The question of whether Matt Alacrán counts as a person makes a natural argumentative prompt because the novel gives evidence on both sides. Some characters treat him as property, a spare body kept for medical use, while others, especially Celia, treat him as a child who deserves love and protection. Students can build strong cases in either direction, which means grading must focus on the quality of the argument rather than the side chosen. That principle should be stated on the assignment sheet so no student worries about agreeing with the teacher.

Argumentative writing has its own vocabulary, including claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, and warrant, and students need to know how each will be scored. A rubric for this prompt should give separate credit for a clear position, relevant evidence from the text, a fair statement of the opposing view, and a rebuttal that actually answers it. Many students skip the rebuttal or mention the other side in a single throwaway sentence. Making those pieces visible on the rubric prevents that shortcut.

Because the topic touches ethics, some essays will lean heavily on emotion rather than reasoning. A paragraph that says cloning is wrong because it feels cruel is sincere but not yet an argument. Teachers can push students to name a principle, such as the idea that every being capable of suffering deserves moral consideration, and then apply it to specific scenes. Grading should reward that move from feeling to reasoning.

Grade the reasoning, not the position

Neutral grading requires deliberate habits, because it is easy to score a paper higher when it agrees with what we believe. One technique is to read the thesis, then ignore whether you agree and ask only whether the essay supplies enough reasons and evidence to persuade a fair reader. Another is to score the rubric rows before forming an overall impression of the paper. Both help keep personal reactions from distorting the grade.

• The claim takes a clear position on whether Matt is a person
• Evidence cites specific scenes involving Matt, Celia, and El Patrón
• The counterclaim is stated fairly and not turned into a weak strawman
• The rebuttal answers the counterclaim with reasoning, not repetition
• Word choice stays measured and avoids sweeping statements about all clones or all people

Teach counterclaims before students draft

Students improve quickly when they practice arguing the side they do not hold. A short in-class exercise where each student writes two sentences defending the opposite view of their own gives them raw material for a strong counterclaim. It also builds empathy for characters who see Matt differently, which deepens their understanding of the story. When grading, a genuinely fair counterclaim deserves recognition even if the final position is unchanged.

Feedback on weak counterclaims should be specific. Saying "you mention the other side but do not respond to it" identifies the missing rebuttal, and asking "what would someone who disagrees say back to that?" prompts revision. Comments like these build argument skills that transfer to history, science, and civics classes. They also make the rubric feel like a coaching tool instead of a list of penalties.

Watch for evidence that does not match the claim

A frequent problem in argumentative essays is evidence that sounds relevant but does not support the actual claim. A student arguing that Matt deserves rights might quote a scene showing his cleverness, when the stronger evidence would involve his capacity to feel fear or loyalty. Teachers can flag these mismatches with a short margin note asking what the quote proves. Over several essays, students learn to choose evidence with more care.

Consistency matters most when grading a full class set, because an early paper that impresses can quietly raise the bar for everything after it. AI-assisted grading helps by applying the same rubric language to each essay in sequence and highlighting where a counterclaim or rebuttal is missing. Teachers then spend their attention on the papers that need a human judgment call. The result is faster grading without sacrificing fairness.

Close the unit with reflection on the process

After returning graded essays, ask students to write a brief note about how their position changed, if it did, while researching the counterclaim. That reflection shows growth that a final score cannot capture. It also reminds students that changing your mind because of good evidence is a strength, not a weakness. Teachers who include this step often find that classroom discussions become more respectful and more thoughtful.

The same assignment can be reused with a new prompt in later units, such as whether a character in another novel deserves forgiveness. Students who understand the argumentative structure from this book can apply it again with less scaffolding. The rubric can stay largely the same, which saves planning time and lets students see their own progress across the year. That continuity is one of the quiet benefits of a well-designed writing sequence.