Pre-AP Rubric for Analytical Writing

This rubric is intended for honors-level students who are tracked to take AP English classes. It has been adapted from the AP Literature rubric for timed writing. 9: a convincing, thoroughly detailed, specific, superior answer which displays insight and comprehension
(100-99)

8: compared to a 9-level essay, a less thorough, less specific answer which is less perceptive; however, this is still a high-level essay
(98-95)

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7: a good, intelligent answer but less convincing than the highest level essays
(94-93)

excellent thesis highly effective, imaginative, and fully developed answer excellent evidence, examples, proof excellent organization sound transitions and connections of thought absence of mechanical flaws excellent diction and vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6: a good, intelligent answer but cursory (hasty or hurried) in examination of topic

(92-88)

excellent thesis effective, imaginative, and developed answer excellent evidence, examples, proof effective organization; mostly strong transitions and connections of thought a few mechanical flaws or careless proofreading errors a few lapses in diction and less sophisticated vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

intelligent, safe thesis that is adequate in every way a good examination of the topic, but less developed than the higher- level essays effective, but perhaps less thorough evidence, examples, proof sound organization a few flaws in transitions or thoroughness; fewer connections of thought adequate mechanics; flaws do not interfere with meaning a few lapses in diction and less sophisticated vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(87-85)

5: a good, yet general or predictable attempt to answer the prompt

intelligent, yet less concise and less complete thesis a good but cursory (hasty or hurried) examination of the topic some evidence, examples or proof, but they may be less developed, relevant, or connected to the topic. less effective organization that contains a clear beginning, middle, and end less effective transitions or connections of thought adequate mechanics; flaws do not interfere with meaning a few lapses in diction and less sophisticated vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4: an essay that does not pay attention to detail and/or is missing some component of the question or prompt
(84-80)

unnecessarily general or predictable thesis addresses the assigned topic intelligently but does not answer it fully and specifically general, or unconvincing evidence, examples or proof; may be lacking examples, evidence, or proof in some places less effective organization that contains a clear beginning, middle, and end significantly fewer and less effective transitions or connections of thought a few definite mechanical flaws; flaws may interfere with meaning in places weak or vague diction in places

3: an essay that may be too vague and/or too much like a report that lacks analysis
(79-77)

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

2: an essay that is vague and/or severely lacking response to most of the prompt and/or does so in the medium of summary only
(76-70)

vague or incomplete thesis superficial analysis; has moments when it contains analysis, but is mostly a report; may rely on plot summary some evidence, examples, proof generally organized but may demonstrate a few flaws in organization few transitions and connections of thought definite mechanical flaws or carelessness that may interfere with meaning weak diction and vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

vague or incomplete thesis an intelligent summary with little or no analysis few, unconvincing, or inappropriate evidence, examples, proof lapses in organization few, if any, transitions and connections of thought distracting mechanical flaws or carelessness that interfere with meaning weak diction and vocabulary

1: an essay that addresses the work or topic in name only, but does not address any part of the prompt
(69-60)

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

0: an essay that is completely off-topic or a lack of a response

? ? ? ? ? lack of effort; no thesis no mention of topic or prompt no examples or inappropriate ones usually too brief or undeveloped to be considered a response mechanical meltdown A. Carter 2011

poorly-constructed or non-existent thesis rambling generalizations that may contain a few intelligent observations; poor use of text or prompt; may contain only weak summary; possible lack of effort or thought lacks evidence, examples, proof demonstrates problems in organization lacks transitions and connections of thought distracting patterns of mechanical flaws or carelessness that interfere with meaning weak diction and vocabulary

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

non-existent thesis misguided, rambling, or vacuous generalizations that do not address question or topic lacks evidence, examples, proof severe problems in organization lacks transitions and connections of thought consistently poor mechanics or careless mistakes that interfere with meaning weak diction and vocabulary

(59 and below)