TOPIC
Directions:
You will have 45 minutes to plan
and write an essay on the topic assigned below.
Before you begin writing, read the passage carefully and plan what you
will say. Your essay should be as well
organized and as carefully written as you can make it.
"Recently,
major tobacco companies agreed to pay a financial settlement to several states,
including
--Irving Coffman
Explain Coffman's argument
and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with his analysis. Support your position, providing reasons and
examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Sample student essay with a score of 6:
To what extent are manufacturers of harmful products
liable for the damage their products cause?
Tobacco litigation, which pays out large sums from tobacco companies to
victims of smoking-related illnesses, would give the precedent that producers
are liable completely for said damage despite the fact that the consumer chose
to use the product. Following this
mindset, Irving Coffman and other opinionated speakers believe that
manufacturers of other similarly hazardous products should incur the same
judgments as tobacco companies. While
Coffman's all-inclusive argument may be ethically sound at first glance and
spurring a whole new wave of punitive litigation, it remains implausible and
avoids the truth of the issue by instead aiming for the obvious target.
In John Grisham's The
Runaway Jury, the worth of the fictional Pynex Corporation, a tobacco
manufacturer being sued for a smoker's death, is given by the prosecuting
attorney as eight hundred million dollars.
Jury foreman Nicholas Easter correctly deduces that to make a real
impact on Pynex, the jury must award a large settlement that will shake the
company. Assuming that this holds true
for manufacturers of guns and alcohol, if such settlements were made, it would
be impossible for these companies to remain financially solvent. Before considering their collapse as a
benefit, Coffman and his concurring parties must remember that these companies
are also conglomerates with far-reaching effects. Anheuser-Busch, which is a leading alcohol
producer, also owns a nationwide string of educational parks. We cannot bankrupt the evil of a company
without capsizing the whole, and with that collapse goes employment, education,
and more. Coffman does not consider how implausible it is to crush economic
mainstays in the name of moral right and thus by extension harm the people he
it is crusading for, making his plan detrimental at least.
Back in Grisham's jury room, the second flaw in Coffman's
plan it is on display. Several members
of the Wood v. Pynex jury are smokers; one even starts during the due process
of the trial. ON the day where they
witness what lung cancer caused by cigarettes did to Jacob Wood, all these
people are disgusted but keep smoking.
They cannot magically quit.
Coffman's theory does not comprehend that smoking and alcoholism are
addictions which money can't solve. The
money will go to purchasing alcohol if given to the "harmed"
alcoholic because that it is the nature of addiction. Coffman merely funds what he seeks to defeat.
Coffman also lacks a true grasp on the ideas of danger
and choice. He forgets that everything
is potentially dangerous and it is the person using it who makes it one way or
the other. When Martin Blank kills a man
with a pen in Grosse Pointe Blank,
does Coffman want a payout from the pen company and/or the realtor who gave
Martin the pen? His scope of liability
it is undefined and unfocused, making it difficult to enforce. The largest void, however, lies again with
Grisham's jurors, who have a hard time delivering a plaintiff's verdict because
of freedom of choice. Jacob Wood heard
all the warnings they heard about smoking and its hazards, and he chose to
smoke. Companies do not hold
responsibility for wrongful death if, against their warnings, the victim
persists in the harmful activity. They
control the product; the person controls himself or herself.
Irving Coffman wants what seems to be a true good by
holding companies accountable for the wrongs of their products. But if he damages the economy while funding
these vices inadvertently, and can't quantify who to blame but won't hold those
individual participants responsible for their own lives, it is his idea of
hazardous product liability really a good or simply a narrow-minded extreme?
Comments on the "6"
essay: This essay
represents superior writing. The writer
of this essay demonstrates a thorough critical understanding of the passage and
develops an insightful response. He
provides coherent organization, beginning the essay with a question, the answer
to which provides his response to Coffman's argument: "To what extent are
manufacturers of harmful products liable for the damage their products
cause?" He then attempts to show
that Coffman's argument is flawed by discussing a complex liability case in a
John Grisham novel that raises these
issues.
The writer explores the
issues thoughtfully and in depth. He
argues that we must look beyond the harm to victims and see the harm done to
the economy when manufacturing restrictions are in place. While many readers might not agree with his
position, he supports that position well.
The writer has a remarkable grasp of the issues, a sophisticated
vocabulary, a fluent style, and mature sentence structures. The achievement is remarkable given the fact
that the student only had 45 minutes to write this first draft.
Sample student essay with a score of 5:
Thousands of people die each year due to tobacco
addictions and many people have died due to guns and alcohol addiction each
year too. So what's the difference? Should these different "killers" be
treated the same? Irving Coffman thinks
they should, but I definitely would have to disagree. There is no way that you can classify these
different problem causers in the same category.
Throughout my life I have seen many negative reprecussions that tobacco
addiction can cause and these outcomes are far worse than any other. Therefore, I disagree with Coffman that
these different companies should have to pay for problems they cause because
they are different and tobacco addiction is far worse than the rest.
Guns are used for safety, to protect yourself, family,
and others. These devices come with
strict guidelines but unfortunately are not always followed. Many accidents have resulted in death because
people leave loaded guns out or are haphazardly playing with them. Although guns are deadly and have caused many
problems, I do not feel that the companies should have to pay financial
settlements because of these problems.
Guns were invented for safety purposes and it is the American public who
is to blame for not following the rules.
The companies do not produce these so that civilians can kill each other
for no reason. They are meant for
emergency and for protection. Also, for the police who look out for our well
being and military men who are fighting for our country. Gun problems are far different that alcohol
or tabacco addiction because these companies are not out to get you addicted or
to kill people to make a buck.
Although alcohol is a very addictive product, you can
stop. To fight the addiction of
alcoholism is a tough one, but there are ways to end it, like AA meetings,
"cold turkey," or near death experiences due to being under the
influence. The problems that are caused
by alcohol are bad and definitely life threatening, but I do not feel that it
is to the extreme that tabacco addiction is.
I have seen what alcohol addiction can do to a person, how it can take
over there lives, but I feel that there is still hope to end that addiction. Once again, I do not feel that the companies
should be treated in the same manner as tabacco companies, because although it
is deadly and addictive, the American public is not following the rules
provided by the companies and the laws set by the states.
Although all three products are life threatening, none
are like tabacco and its addiction. In
my life, I have seen slight addictions, teenagers fighting to fit in
addictions, and deadly addictions. My
grandfather, who lives three hours away, whom I seldom see, was unable to come
to our recent family reunion. He was
unable to come because he cannot walk more than a block without sitting down
and resting. Due to a tabacco addiction
one of his lungs collapsed, which now makes it very difficult for him to
breathe. Yet he keeps smoking. Knowing that an addiction like that can stop
you from be present at significant family gatherings just kills me inside. all these tabacco companies want is
money! They do not care about how many
people they kill each year. They just
want to be filthy rich and get more people "hooked." I feel that this is the difference between
tabacco companies and the others. they
do not care about anything but their own well being and financial status. I feel that they should definitely have to
pay many financial settlements because maybe it will be an eye opener and they
will realize how horrible they are.
Guns, alcohol, and tabacco; three products our country
could live without but three products that make our economy turn. Although guns were intended for safety, those
rules are not followed and alcohol was intended to relax you but that is also
taken overboard. These companies have
warned us and tried to help us, but not tabacco companies. They suck the American public for all its
worth, taking our family members away from us and blackening our lungs. I disagree with Coffman and I feel that we
should do all we can to close tabacco companies and save the future health of
Comments on the "5"
essay: This essay demonstrates clear competence in
writing. The writer addresses the topic
clearly; she disagrees with Coffman's position and provides substantial reasons
to defend her own position. The essay
shows some depth and complexity of thought.
The essay is very well-organized, with separate paragraphs devoted to
the discussion of guns, alcohol, and
tobacco. The essay has a few errors in spelling and mechanics, but these errors
are not serious enough to distract or confuse the reader.
Sample student essay with a score of 4
Irving Coffman's argument is stating that the tobacco
companies are responsible for the health problems of consumers. In Coffman's
argument, he states that other manufacturers that produce harmful and legal
products should also have to pay restitutions because they are also
responsible. Coffman finds that the
alcohol companies and the gun makers are responsible for the problems that they
cause.
In some ways, I agree with Coffman. I do agree that other manufacturers should
pay financial settlements. The
manufacturers make a product that they know will produce health issues. I agree that manufacturers who do such a
thing should be and are responsible for the damage inflicted.
Where I do disagree is with the extent of the
responsibility. The tobacco companies
had to pay financial settlements because they were selling a product that was
known to be addicting. Now, if they were
producing a product that wasn't addicting and the consumer can stop using the
product at anytime, then the responsibility lies within the consumer. Also, if the cigarrete companies were
neglectful and forgot to post warnings on their products about the health
consequences, then they are also liable.
Alcohol is another substance that can become addicting, and so the
alcohol companies should pay lawsuits.
But gun manufacturers, those are not an addictive product, the harm
caused is either in defense or in the wrong hands. In the situation of guns, the responsibility
lies within the person who pulled the trigger.
Another point to bring up is about the warning labels. If maybe, the tobacco and alcohol companies
did accept the facts that their products are addictive and warned consumers
about their product being addictive, then where does the responsibility lie? it is between the consumer and the producer.
In conclusion, I agree with the opinion that Coffman has
made. I agree that manufacturers of such
deadly products should be responsible for financial restitutions. But where I disagree is how far do we
blame. The responsibility belongs to
those who produce an addictive product that causes health problems. Tobacco and alcohol manufacturers are at
blame for any health problems caused to addicted consumers. But with guns, the blame goes to the trigger
finger.
Comments on the "4"
essay: This essay is adequate. It does not display the facility with
language and the development of ideas that characterize the 5 and 6 papers, but
the writer does demonstrate a generally accurate understanding of the passage
and has a clear sense of his agreement and disagreement with Coffman's
position. The organization is adequate
but not strong: it seems that the writer did not think through the organization
before beginning the essay (e.g., "Another point to bring up is..."). The essay does have some errors, but the
writer generally demonstrates control of
grammar, usage, and mechanics.
Sample student essay with a score of 3:
There is not one day in our society in which we find a
world empty of drugs, alcohol, and guns.
You can walk down your neighborhood and see how many people you know
that smoke, go to the park and people are smoking there too, enjoying a nice
day at the beach walking barefooted over a whole stack of cigarette butts. When going to buy groceries for your
grandmother you find rows of liquor bottles and young people trying to get away
with buying them, and when you go to your friends house you see the great big
collection of hunting rifles and hand guns their parents own. Why is our society so interested in the most
dangerous things? And when an
"accident" happens we ask ourselves the most ingenious questions as
to how the accident could have been prevented.
Tobacco companies over the years have used many
techniques to lure young adults. Most of
the time they have succeeded in converting innocent young adults into raged
tobacco adicts. When the years pass by
these customers become the industries number ones with smoking more than one
pack a day. There always comes a time
when their best customers become their enemies since they get hit with lung
disease and are very ill. By recieving
money these sick people will not gain the twenty years they could of had.
Tobacco companies want to make the sick people believe that a cash settlement
is wonderful just how they made them believe in cigarretts.
When you are seventeen and in high school you begin to
realize who you are and where you can take your goals. When you live in a culture different from the
American you feel pressured to become stronger in all the aspects of life. You see other teenagers trying things out so
you want to also. When you experience
that first time smoking you wish to have taken it back. Limiting it is the only way out. Knowing that around your parents it is not
possible to smoke, for a smart person you would be able to get to know your
parents more and know that without them aware of you trying to quit they are
helping. Only by imagining that in
twenty or thirty years you could end up real sick and even die before your
elders it is when you realize who you are.
Any company that in any way produces harmful items should
think in what their lives could end up to be if an accident would occur and
what they would feel towards their life if it was hurt by something very much
preventable.
Comments on the "3" essay: This essay demonstrates developing
competence. The writer demonstrates some
understanding of the passage, but she doesn't use it as a framework for her
response (no mention of Coffman or his argument). Her ability to control syntax is
inconsistent. Occasionally, as in the last sentence, the syntax is so garbled
that the reader has difficulty making out the meaning.
Sample student essay with a score of 2:
If the tobacco companies pay a financial settlement, that
would be good. For other companies would
be good that they pay a financial settlement.
Also if they pay that, it could be better or helpful for the people.
it is a good idea that the tobacco companies pay a
financial settlement because they know that, the cigarettes are not good for
people's health. That money could help
people who have cancer for smoking cigarettes.
If they are agreed to pay a financicel settlement, that is a good step.
For other companies who produces alcohol, guns, etc. will
be good for the society that they pay a financial settlement. That will be good because there will not be more violence. The point of this is that, those companies
are not already agreed.
If all the companies who produces adictions for
people. There were no more people who
die for that products who kills people.
Also those products makes the people change in their personality. If they a financicel settlement for
everything that their products causes, they maybe will produce less products.
The point is that they produce things that are no good
for people's health. I hope that they
pay for damage for every person that makes people die.
Comments on the "2"
essay: This essay
is seriously flawed. The thinking is
simplistic, and the writer does not use the passage appropriately in developing
a response. The vocabulary is very
limited (the writer's favorite word is "good"), and he has inadequate
control of syntax. The essay is marred
by numerous errors in sentence structure, grammar, usage, and mechanics.
Sample student essay with a score of 1:
In this essay are opposing point of view because the
tobacco effects human longs and can cause death.
If a women it is pregnant they could cause birdth effect
to there children.
So health problems caused by
cigarette smoking and other kind of tobacco adiction.
Sometimes alcohol cant cause serious problems one of the
most important it is depression and when your under the influence of alcohol
you can commite suicide or other things.
also alcohol can name you a violent person and a person without respect
to nobody even itself.
That it is why I think that alcohol and tobacco have to
be illegal, because this two cause serious problems fsical and mentally
Comments on the "1" essay: This essay demonstrates fundamental
deficiencies in writing skills. The
student has little sense of how to go about composing an essay. The student's writing is unfocused and at
times incoherent. The essay contains
serious and persistent errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that severely
interfere with meaning.