GED RLA Extended Response Essay: Sample Essays & Scoring Rubric
The GED RLA Extended Response essay is scored from 0 to 6 points across 3 traits: Trait 1 (Creation of Arguments & Use of Evidence - 2 pts), Trait 2 (Development of Ideas & Organizational Structure - 2 pts), and Trait 3 (Clarity & Command of Standard English Conventions - 2 pts).
The Extended Response essay on the GED Reasoning Through Language Arts (RLA) test strikes fear into many students. You have 45 minutes to read two opposing passages, evaluate which argument is better supported, and write a formal analysis.
The good news? You don't need to express your personal opinion. The GED essay evaluates your ability to analyze evidence objectively using a standard 4 to 5 paragraph structure.
The 5-Paragraph Winning Outline Template
Paragraph 1: Introduction & Thesis Statement
Summarize both positions briefly and state clearly which passage presents the stronger, better-supported argument based on facts, statistics, and logical evidence.
Paragraph 2: Body Paragraph 1 — Strengths of the Winning Argument
Quote specific evidence (data, expert studies, logical citations) from the stronger passage and explain why this evidence is reliable.
Paragraph 3: Body Paragraph 2 — Weaknesses of the Opposing Argument
Point out flaws in the opposing passage (unsupported claims, emotional appeals, lack of statistical proof, or personal anecdotes).
Paragraph 4: Body Paragraph 3 — Direct Comparison
Compare how both authors handle counterarguments or evidence.
Paragraph 5: Conclusion
Restate your thesis in fresh words and summarize why Author A's argument remains superior overall.
Understanding the Official GED 3-Trait Scoring Rubric
The GED Testing Service scores Extended Response essays using an automated scoring engine calibrated against thousands of human-scored essays. You are graded on three distinct traits, each worth 0 to 2 points, for a maximum total of 6 points:
| Trait | Max Pts | What the Scorer Looks For |
|---|---|---|
| Trait 1: Creation of Arguments & Use of Evidence | 2 pts | Direct evaluation of both authors' arguments. Identifies valid evidence vs. flawed logic or unsupported assertions. Cites specific data, quotes, and examples from the passages. |
| Trait 2: Development of Ideas & Organizational Structure | 2 pts | Clear introduction with a focused thesis statement, logical paragraph sequencing, strong transition words between points, and a reasoned conclusion. |
| Trait 3: Clarity & Command of Standard English | 2 pts | Appropriate academic register, sentence structure variety, accurate punctuation, correct subject-verb agreement, and precise vocabulary. |
Practice Prompt Scenario: Workplace Flexibility & Remote Work
To see how the rubric functions in practice, review this paired-passage scenario typical of the actual test:
Passage A: "The Empirical Case for Telework"
By Dr. Aris Thorne
Argues that structured remote work enhances organizational productivity. Cites a 2-year Stanford study showing a 13% performance gain, a 50% drop in employee attrition, and an estimated annual reduction of 3.2 million metric tons of commuter emissions.
Passage B: "Preserving the Creative Office Hub"
By Marcus Vance
Argues that full-time physical attendance is mandatory for team cohesion. Relies primarily on personal reflections, claiming "genuine innovation only sparks at watercoolers" and warning that remote staff will "inevitably disconnect," without citing empirical data.
Sample Essay 1: Score 6/6 (Exemplary Analysis)
In the ongoing debate regarding organizational flexibility, both authors address the viability of remote work arrangements. While Marcus Vance passionately advocates for mandatory in-office collaboration, Dr. Aris Thorne presents a significantly superior and better-supported argument. Dr. Thorne validates his claims with empirical research, quantified productivity metrics, and measurable environmental data, whereas Vance relies almost entirely on emotional conjecture, nostalgic sentiment, and unsubstantiated generalizations.
The primary strength of Dr. Thorne’s position lies in his reliance on verifiable academic research. Rather than asking readers to accept subjective assertions, Thorne cites a two-year Stanford University study that demonstrated a concrete 13% increase in employee performance under telework conditions. Furthermore, Thorne incorporates tangible organizational retention statistics, noting a 50% decrease in employee attrition. By anchoring his argument to measurable figures, Thorne provides verifiable proof that employee autonomy correlates directly with output, effectively dismantling the assumption that physical absence diminishes workplace commitment.
In sharp contrast, Marcus Vance’s argument falters due to a pervasive lack of empirical substantiation. Vance repeatedly makes sweeping assertions regarding workplace dynamics, asserting that "genuine innovation only sparks at watercoolers" and predicting that remote workers will "inevitably disconnect." However, Vance fails to cite a single controlled study, corporate survey, or operational metric to support these declarations. His reasoning relies on subjective speculation rather than factual evidence, leaving his central premise vulnerable to basic scrutiny.
Additionally, Dr. Thorne demonstrates superior argumentation by directly addressing counterarguments with broad-impact data. While Vance narrowly focuses on office camaraderie, Thorne broadens the scope of evaluation by demonstrating that telework eliminated an estimated 3.2 million metric tons of commuter carbon emissions. Thorne acknowledges the need for team communication but proves that structured digital check-ins preserve collaboration without sacrificing productivity. Vance fails to acknowledge any benefits of telework, creating an unbalanced and defensive presentation.
In conclusion, while both passages address an important workplace issue, Dr. Aris Thorne’s argument is far more persuasive and rigorously supported. Through objective academic citations, specific percentages, and holistic analysis of worker retention and environmental impact, Thorne constructs a compelling case. Marcus Vance’s reliance on personal nostalgia and unverified predictions cannot withstand comparison, making Thorne’s essay the undeniably stronger position.
Scorer Breakdown: Why This Earned 6/6
- Trait 1 (2/2): Flawlessly assesses the evidence quality in both texts. Explicitly cites the 13% performance increase, 50% turnover drop, and 3.2M tons emission data, while exposing Vance's lack of empirical backing.
- Trait 2 (2/2): Exemplary 5-paragraph structure with clear thesis, logical topical progression, sophisticated transitional phrases ("In sharp contrast," "Furthermore"), and unified synthesis.
- Trait 3 (2/2): Formal academic register, varied syntax, zero grammatical errors, and precise vocabulary ("empirical research," "tangible organizational retention," "subjective speculation").
Sample Essay 2: Score 3/6 (Average / Passing Risk)
Working from home is something a lot of people care about today. In the passages, Dr. Thorne says working from home is good and Marcus Vance says everyone should be in the office. In my personal opinion, I agree with working from home because commuting in traffic every morning is exhausting and wastes gas. Thorne has a better argument because he makes more sense.
Dr. Thorne talks about a study from Stanford that showed people worked 13% better from home. He also mentions that people didn't quit their jobs as much when they worked remotely. This shows that bosses should trust their employees more. If workers are happy, they will do a better job and save money on gas and lunch.
Marcus Vance thinks that people need to be together in an office to have good ideas. He talks about watercoolers and how people talk in the hallway. But that sounds kind of outdated. Lots of people talk on Zoom and email now and it works fine. Vance doesn't really give any facts or numbers to show that the office is actually better.
Overall, both authors have their own ideas about work, but Thorne is right because working from home saves gas and people are more productive. Vance just wants things to stay the same way they always were.
Scorer Breakdown: Why This Earned 3/6
- Trait 1 (1/2): Critical flaw: The writer injects personal opinion ("In my personal opinion, I agree with working from home...") instead of objectively evaluating the authors. It notes the Stanford study but drifts into personal commentary about saving money on lunch and gas.
- Trait 2 (1/2): Only 4 paragraphs with weak progression. Paragraph transitions are conversational ("Overall," "Marcus Vance thinks"). Lacks a structured counterargument comparison.
- Trait 3 (1/2): Informal register ("kind of outdated," "bosses," "gas and lunch"). Repetitive simple sentence structures and weak academic vocabulary.
Checklist: How to Turn a Score 3 Into a Score 6
- Never write in the first person ("I feel", "I think", "In my opinion"): The GED essay is not an opinion survey; it is a rhetorical analysis of evidence.
- Always cite specific numbers, studies, and author names: Do not just state "Thorne gave facts" — name the Stanford study, the 13% productivity boost, and the 50% attrition decrease.
- Explicitly expose logical flaws in the weaker text: Point out that the author relied on anecdotal evidence, emotional appeal, or lack of factual substantiation.
- Adopt an academic tone: Replace words like "bosses" with "employers," "kind of outdated" with "empirically unverified," and "lots of people" with "contemporary professionals."
Want instant feedback on your practice drafts? Inside the Tutoriffic Study Portal, you can type or paste any Extended Response practice essay and receive an immediate trait-by-trait rubric score (Trait 1, Trait 2, Trait 3) with actionable corrections in under 10 seconds.
Try the AI Essay Grader Free →