Few prompts on The Call of the Wild generate as much genuine disagreement among students as the question of whether Buck's regression into his ancestral, wolf-like nature is something that was always inside him, waiting to emerge, or something forced on him entirely by brutal circumstance.

Because both readings are well supported by the text, this prompt is particularly good at separating students who can build a sustained, evidence-based argument from students who simply assert a position without fully engaging with the counterargument.

A strong rubric for this prompt should explicitly reward acknowledgment of the opposing interpretation, even briefly, since the strongest essays on this topic tend to concede some ground rather than argue an absolute position.

What each side of the argument looks like

Students arguing that Buck's transformation is natural typically point to the novel's repeated references to ancestral memory and instinct lying dormant beneath his domesticated behavior. Students arguing it is forced typically point to the specific, brutal events, the club, the harsh sled work, the loss of Thornton, that precede each major shift in his behavior.

• Does the essay take a clear position rather than presenting both sides without a claim?
• Is there specific textual evidence for the chosen position, not just general reference to the plot?
• Does the essay acknowledge and respond to the strongest counterargument, even briefly?
• Is there a distinction drawn between instinct as latent potential versus instinct as something purely triggered by trauma?
• Does the conclusion offer a genuine synthesis rather than simply restating the thesis?

Encouraging genuine engagement with counterargument

A short pre-writing debate activity, splitting the class into two sides regardless of their actual opinion, forces students to understand both interpretations before they commit to writing. This tends to produce essays with much stronger counterargument sections than assigning the essay cold.

Requiring at least one sentence explicitly addressing the opposing view, even in a shorter essay format, keeps students from writing a one-sided argument that ignores clearly available counter-evidence in the text.

Avoiding grader bias toward a preferred reading

Because this is a genuinely debatable question, it is important for graders to avoid unconsciously favoring whichever interpretation they personally find more compelling. Scoring based strictly on the strength of the argument and evidence, regardless of which side the student takes, keeps the assessment fair.

Some departments deliberately grade this prompt in pairs or small groups precisely because the interpretive nature of the question makes individual grader bias more likely to creep in unnoticed on a solo pass through a stack of essays.

Using this prompt as a benchmark assignment

Because this prompt so clearly separates strong argumentative writing from weaker, one-sided writing, some teachers use it as a benchmark assignment at the start or end of a unit to gauge overall class growth in argumentative skill.

Comparing student performance on this same prompt across a semester, or across multiple class sections, can also give a useful signal about which argumentative writing skills need more direct instruction before the next major essay assignment.