Essay 2: Arguing a Position

Quality Criteria

No/Limited Proficiency
(1)
Problem is not
explained. Thesis is
missing.
Reader cannot
determine thesis and
purpose or thesis has no
relation to the writing
task.
Offers simplistic,
undeveloped, or cryptic
support for the position.
Inappropriate or off
topic generalizations.
Analysis is irrelevant to
thesis. There are faulty
assumptions and errors
of fact.
Fails to include a
response to readers
objections.

Minimal Proficiency (2)

Proficiency (3)

High Proficiency (4)

Problem is not welldeveloped. Thesis may

be obvious or
unimaginative. Thesis
and topic are somewhat
vague or only loosely
related to the writing
task.
Offers somewhat obvious
support that may be too
broad. Details are too
general, not interpreted,
or inappropriately
repetitive.

Problem is competently
developed, but still has
some weaknesses. Thesis
is somewhat original.
Thesis and purpose are
fairly clear and match the
writing task.

Substantially, logically, and

concretely defined problem.
Details are germane,
original, and convincingly
interpreted.
Thesis is clear and specific.
Develops fresh insight.

Offers solid but less

original reasoning.
Assumptions are not
always recognized or
made explicit. Contains
mostly appropriate details
or examples.

Develops fresh insight.

Substantial, logical, and
concrete development of
position. Details are
germane, original, and
convincingly interpreted.

Responses to readers
objections are
underdeveloped or
vague.

Effectively anticipates and

appropriately responds to
readers' likely objections in
a detailed manner.

A clear, logical
organization

Unclear organization. No
or very few transitions.
No or very few topic
sentences.

Use of sources/APA
format and English
grammar and
vocabulary

Neglects important
sources. Uses 0 sources.
Possibly uses source
material without
acknowledgement. Does
not demonstrate
proficiency in English
grammar, vocabulary,
and sentence structure.
No or little
understanding of APA.

Some signs of logical

organization. May have
abrupt or illogical shifts
and ineffective flow or
ideas. Weak topic
sentences. Paragraph
structure could be
improved.
Uses a somewhat
relevant source but lacks
variety. Quotations and
paraphrases may be too
long and/or
inconsistently
referenced.
Demonstrates limited
proficiency in English
grammar, vocabulary,
and sentence structure.
Inconsistent
understanding of APA.

Offers solid but less

original responses to
objections Contains mostly
appropriate responses but
some might not be
germane or original.
Organization supports
thesis and purpose.
Transitions are mostly
appropriate. But sequence
of ideas or paragraph
structure could still be
improved.
Uses source to support,
extend, and inform, but
not substitute writers
own development of
ideas, but source might
not be the most germane.
Doesnt overuse quotes,
but may not always
conform to required APA
style. Demonstrates
proficiency in English
grammar, vocabulary, and
sentence structure.
Demonstrates a good
understanding of APA.

Uses source (scientific data,

authoritative testimony,
statistics, etc.) to support,
extend, and inform, but not
substitute writers own
development of idea.
Doesnt overuse quotes.
Demonstrates high
proficiency in English
grammar, vocabulary, and
sentence structure. A
complete or near complete
understanding of APA.

A focused, welldefined problem

and thesis

A well-argued
position

An effective
response to
objections

Student,
Notes
--Matt

Fully and imaginatively

supports thesis and
purpose. Sequence of ideas
is effective. Transitions,
topic sentences, and
paragraph structure are
effective.