This is my partner’s essay;

– The problem: The segregation of families that lie within a minority background remains at a high in the early 2000s due to the lack of enforcement by the law.

– The solution(s): The suggestion of having areas of preventing ghettoization and resegregation and certain other policy approaches are included.

– Thesis: The Mt. Laurel plan from New Jersey, although several states have a similar plan to this, supported by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, is the best policy to have because it made it easier for developers to sue and win in cases of zoning regulations, shows the need for tenant outreach and counseling, as well as having integration goals in these highly segregated suburbias.

– 1st Body Paragraph:

– Framework: Coverage

– Topic Sentence: The Mt. Laurel plan, if can be adopted throughout many areas of segregation, can have most areas “required” to have an even distribution of low and moderate housing based on the assessment of the whole state.

– 2nd Body Paragraph:

– Framework: Causation

– Topic Sentence: if this policy is set in motion, we can see the areas where the need for tenant outreach and counseling must be pushed harder in certain areas than others.

– Opposition:

– This policy can have a disadvantage is a participating municipality might require extra zoning to produce housing and that the policy can be pushed to be seen as judicial activism.

– This policy should still be accepted because is seems like the most ideal way to regulate red-lining and create fair housing opportunities because it forces an even distribution of both low and moderate income families in a single neighborhood.

– Framework: cost/benefit and feasibility

– Questions:

– Should my AP be focused on only one policy and discuss 3 of the 5 frameworks on that one policy? ~or~

– Should it be about 2-3 policies and compare frameworks for all the policies (not including the opposition?

Here are the instructions:

Use your partner’s three questions to drive your responses, and address the following as you go:

Step 1: Read your partner’s three questions. Then, with these in mind, read the outline all the way through. Engage with the text earnestly so that you can respond as an active representative of the generous, genuine audience for your peer’s work.

Step 2: Respond to the following prompts:

• Describe the problem you see your peer author focusing on. What rhetorical strategies does the author use to make the problem feel urgent and important?
• Identify the solution statement(s) in your peer’s paper.
• Of the five argument criteria (causality, coverage, cost/benefit, feasibility, comparison), which ones have your partner chosen to focus on?
• Do the sources seem to support the argument criteria?
• Think about organization. Do your partner’s criteria seem interchangeable (in other words, could you move them into a different order without changing much)? Or do they seem contingent on each other (or in other words, do they build into what looks like it will be a cohesive argument)?
• At this stage, how do you think the the solution be implemented, according to your peer author? What are the costs of the solution (monetary and non-monetary)?
• Is it clear to you that the solution’s benefits will outweigh the costs?
• How does the author know the solution will work? (Does (s)he describe analogous contexts wherein a similar solution has worked? Does (s)he link the solution to the root causes of the problem? Does (s)he discuss the coverage area of the solution, and is it sufficiently large to make a difference to the problem? Does (s)he describe the metrics for success (how we will know that the solution is working)? Does (s)he compare his/her solution to other possible solutions and explain why that solution is better than the others?
• How does your author address counterarguments? Do(es) the counterargument(s) seem realistic, earnest, and plausible? Is the opposition well-represented? Does the author effectively “deal” with the counterarguments presented by acknowledging, rebutting, or resolving the concerns?)

Step 3: Address your partner’s three specific questions.