Block Organization Versus a Recommendation Prompt
Students are writing a 500-word compare-and-contrast essay using two short articles about urban trees. Article A focuses on cooling streets and reducing energy costs. Article B focuses on neighborhood mental health and community gatherings. The prompt asks: "Compare the benefits of urban trees described in the two articles, and explain which benefit your city should prioritize." Marisol has four note cards: (1) A: trees cut summer surface temperatures by up to 10°F; (2) A: shade can lower air-conditioning bills; (3) B: residents in greener blocks report more neighbor conversations; (4) B: community gardens under trees host monthly events. She plans a block organization: two paragraphs on Article A, two paragraphs on Article B, and one conclusion. Her teacher says block organization may not fully answer the prompt because the essay must compare and make a recommendation, not just summarize each article.
1. Explain why Marisol's block organization may fail to answer the prompt, even if each paragraph is clear.
Read the worked answer
Block organization spends four paragraphs summarizing Article A and Article B separately, so the comparison may not appear until the conclusion. The prompt asks Marisol to compare benefits and explain which benefit the city should prioritize. If the two articles are kept in separate blocks, the reader has to do the comparison work at the end, and Marisol may simply list benefits rather than weigh them. Block structure can work when the prompt asks for summaries, but here the recommendation requires criteria: cost, equity, health, or feasibility. Those criteria need to be visible throughout the essay, not saved for a final paragraph. The risk is not that block organization is always wrong; it is that it makes the central comparison easy to postpone.
2. Propose a point-by-point plan for the body of the essay that includes a recommendation. Use Marisol's four note cards and name the criterion you would use to choose.
Read the worked answer
A point-by-point plan could use three body paragraphs. Paragraph 1: compare immediate physical benefits-Article A's 10°F surface-temperature reduction and lower air-conditioning bills versus Article B's reported neighbor conversations; explain that these are different kinds of benefit, one measurable and one social. Paragraph 2: compare community and health benefits-Article B's monthly garden events versus the shade and comfort implied by Article A; note that B's evidence is self-reported, while A's is temperature data. Paragraph 3: recommend prioritizing street cooling if the city's stated problem is heat risk, because the 10°F figure and energy savings address a measurable emergency; if the city's goal is social cohesion, the recommendation would change. The criterion is the city's most urgent problem, not which article is more interesting.
3. What additional evidence would Marisol need before she could confidently recommend one benefit? Identify two specific gaps.
Read the worked answer
First, she needs local data: the city's summer surface temperatures, heat-related emergency calls, or energy burdens in specific neighborhoods. Article A's 10°F figure may come from a different climate, and a recommendation for her city needs local relevance. Second, she needs information about scale and cost: how many trees, at what price, with what maintenance, and who would benefit. Article B's neighbor-conversation finding is suggestive but does not show that a tree-planting program would cause more gatherings. She also needs to know whether the city's goal is heat relief or social connection. Without those gaps filled, her recommendation would be a preference, not an evidence-based judgment. The strongest next step is to look for a local climate or public-health report.