Argument Essay FRQ Rubric

Practice Argument Essay: How Should the US Reduce Income Inequality

PROMPT: How should the US reduce income inequality? (The DBQ for this prompt is linked in the heading above.

In your essay, you must:

1. Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning (AKA criteria or because factor). (1 point: A)

2. Support your claim with 2 documents that are both ACCURATE and RELEVANT. (3 points: B1-B3)

3. Use reasoning to explain how/why your evidence supports your claim. (1 point: C)

4. Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal. (1 point: D)

Non-Examples

Income inequality must be addressed within the United States because income tax rates in the U.S. are much lower than they are globally.

EXPLANATION: The student has confused their evidence with a line of reasoning/criteria. (A1: 0 points)

Income inequality must be corrected to provide greater equity within the United States (Topic Sentence). Over the past 40 years income tax rates have steadily declined for the top .01% of income earners, but has remained flat for nearly every other group (Doc. F). This shows that income tax rates should increase for the wealthier classes as they are not taxed enough. Also, it proves my claim because income taxes changes are needed.

Also, even slight changes in income tax rates could lead to big revenue gains for the government. According to Doc. H, increasing tax rates to 40% only on the top .01% of income earners would increase revenue by $55 billion and could pay for undergraduate tuition at all the nation's universities. And if you increase taxes to 45% on the same income group revenues would rise $176 billion and could pay for the first year of a new $2500 child tax credit proposed by Sen. Rubio. This proves that income taxes can help people.

EXPLANATION (EVIDENCE): Two documents are used here, and they are cited using information from the assigned documents (Docs. F+H). But, there is no connection between the documents to the topic/prompt. There is also no relevance to the documents used. Notice how the student in the first paragraph mentions tax rates going down for the top income earners, and staying flat for the other income groups? Right here they had the opportunity to establish and demonstrate how those changes have led to an increase in income inequality. (B1 and B2 0 points)

Notice as well how they point out in the second paragraph here how a little increase could pay for big government programs? Right here is where they could've established established relevance to the issue of income inequality and those government programs. (B3 0 points).

EXPLANATION (REASONING): While the student does wrap back around at the end of each paragraph with the essential phrase This proves...It fails to connect that explanation to the claim itself. (C 0 points)

An alternate point of view of my position is that income tax changes lead to little change. The overall effects of raising the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 45% is exceedingly modest (Doc. G). This shows that there is little change in raising income tax rates. This is different from my position

EXPLANATION: The student does address evidence from a document that is different than their own, and they do address that it is different than their own position. But, they fail to refute, rebut or concede this position.

Model Response

1st Paragraph: Income inequality will be best reduced by raising income tax rates on the wealthiest people because it will ensure greater equity.

Explanation: The claim has all three parts: topic, position and a line of reasoning/criteria. (A1 1 point)

2nd Paragraph: America's tax system is incredibly inequitable, and it has gotten more so over the last several decades (Topic Sentence). Over the past 40 years income tax rates have steadily declined for the top .01% of income earners, but has remained flat for nearly every other group (Doc. F). This shows that income tax rates should increase for the wealthier classes as they are not taxed enough, but by raising their rates income inequality will decrease, and ensure equity is reached. Equity is attained through such an action because by raising their rates the rates will be more proportional to the other income groups providing a fairer system for all taxpayers.

Explanation: The topic/prompt is addressed in the second to last sentence of the 2nd paragraph with increased tax rates reducing income inequality. (B1: 1 point)

Explanation: The claim is addressed in the second to last sentence of the 2nd paragraph as well with with the focus on equity being reached with higher tax rates on the wealthy. (B2: 1 point)

Explanation: The writer provides reasoning in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph when they explain how equity will be reached with the higher tax rates, thus connecting back to their claim that higher tax rates on the wealthy will bring about equity. (C: 1 point)

3rd Paragraph: Also, even slight changes in income tax rates could lead to Congress' ability to fund essential services for the rest of the American people. For instance, by increasing tax rates to 40% only on the top .01% of income earners would increase government revenue by $55 billion and could pay for undergraduate tuition at all the nation's universities. And if you increase taxes to 45% on the same income group revenues would rise $176 billion and could pay for the first year of a new $2500 child tax credit proposed by Sen. Rubio (Doc. H). These changes mean more money in the hands of the middle class as well as ensuring the elites pay their fair share. With college paid for and children adequately provided for with the help of the tax credit families can reach a quality of life too few Americans have access to today.

Explanation: The claim is addressed in the second to last sentence of the 3rd paragraph starting with the phrase "These changes mean more money.... (B3: 1 point). Reasoning is addressed again in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.

An alternate point of view of my position is that income tax reforms lead to little change. The overall effects of raising the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 45% is exceedingly modest according to the author of Doc. G. This point directly contradicts my argument that even small changes to the tax code could lead to huge gains in Congress' ability to provide important services for the American people, and ensuring greater levels of equity in income distribution. If true, other reforms should be adopted instead to better address these obvious problem, perhaps the Universal Basic Income

Explanation: The writer successfully explained and conceded that the argument they made about raising tax rates reducing income inequality may prove ineffective. (D 1 point)

An alternate point of view of my position is that income tax reforms lead to little change. The overall effects of raising the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 45% is exceedingly modest according to the author of Doc. G. While the gains may not be as dramatic as those proposed by Doc. H, the amount of wealth that group is currently attaining could easily help bring in far more revenue, with a new tax system, and with it the potential for things like Biden's plans on affordable housing and other infrastructure projects.

Explanation: The writer successfully explained and rebutted the alternate view by acknowledging the merits of the alternate view using Doc. G, but also pointing out that the wealth could still bring in great possibility.

An alternate point of view of my position is that income tax reforms lead to little change. The overall effects of raising the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 45% is exceedingly modest according to the author of Doc. G. This is a ridiculous argument since a mere five percent increase of the billions earned by single individuals like Bill Gates and Elon Musk could bring in vastly large portions of revenue to help fund programs benefiting all Americans from health care coverage for the uninsured to new roads and bridges.

Explanation: The writer successfully explained and refuted the alternate view. They did so by using Doc. G in explaining the other side, but then used counterexamples of their own with the revenue gained from billionaires like Gates and Musk to fund new programs for all Americans, thus challenging the argument made in Doc. G outright.