Son of Hamas is built around a series of difficult decisions, which makes it a natural fit for argumentative writing about ethics. Yousef decides to work with Israeli intelligence while continuing to live inside a family and community that expected loyalty to Hamas. Students can evaluate those decisions without reducing them to a simple verdict of right or wrong. The best essays weigh competing values and show how the narrator himself wrestles with them.

A well-designed prompt asks students to take a position on a specific decision and to justify it using criteria they define. For example, they might argue whether protecting lives can justify deceiving family and friends, using scenes from the memoir as evidence. Requiring students to state their ethical criteria at the start prevents vague moralizing. It also makes their reasoning easier to evaluate.

Argument writing in an ethics context benefits from a short planning stage in which students list the strongest points on at least two sides. This prevents one-sided essays and trains them to anticipate objections. A graphic organizer with columns for claims, textual support, and counterpoints works well. Students who complete it carefully usually write more balanced and persuasive drafts.

Structuring the Argument

A dependable structure begins with an introduction that frames the dilemma and states a precise claim, followed by body paragraphs that each develop one reason supported by a passage. A dedicated paragraph then presents the strongest counterargument and responds to it directly. The conclusion should return to the larger question of what the memoir teaches about responsibility under pressure. This design is flexible enough for ninth graders and rigorous enough for college freshmen.

• A claim that names a specific decision and takes a clear ethical position
• At least two textual examples that show the consequences of that decision
• A stated ethical standard, such as protecting life or keeping faith with family
• A counterargument that is described fairly and not as a weak caricature
• A response that explains why the original claim still holds or how it should be adjusted

Grading Counterarguments and Ethical Reasoning

Counterargument is where many student essays fall short, often because students present an opposing view in a single dismissive sentence. A rubric row that distinguishes between acknowledging, explaining, and responding to opposition gives students a clear path toward improvement. Teachers can describe the highest level as one in which the opposing view is stated in its strongest form. Pointing to this descriptor during conferences helps students understand why simple rebuttals are not enough.

Ethical reasoning should be scored on clarity and consistency, not on which conclusion a student reaches. If a student argues that the narrator's deception was justified, the grader checks whether the standard is stated and applied logically throughout. If the student argues the opposite, the same checks apply. That approach keeps grading defensible and communicates respect for different viewpoints.

Common Pitfalls and How to Prevent Them

One recurring problem is students imposing present-day assumptions on events without understanding the pressures the narrator faced. Reminding them to cite the text for details about risk, family expectations, and timing helps keep arguments grounded. Another problem is treating every action as either entirely heroic or entirely villainous. Encouraging students to name the competing goods in a decision tends to produce more mature writing.

Teachers can also watch for essays that rely on emotional language in place of reasoning. Asking students to replace a charged word with a precise description of the action often reveals whether the argument holds up. This revision exercise takes only a few minutes in class and noticeably improves drafts. It also models a professional habit of writing that carries into college work.

Making Feedback Efficient for Large Classes

Argumentative essays can be time-consuming to grade because each one contains several layers of reasoning to evaluate. Focusing comments on the claim, the counterargument, and the link between evidence and reasoning keeps the process manageable. Some teachers use a color-coding system to mark each element directly on the page so students can see the structure at a glance. Others use rubric-based AI feedback to draft a first pass, which they then tailor to each writer.

Whatever method you choose, aim to return essays quickly enough that students still care about the topic. A one-week turnaround often yields more revision than a three-week delay. Offering a short window for revising the counterargument section alone can produce significant improvement with little extra grading effort. This targeted approach respects both student learning and teacher time.