction texts. Then you will analyze and assess their arguments and write a fairly long essay stating your opinion about which text offers the soundest arguments and why. Your response should be designed to persuade a reader that your opinion is correct. You will need to present evidence to back up your claims.
The following section will focus on what makes an effective persuasive essay.
Elements of a Persuasive Essay
The purpose of persuasive writing is to gain acceptance for an idea, a point of view, or a recommended course of action. The chief means of gaining this acceptance is to present as strong an argument as possible.
An argument is an ordered presentation of support for a position that you want others to accept. An argument is made up of an opening statement of position, any background information that your reader may need to follow the argument, the evidence that you use to support and defend your position—including a response to opposing arguments, if needed—and a concluding statement.
In general terms, your persuasive essay should include the following elements.
Opening Statement
In persuasive writing, the purpose of the opening paragraph is to launch your argument with a clear, concise statement of your position. Give your opinion with conviction, but do not antagonize your audience with overly emotional words or phrases.
Supporting Evidence
In the following paragraphs, develop your argument in a logical manner and present evidence to support your position. Your supporting evidence can consist of facts or arguments from a text that you are analyzing. Organize the evidence for maximum effect by using order of importance or another appropriate method of development. Because you will be typing your response into a computer, you will be able to write down your ideas quickly, and then go back to refine your writing. As you write, you will be able to view the passages that you are writing about, which will help you recall their arguments and the evidence they contain.
When writing, keep in mind the importance of achieving coherence in your response. Make sure to include transition words because you want your audience to follow every step of your thinking. Some common transition words and phrases are:
To Present Evidence
First, second, third
Most important
For example
For instance
The facts show
According to
To State Your Opinion
In my opinion
I believe that
From my point of view
In my experience
To Deal with Conflicting Opinions or Arguments
Although
Conversely
In opposition to
Even though
In contrast to
Still
Remember that in persuasive writing, your strongest weapon is your supporting evidence. Your personal commitment to your argument is important, but your readers will judge your ideas on how well they are supported by evidence.
Answering Opposing Arguments
Your argument will be stronger if you anticipate questions or doubts in your audience’s mind and respond to them. Depending on your topic, you may present and answer opposing arguments in a paragraph just before the concluding paragraph or as you develop each of your main points.
Concluding Statement
Conclude your persuasive essay with a short restatement of your central argument. Your concluding statement should summarize your position and briefly review the reasons for your choice.
Scoring Rubric
Your extended response will be scored on a 0- to 12-point system. The extended response is graded based on sets of writing standards called rubrics. There are three rubrics, worth 2 points each. Your score on each one will be double-weighted so that the maximum point score is 12. The first rubric will assess your analysis of arguments and the use of evidence in your response. The second rubric will assess the development of your ideas and the organizational structure of your response. The third rubric will assess the clarity of your writing and the command of Standard English conventions in your response. Your response does not have to be perfect grammatically, but it does need to be logical and coherent and include evidence from the passages for your position.
Here are simplified versions of the rubrics. Read through them so that you know what the readers scoring your extended response are looking for.
Nonscorable Responses
• Response contains only text copied from source texts or prompt
• Response shows no evidence that test-taker has read the prompt or is off-topic
• Response is incomprehensible
• Response is not in English
• Response has not been attempted (blank)
Writing a Persuasive Essay
On the extended-response portion of the GED® test, when you are given two conflicting arguments, your job is to persuade your readers that one of the two arguments is stronger than the other. Your first task is to evaluate the strength of each argument. You studied how to analyze arguments in the preceding chapter. You learned how to:
• Separate facts from opinion
• Determine if sources are reliable
• Evaluate claims
Now you need to use these skills to analyze the arguments in the passages presented for the extended response. If you determine that one of the two arguments better reflects the facts, or is based on more reliable sources, or makes more valid claims, that is the evidence you need for your response. You can use it to show why you think one argument is stronger than the other, and to persuade your readers that your opinion is correct.
Directions: Read the following two passages.
Passage A
The following text is excerpted from a speech given in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1941 by the American aviator Charles Lindbergh.
1 When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.
2 National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war.
3 To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters—less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.
4 Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America. Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”
5 England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then this refrain began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months—“the best way to defend America and keep out of war,” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”
6 First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.
7 The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.
8 We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan—a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.
9 Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.
10 We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory—a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.
11 We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.
12 The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.
13 Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our House of Representatives and our Senate.
14 There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.
Passage B
The following text is excerpted from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s press conference on December 17, 1940.
1 Now we have been getting stories, speeches, et cetera, in regard to this particular war that is going on, which go back a little bit to that attitude. It isn’t merely a question of doing things the traditional way; there are lots of other ways of doing them.
2 There is another one which is also somewhat banal—we may come to it, I don’t know—and that is a gift; in other words, for us to pay for all these munitions, ships, plants, guns, et cetera, and make a gift of them to Great Britain. I am not at all sure that that is a necessity, and I am not at all sure that Great Britain would care to have a gift from the taxpayers of the United States. I doubt it very much.
3 Well, there are other possible ways, and those ways are being explored. All I can do is to speak in very general terms, because we are in the middle of it. I have been at it now three or four weeks, exploring other methods of continuing the building up of our productive facilities and continuing automatically the flow of munitions to Great Britain. I will just put it this way, not as an exclusive alternative method, but as one of several other possible methods that might be devised toward that end.
4 It is possible—I will put it that way—for the United States to take over British orders, and, because they are essentially the same kind of munitions that we use ourselves, turn them into American orders. We have enough money to do it. And thereupon, as to such portion of them as the military events of the future determine to be right and proper for us to allow to go to the other side, either lease or sell the materials, subject to mortgage, to the people on the other side. That would be on the general theory that it may still prove true that the best defense of Great Britain is the best defense of the United States, and therefore that these materials would be more useful to the defense of the United States if they were used in Great Britain, than if they were kept in storage here.
5 Now, what I am trying to do is to eliminate the dollar sign. That is something brand new in the thoughts of practically everybody in this room, I think—get rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign.
6 Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor’s home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now, what do I do? I don’t say to him before that operation, “Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it.” What is the transaction that goes on? I don’t want $15—I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right. If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for the use of it. But suppose it gets smashed up—holes in it—during the fire; we don’t have to have too much formality about it, but I say to him, “I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can’t use it any more, it’s all smashed up.” He says, “How many feet of it were there?” I tell him, “There were 150 feet of it.” He says, “All right, I will replace it.” Now, if I get a nice garden hose back, I am in pretty good shape.
7 In other words, if you lend certain munitions and get the munitions back at the end of the war, if they are intact haven’t been hurt—you are all right; if they have been damaged or have deteriorated or have been lost completely, it seems to me you come out pretty well if you have them replaced by the fellow to whom you have lent them.
8 I can’t go into details; and there is no use asking legal questions about how you would do it, because that is the thing that is now under study; but the thought is that we would take over not all, but a very large number of, future British orders; and when they came off the line, whether they were planes or guns or something else, we would enter into some kind of arrangement for their use by the British on the ground that it was the best thing for American defense, with the understanding that when the show was over, we would get repaid sometime in kind, thereby leaving out the dollar mark in the form of a dollar debt and substituting for it a gentleman’s obligation to repay in kind. I think you all get it.
On the GED® test, the extended-response question might ask something similar to the following:
While Charles Lindbergh argues that the United States is being dragged into a war in Europe that it does not really want, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt urges the United States to help England as a protective measure for the United States.
In your response, analyze both speeches to determine which position is better supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your response.
Write your response in the box. This task may require approximately 45 minutes to complete.
The first thing to do is to analyze each speech to identify the arguments that the speaker uses. Let’s list the arguments that Charles Lindbergh uses in his speech.
Charles Lindbergh’s Arguments
Americans were clearly opposed to getting involved in the war when it started.
The United States has the best defensive position.
The United States is independent from Europe.
Our one attempt to intervene in a European war did not end well.
Certain groups of people want us to become involved in the war for their own interests.
The United States built 5000 planes, but they were sent abroad and are no longer available to us.
We have only a few hundred modern bombers, fewer than Germany is able to produce in a month.
Try analyzing these various arguments. The first argument, that Americans were opposed to the war, appears to be based on fact. Lindbergh mentions national polls showing that fewer than 10 percent of Americans favored declaring war. However, the claims about America’s defensive position and its independence from European affairs are opinions, not facts. It is a fact that America’s previous intervention in a European war (in World War I) did not resolve political problems in Europe, but Lindbergh’s claim that certain groups of people want to involve America in a new war for their own interests seems doubtful; he offers no evidence to support it. Lindbergh’s claims that the United States has sent many of its military planes overseas and has few bombers left for defense may be facts, but are they valid reasons why the United States should stay out of the war?
Now let’s list President Roosevelt’s arguments.
President Roosevelt’s Arguments
The United States could take over producing munitions for Great Britain.
We have enough money to do it.
The best defense of the United States is the defense of Great Britain.
Our defense materials are more useful for the defense of the United States if they are used in Great Britain rather than keeping them in storage in the United States.
As an example, if a neighbor’s home catches on fire and I have a hose, I don’t make my neighbor pay for the hose, but I let him use it to put out the fire. Afterward if the hose is fine, he returns it to me, but if it is broken and unusable, he gets me another one.
The hose my neighbor uses is like the munitions that Great Britain would replace after using the ones made in this country.
We should do this to defend the United States, and Great Britain will somehow repay us after the war is over.
Again, let’s analyze these arguments. President Roosevelt says that the United States could take over producing munitions for Great Britain, and that “we have enough money to do it.” He offers no evidence for either claim, but you know that the United States is a rich country, so there is no particular reason to disbelieve him. Roosevelt then claims that the best defense of the United States is the defense of Great Britain. This is his opinion, and it is the heart of his argument. At the time he spoke, it was up to the American people to decide whether or not they agreed with him. Roosevelt then argues that it makes sense to ship munitions to the British as a defense measure, and that the British will somehow find a way to repay. He supports his argument with the analogy of lending a hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire. Do you consider that to be a valid analogy? Is it a strong argument in support of aiding the British, or a weak argument?
Now let’s look at some sample student responses. In this first response, the student writer tries to persuade readers that Charles Lindbergh’s arguments are stronger than those of President Roosevelt.
I believe that Charles Lindbergh’s arguments are stronger and more effective than President Roosevelt’s. Lindbergh points out that the American people don’t want to be involved in the war. He also says that the United States has a great defensive position, so it has no reason to fear attack. If you don’t want to go to war, and if you don’t need to go to war to defend yourself, then you should not go to war.
Obviously President Roosevelt wants to go to war to help England. He argues that America’s best defense is helping to defend Great Britain by manufacturing planes and munitions for them. He uses the analogy of a person loaning someone his hose when his house is on fire. But I do not think the analogy works. These are very different situations; one is about a fire and a hose and the other is about war and using American factories to build planes and munitions so that Great Britain can use them.
Lindbergh, on the other hand, thinks this kind of thing is just a way around getting the United States into the war. He feels that the government is actually doing something that the people of the United States did not really vote for, getting involved with the European war.
This response is reasonably good, but it has some areas that could be improved.
While the opening of the response is strong and the reasons given for preferring Lindbergh’s arguments are adequate, the writer falls short by not including more of Lindbergh’s arguments. The writer points out that most Americans do not want to go to war, and as you have seen, that argument is based on evidence. The claim about America’s strong defensive position is really an opinion, and thus not necessarily a strong argument. The writer also neglects to include Lindbergh’s factual claims that the prior intervention in Europe did not end well and that the United States is militarily unprepared for war.
The writer then opposes Roosevelt’s claims by denying the validity of the analogy about the neighbor whose house is on fire. Roosevelt’s analogy is an explanation, but it is not a claim based on hard evidence, and the writer has the right to disagree with it.
Finally, the conclusion of the response is lacking. It does not review the writer’s argument in favor of Lindbergh and the evidence supporting that argument. It should repeat the idea that Lindbergh did a better job of arguing for his position and that in the writer’s opinion, Roosevelt failed to argue his position as well as Lindbergh did.
Here is another sample extended response about the two passages. In this case, the student writer tries to persuade readers that President Roosevelt’s arguments are stronger.
I feel that President Franklin Roosevelt’s arguments far outweigh those of Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh’s argument is that the United States should only take care of itself and not its neighbors. However, Roosevelt’s analogy about the neighbor whose house is on fire is a much better way to view the situation. If your neighbor’s house is on fire, the right thing to do is to offer your help, especially if the fire might spread to your house too. Roosevelt’s argument is that people, and nations, should care for one another in times of need.
Lindbergh’s arguments are based on the past and a prejudice against war of any kind. He makes it clear that he wants the United States to be isolated. He does not think the United States should help England at all. But as Roosevelt argues, this aid to England actually is the United States’ best defense. By making England stronger with planes and munitions built in America, it allows England to fight a better battle against the enemy. Lindbergh would rather stockpile the planes, which does not make sense in terms of defense.
In closing, I would like to say that the two opposing views show strong ideological differences; one is pushing for isolationism and the other for a sense of community among like-minded nations. I feel President Roosevelt’s arguments are stronger.
This response is better than the first one. Can you figure out why? The writer may be faulted for focusing a bit too much on personal opinions, but he or she backs up the opinions with references to the various arguments and gives reasons why some are stronger than others.
PRACTICE
RLA Extended Response
Directions: Read the following text, which is excerpted from a speech by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
1 One of my priorities as Secretary of Defense has been to remove as many barriers as possible for talented and qualified people to be able to serve this country in uniform. Our nation was built on the premise of the citizen-soldier. In our democracy, I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation. And every citizen who can meet the qualifications of service should have that opportunity.
2 To that end, I’ve been working closely with General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We’ve been working for well over a year to examine, how can we expand the opportunities for women in the armed services?
3 It’s clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission of defending the nation. Women represent 15 percent of the force, over 200,000. They’re serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield. The fact is that they have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission.
4 Over more than a decade of war, they have demonstrated courage and skill and patriotism. A hundred and fifty-two women in uniform have died serving this nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Female service members have faced the reality of combat, proven their willingness to fight and, yes, to die to defend their fellow Americans.
5 However, many military positions, particularly in ground combat units, still remain closed to women because of the 1994 direct ground combat definition and assignment rule. Military and civilian leaders in this department have been taking a hard look at that rule based on the experiences of the last decade.
6 Every time I visited the war zone, every time I’ve met with troops, reviewed military operations, and talked to wounded warriors, I’ve been impressed with the fact that everyone—men and women alike—everyone is committed to doing the job. They’re fighting and they’re dying together. And the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality.
7 The chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I believe that we must open up service opportunities for women as fully as possible. And therefore today, General Dempsey and I are pleased to announce that we are eliminating the direct ground combat exclusion rule for women and we are moving forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. In a few moments after we speak, we’ll both sign a memo that will rescind the ’94 barrier.
8 Our purpose is to ensure that the mission is carried out by the best-qualified and the most-capable service members, regardless of gender and regardless of creed and beliefs. If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job—and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation.
9 For this change and policy to succeed, it must be done in a responsible, measured, and a coherent way. I’ll let General Dempsey describe our plan of action in greater detail. The bottom line is that further integration of women will occur expeditiously, even as we recognize the need to take time to institutionalize changes of this importance.
10 The steps we are announcing today are significant. And in many ways, they are an affirmation of where we have been heading as a department for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, it will take leadership and it will take professionalism to effectively implement these changes. I am confident in our ability to do that, because I am confident in the leadership that General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have demonstrated throughout this process.
11 When I look at my grandsons and my granddaughters—you know, I’ve got six grandchildren, three grandsons and three granddaughters—I want each of them to have the same chance to succeed at whatever they want to do. In life, as we all know, there are no guarantees of success. Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. But everyone is entitled to a chance.
12 By committing ourselves to that principle, we are renewing our commitment to the American values our service members fight and die to defend. As Secretary, when I’ve gone to Bethesda to visit wounded warriors, and when I’ve gone to Arlington to bury our dead, there is no distinction that’s made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform. They serve, they’re wounded, and they die right next to each other. The time has come to recognize that reality.
13 By opening up more opportunities for people to serve in uniform, we are making our military stronger and we are making America stronger. We deeply honor all of those past generations, combat soldiers and Marines, who fought and died for our freedom. And in many ways, their sacrifice has ensured that the next greatest generation will be one of men and women who will fight and die together to protect this nation. And that is what freedom is all about.
Read the following text, which is excerpted from a letter signed Sentry, appearing on an Internet website.
1 I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5'6", 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper-body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
2 We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be minuscule—I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me—and that minuscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission.
3 Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.
4 Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men . . . but not nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women’s. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s 10 feet high, you have to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
5 Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.
6 Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the U.S. are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.
7 I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.
__________
While Secretary Leon Panetta argues that women should be allowed to serve in the same capacity in the armed forces as men, Sentry argues that women will cause men to die if they are treated as equals.
In your response, analyze both texts to determine which position is best supported. Use relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your response.
Write your response in the box on the following page. This task may require approximately 45 minutes to complete.
A sample response appears on page 310.
