Comments by 2026 Luca Svendsen

Grade now

Thu, 07 May 2026 16:28:56 -0400

This draft already has a clear, defensible claim, so Row A looks like (Argument Essay Rubric) “responds to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position,” so I’d give Row A: 1/1.
For Row B, the draft uses several specific source-based details and usually explains why they matter, which fits (Argument Essay Rubric) “provides specific evidence to support all claims in a line of reasoning” and mostly shows commentary, so I’d place it at 3/4 right now.
The reason I would stop at 3 instead of 4 is that some parts still feel a little jumpy, so the commentary does not yet “consistently” explain how each piece of evidence builds the same line of reasoning (Argument Essay Rubric).
For Row C, the ending starts to do more by naming tradeoffs, equity, and policy, which could count as “articulating the implications or limitations of an argument,” so I’d give a tentative 1/1 for sophistication (Argument Essay Rubric).

So my best score for this draft is 5/6, and it may be sitting on the edge between 4/6 and 5/6 depending on how your teacher reads the commentary.
You are at a solid, good-enough draft stage for now: the claim is there, the evidence is there, and the line of reasoning is visible.
You can click Continue with AI and we can look at just one body paragraph for stronger commentary, or you can revise in the left pane by making sure each source sentence is followed by your own why-this-proves-my-claim thinking.
It may also help to get one classmate and your teacher to read just for Row B, since that row is the one most likely to move your score.
Want to check one paragraph now to see if it can move from a 3 to a 4 in Row B?

Grade this based off the AP rubric and give advice.

Thu, 07 May 2026 16:26:26 -0400

Your draft already has a clear claim, so Row A likely earns the thesis point because it “presents a defensible position” in response to the prompt (AP English Language Scoring Rubric, “Question 3: Argument Essay,” n.d.).
For Row B, this looks around a 3/4 right now because you use specific source-based evidence, and the rubric says stronger essays “organize and support an argument as a line of reasoning composed of multiple supporting claims,” but some of your commentary still stops a little early after the evidence (AP English Language Scoring Rubric, “Question 3: Argument Essay,” n.d.).
For Row C, I would hold this at 0/1 for now, because the rubric wants a response that “consistently” shows nuance, broader context, or clear limits/implications, and your draft mostly argues one side without yet pressing on tradeoffs in a fuller way (AP English Language Scoring Rubric, “Question 3: Argument Essay,” n.d.).
A useful next move in the left pane is to check each body paragraph and ask yourself: what exact claim is this paragraph proving, and have I explained why that evidence matters for my bigger position instead of just naming the source?

Try one of these right now:
Click Continue with AI and name the body paragraph you want to strengthen first, OR revise in the left pane by adding one sentence of reasoning after each source.
Then test for sophistication by adding one real tension, like cost, scale, energy use, or who benefits first, and explain why your position still stands.

One strong draft move here is that the essay already has a workable structure, and this may be at the “good enough to build from” stage. It could still help to compare your choices with a classmate’s draft or ask your teacher where they think the line between a 3 and 4 in Row B shows up here. What score do you think your evidence/commentary row should earn right now?

Ad hominem

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 14:26:30 -0500

Here, Napoleon describes Fredrick as a scoundrel. Rather than engage with what he is being accused of (selling timber to a human), he chooses to attack the character of Fredrick. This choice diverts attention from Napoleon's actions, while creating righteous outrage. In this outrage, the animals anger is redirected back to Fredrick. Ad hominems are extremely common, especially in politics. If one candidate brings up a point that the other can't defend/argue against, it's easier to simply attack the character of the opponent. Oftentimes this gives the impression of a victory, when in reality the argument being made is not engaged with.

What would Todd Weiler think about this 2026 bill H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments?

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:08:49 -0500

Todd Weiler hasn’t publicly commented on HB 16 (Solar Power Plant Amendments) in a way I can find, so anything about what he “would think” is an educated guess, not a fact. Here’s what we *can* see and reasonably infer:

HB 16 is a Republican-sponsored bill (Rep. Colin Jack; Sen. David Hinkins) that would limit or reshape state incentives for utility-scale solar projects depending on the productivity of the agricultural land they use, and add wildlife/consultation requirements. (Mortensen, Proposed legislation would limit solar incentives on agricultural land, 2026); (Cabrera, Utah may remove incentives for solar power projects based on their location, 2025)
Weiler has previously co-sponsored and carried a pro-rooftop-solar bill in the Senate (HB 119 in 2025), which made it harder for HOAs to block residents from installing solar panels. (Breathe Utah, HB 119 Solar Panel Restrictions in Homeowners Association Amendments, 2025)
That pattern suggests he’s open to expanding *small-scale, homeowner* solar, but HB 16 is about *large, utility-scale* solar on farmland, where concerns about agriculture, wildlife, and land use are stronger among many Utah legislators. (Mortensen, Proposed legislation would limit solar incentives on agricultural land, 2026)
Given that mix, a reasonable guess is: he’d likely support some version of HB 16 that protects productive farmland and wildlife while still preserving a path for solar development elsewhere—but to know for sure, you’d have to see how he votes or what he says in committee or on the floor.

If you were going to email or call Weiler about HB 16, what’s one specific question or scenario (for example, “a solar farm proposed on X kind of land”) you’d want him to answer—and do you want to keep working that into a short note by clicking Continue with AI, or switch to starting a fresh document at Create Document instead?

what would utah senator Todd Weiler think about the HB0016?

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:05:58 -0500

Utah’s HB0016 in the 2024 General Session is titled “Sexual Offenses Amendments.” It was sponsored in the House by Rep. Jon Hawkins, with Sen. Todd D. Weiler listed as the Senate sponsor, which means he formally agreed to carry and support the bill in the Senate chamber ((Utah State Legislature, HB0016, 2024)).

HB0016 tightens and clarifies definitions around serious child sex crimes like rape of a child, object rape of a child, and aggravated sexual abuse of a child ((Utah State Legislature, HB0016, 2024)).
Because Todd Weiler is the official Senate sponsor, that signals he supports the bill’s goals and is willing to argue for it and guide it through Senate committees and floor votes ((Utah State Legislature, HB0016, 2024)).
In other sex-crime bills, Weiler has sometimes pushed back against what he sees as over‑broad penalty increases, calling for balance and warning against lawmakers being used as “pawns” by prosecutors ((Dunphey, Utah News Dispatch, 2025)).
So based on his sponsorship and record, it’s fair to infer he likely sees HB0016 as a targeted, justified tightening of law around child sexual abuse, but only he could say exactly what he “thinks” about each detail.

If you had to write two or three sentences guessing how Senator Weiler would defend HB0016 on the Senate floor—based on his role as sponsor and his past comments on sex‑crime bills—what would you say, and would you like to click *Continue with AI* to draft that, or head to Create Document to start your own write‑up from these notes instead?

Important info

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:48:05 -0500

cost to cost perspective.

local

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:47:00 -0500

Meant to benefit local Utah residents which I support.

Negative Perspectives

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:46:02 -0500

Arguing for de-regulation or the same regulation currently.

Potencial benefit

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:44:46 -0500

Seems to be supported by farmers.

Seems like a good idea, but should Utah interfere in the free market?

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:44:15 -0500

Solar Energy is cheap

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:43:24 -0500

Does this market need more regulation?

What are some bills in the 2026 Utah State Legislature that directly affect the climate?

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:22:51 -0500

Shifting goal post.

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:57:06 -0400

This addition to the original phrase seems like a logical fallacy. The pigs continuously shifted their own rules throughout the book and lied about it. The pigs gaslight the less intelligent animals to expand their power. Doublethink, which is a term coined in Orwell's 1984, relates to this tactic used by the pigs. Both governments/leaders rewrite history and their morals to suit their needs.

Shifting Goal Post.

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:57:06 -0400

Economic fact

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:52:45 -0500

One fact, demonstrating long term impact of climate change. Economic fact.

Source credibility

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:52:00 -0500

This article was written NOAA Office for Coastal Management. This is a federally conducted study by a U.S. department. Very credible.

Climate info

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:49:50 -0500

Average American will see more days over 90 degrees.

Unlikely, but scary

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:48:57 -0500

1/20 chance $1 trillion of U.S. coastal property is under water by the end of the century.

Economic info

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:47:21 -0500

More extreme weather conditions raise U.S. repair/aid costs by a yearly $7.3 billion figure.

Agricultural info

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:45:51 -0500

Estimates the long term impact of climate change on U.S. agriculture.

total long term estamates

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:44:53 -0500

Shows the impact of climate change 75 years from now. Serious harm, long term.

See level increase

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:43:54 -0500

Current situation

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:43:34 -0500

This paragraph explains what is going on now.

Environmental Fact

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:42:56 -0500

Shows long term changes to ocean levels.

Economic fact

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:42:18 -0500

Another economic fact, long term expense increases.

Key Take away

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:10:07 -0500

Time is of the essence and advocacy groups need to act now so AI doesn't destroy the music industry for human creators.

Paragraph.

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:09:19 -0500

This gives important statistics I could use to answer my question.

Interesting

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:08:30 -0500

It is interesting that this problem is so time sensitive.

Problem

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:07:54 -0500

Problem

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:07:31 -0500

AI makes it very difficult for new artists to get their start.

Problem

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:06:42 -0500

Seems weird.

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:06:26 -0500

I feel like this can't be in anyway profitable in the long run.

Positive

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:05:49 -0500

It's good some steps are being taken.

Problem

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:05:06 -0500

How can human creators make an income?

Major Problem.

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:04:40 -0500

How can human artists out compete an AI which can pump out hundreds of songs?

Important

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:03:25 -0500

Clearly states the issue.