Lobsang is one of the most discussion-worthy characters in The Long Earth, an advanced computer who insists he is the reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. A court rules that he is legally a person, and the novel lets readers decide how much that ruling matters. Students tend to have strong opinions about artificial intelligence already, which makes this a natural prompt for argumentative writing.

Strong opinions create a grading challenge, since a passionate essay can feel more persuasive than it is. The task is to score the quality of the argument rather than agreement with the student's view. A student who argues that Lobsang is not a real person can earn full marks if the reasoning is sound and the evidence comes from the text.

Make this principle explicit in the assignment sheet so students know they will not be penalized for an unpopular position. Teachers sometimes find that students hold back controversial claims because they suspect the grader has a preferred answer. Stating that argument quality drives the score tends to produce bolder and more interesting essays.

Scoring the structure of the argument

An argumentative essay should contain a claim, reasons, evidence, and a response to counterarguments. Students often skip the last element, presenting only the evidence that supports their side. In this case, a student arguing that Lobsang is a person should acknowledge that his claim about reincarnation cannot be verified, and explain why that uncertainty does not defeat the argument.

• A clear claim about whether Lobsang's personhood is justified
• At least two reasons supported by specific scenes or statements
• Acknowledgment of a serious opposing view
• A rebuttal that engages the opposing view rather than dismissing it
• A conclusion that explains why the question matters beyond the novel

Commenting on counterarguments

Weak rebuttals usually take the form of "some people disagree, but they are wrong." Useful feedback shows students how to restate the opposing view fairly before answering it. You might write, "State the strongest version of the objection first, then explain which part of it your evidence weakens."

Offering a short model also helps, especially for students who have never written a rebuttal. A two-sentence example showing how to concede a point and then redirect can unlock the skill for the whole class. Students often improve quickly once they see the pattern, because the move is more mechanical than it first appears.

Keeping scoring fair when topics feel personal

Questions about artificial minds touch on technology, religion, and identity, and students may bring personal convictions to their writing. Teachers should watch for unconscious bias in their own scoring, particularly when an essay reaches a conclusion they find unconvincing. Scoring against written criteria, and rereading a few essays blind to the student's name, helps keep judgments tied to the rubric.

Rubric-driven feedback tools can add a second perspective, since they apply the same criteria to every essay regardless of the stance taken. A teacher can compare the tool's reading with their own and investigate any large differences. Disagreements often reveal an unnoticed assumption in the grader's own thinking.

Extending the assignment

The Lobsang question connects well to other texts, such as Frankenstein or short stories about robots, and to current discussions about artificial intelligence. A comparative follow-up essay lets students apply the same argumentative structure to a new case, which is a good test of whether the skill transferred. Scoring both essays with the same rubric also shows growth clearly.

Consider a short in-class discussion before the essay, with students assigned to defend a position they do not hold. Arguing the other side tends to improve the quality of rebuttals, because students understand the objection from the inside. The resulting essays are usually more balanced and more convincing.