The response is free of substantive errors of fact and interpretation with regard to the text.
The paraphrase contradicts the passage, and so would negatively affect your reading score.
Now let's look at an accurate paraphrasing of the quotation: The author builds his argument by discussing how, since hot-dogs are never served cut in half, they are therefore different from sandwiches.
The response is free of errors of fact or interpretation with regard to the text.
The response makes skillful use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating a complete understanding of the source text.
You'll need to show your understanding of the text on two different levels: the surface level of getting your facts right and the deeper level of getting the relationship of the details and the central ideas right.
One of the most important ways you can show you've actually read the passage is making sure you stick to what is said in the text.
The response may contain errors of fact and/or interpretation with regard to the text.
The response makes limited and/or haphazard use of textual evidence (quotations, paraphrases, or both), demonstrating some understanding of the source text.
If you’re writing about things the author didn’t say, or things that contradict other things the author said, your argument will be fundamentally flawed.
For instance, take this quotation from a (made-up) passage about why a hot dog is not a sandwich: “The fact that you can’t, or wouldn’t, cut a hot dog in half and eat it that way, proves that a hot dog is once and for all NOT a sandwich” Here's an example of a factually inaccurate paraphrasing of this quotation: The author builds his argument by discussing how, since hot-dogs are often served cut in half, this makes them different from sandwiches.