There are occasional minor language errors: for example, “people not used of computers”; “miss counted”; “computer cause mistakes”; and the poor syntax of the last sentence (“All in all . . . ”). Some spelling errors are obviously typos: “everyoen.” The errors, however, are not at all frequent and do not result in unclear or inaccurate representation of the content.
The response meets all the criteria for the score of 5.
QUESTION 1, RESPONSE B, SCORE OF 4
The leture disgreed with the article's opinions. It's not a better solution to use the computerized voting systems.
Firstly, it might be hard for the voters who don't use the computer so often, or the users who is fear of the technology, even some of voters can not aford a computer. Touch screen may also be hard to use for people who is not familiar with computers. Secondly, computer is programmed by human beings, which means it can also have errors. Instead of human being's counting error, which only results one or two counting error in number, an errror in the program code could cause tramendous error in number. In case of the computer crash or disaster, it may lost all the voting information. We can not even to make a re-count. Lastly, our daily banking or other highly sensitive infomation system, is actually improved as time goes by. They were also problematic at the beginning. As we use them so often, we have more chances to find problems, and furturemore, to fix and improve them. However, for the voting system, we only use them every 2 years nationally and some other rare events. We just don't use it often enough to find a bug or test it thoroughly.
Score explanation
The response selects most of the important information from the lecture and indicates that it challenges the main argument in the reading passage about the advantages of computerized voting systems (“it’s not a better solution”).
First, the response explains that some people will not find computers to be user-friendly; however, it fails to relate this clearly to the point made in the passage that computerized voting will prevent distortion of the vote. That is clearly an omission, but it is minor.
Second, the response does a good job of pointing out how programming and errors can cause greater problems than miscounts cause in the traditional voting system.
Third, the response provides a nice explanation of how the frequent use of systems like the banking system has contributed to such systems’ reliability, and then it contrasts that with the computerized voting system.
There are more frequent language errors throughout the response—for example, “users who is fear”; “some of voters can not aford”; “people who is not familiar”; “it may lost”; and “can not even to make.” Expressions chosen by the writer occasionally affect the clarity of the content that is being conveyed: “results one or two counting error in number . . . an errror in the program code could cause tramendous error in number” and “use them every 2 years nationally and some other rare events.” However, it should be noted that in these cases, a reader can derive the intended meaning from the context.
Due to the more frequent language errors that on occasion result in minor lapses of clarity and due to minor content omission, especially in the coverage of the first lecture point, the response cannot earn the score of 5. At the same time, since the language errors are generally minor and mostly do not interfere with the clarity of the content and since most of the important information from the lecture is covered by the writer, the response deserves a higher score than 3. It meets the criteria for the score of 4.
QUESTION 2, RESPONSE A, SCORE OF 5
I remember every teacher that has taught me since I was in Kindergarten. If a friend wants to know who our first grade teacher was in elementary school, all they have to do is ask me. The teachers all looked very kind and understanding in my eyes as a child. They had special relationships with nearly each and every one of the students and were very nice to everyone. That’s the reason I remember all of them.
A teacher’s primary goal is to teach students the best they can about the things that are in our textbooks and more important, how to show respect for one another. They teach us how to live a better life by getting along with everyone. In order to do that, the teachers themselves have to be able to relate well with students.
My parents are teachers too. One teaches Plant Biology and one teaches English, but that’s not the reason I’m calling them “teachers.” They are teachers beacuse they teach me how to act in special situations and how to cooperate with others. I have a brother, and my parents use different aproaches when teaching us. They might scold my brother for surfing the internet too long because he doesn’t have much self-control and they need to restrain him. He almost never studies on his own and is always either drawing, playing computer games, or reading. On the other hand, they never tell me off for using the computer too long. I do my own work when I want and need to because that brings me the best results and my parents understand that. They know that I need leisure time of my own and that I’ll only play until needed. My parents’ ability to relate well with my brother and I allows them to teach, not just the subject they teach but also their excellent knowledge on life.
Knowlegde of the subject being taught is something taken for granted, but at the same time, secondary. One must go through and pass a series of courses and tests in order to become a teacher. Any teacher is able to have excellent knowledge of their subject but not all teachers can have the ability to relate well with students.
A teacher’s primary goal is to teach students the best they can about how to show respect for one another, so teachers use different approaches when teaching, and knowledge of the subjet being taught is secondary. For these reasons, I claim with confidence that excellent knowledge of the subject being taught is secondary to the teacher’s ability to relate well with their students.
Score explanation