In this response to Burdick et al. (2013), the author describes two possible and perhaps even common reactions to the article by Burdick et al. (2013). Advocates such as Way, Davis, and Strain- Seymour (2008) will likely applaud the development of the Writing Ability Developmental Scale and the possible widespread use of computer-based writing assessments, whereas critics like the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) will argue, as they have in the past, that, "...we can cost-effectively assess writing without relying on flawed machine-scoring methods" (Anson et al., 2013). This divide is further represented in the enthusiasm expressed by scientists involved in developing such computer-based writing assessments (e.g., Shermis, Burnstein, & Lealock, 2005) and the resistance of many in the humanities to this approach (Breland, 1996).