1.

Extended Argumentative Essay (45%)

UNDERSTANDING
OF MATERIAL
(25%)

ANALYSIS
(30%)

25%

40%

50%

60%

75%

Misunderstands the basics

of the material.

Demonstrates a basic Demonstrates a general

understanding
of
the understanding
of
the
material.
Counter- material.
Counterarguments are not dealt arguments are presented,
with.
but they are not refuted.

Demonstrates a good
understanding
of
the
material.
Counterarguments
are
very
simplistic (cf., straw man
fallacy)
and/or
their
refutation is weak.

Demonstrates an excellent
understanding
of
the
material. An attempt is
made at refuting some more
straight-forward
counterarguments.

The thesis statement does

not go beyond simple
summary of the source(s).
Most of the supporting
points are underdeveloped.
There
are
frequent
problems in logic/focus.
Evidence of lack of overall
understanding
of
the
source(s).

Presents a focused thesis

statement, which may not
be
analytical.
Some
supporting points need
further development and/or
may digress from the thesis.
Displays
a
general
understanding of source(s)
but may require more
synthesis and/or analysis.

Presents a focused and

analytical
but
not
necessarily
challenging
thesis statement. Most of
the supporting points are
clearly relevant to the thesis
and
developed
with
concrete
details.
Demonstrates an overall
understanding
of
the
sources
and
some
intersecting points.

Presents a focused and

analytical and somewhat
challenging
thesis
statement. All supporting
points are clearly relevant to
the thesis and developed
with
concrete
details.
Demonstrates an overall
understanding
of
the
sources
and
most
intersecting points.

Presents a focused and

analytical but rather obvious
thesis
statement.
Supporting
points
are
developed with details but
may be more simplistic
and/or their relationship to
the thesis could be more
explicit. Demonstrates a
general understanding of
the sources and a few
intersecting points.

SOURCE USE
(15%)

STRUCTURE
(20%)

25%

40%

50%

60%

75%

Source(s) are used without

meaningful integration into
the text. Most information
comes from non-credible
sources.
Neither
the
number nor the complexity
of the sources used are
appropriate.
Information
coming from sources has
not been integrated into the
discussion.

Source(s) are sometimes

integrated meaningfully and
fluently to develop the
thesis,
with
some
problematic areas. The
credibility of several of the
sources is questionable.
The number of sources
used is not sufficient. There
are several instances where
information coming from
sources has not been
integrated
into
the
discussion.

Source(s) are mostly used

effectively
and
with
sufficient context. Most
information comes from
credible sources. The
number and quality of
sources is appropriate.
There are some instances
where information coming
from sources has not been
integrated
into
the
discussion.

Source(s)
are
mostly
integrated meaningfully and
fluently to develop the
thesis, with some less minor
and/or recurring problems.
The majority of the
information used comes
from credible sources. The
number and quality of
sources is appropriate.
Information from sources is
less well integrated into
discussion, but multiple
strategies
(quotation,
paraphrase, summary) are
used.

Source(s)
are
mostly
integrated meaningfully and
fluently to develop the
thesis, with minor nonrecurring problems. All
information used comes
from credible sources. The
number and quality of
sources is appropriate.
Information from sources is
mostly well integrated into
discussion through multiple
strategies
(quotation,
paraphrase, summary).

Topic
sentences
are
frequently
lacking
or
unclear. The paper does not
contain an appropriate
introduction or conclusion.
Little
or
no
logical
progression
of
ideas.
Paragraphs
arbitrarily
ordered. Frequent lack of or
inappropriate transitions.

Topic
sentences
are
sometimes
lacking
or
unclear. The paper contains
a basic introduction and
conclusion. Organization of
material along the lines of
descriptive rather than
analytic
categories.
Adequate but formulaic
transitions.

Topic sentences effective

but less explicit. The paper
contains an appropriate
introduction and conclusion.
Paragraphs
sometimes
could be re-ordered, split or
combined, but general
progression makes sense.
Mostly
frequent
and
appropriate transitions.

Mostly
clear
topic
sentences relate the topic to
the thesis. The paper
contains a good introduction
and conclusion. A mostly
clear system or organization
is present. Frequent and
mostly
appropriate
transitions.

Clear topic sentences relate

the topic to the thesis. The
paper contains an excellent
introduction and conclusion.
A
clear
system
or
organization is present.
Frequent and appropriate
transitions.

LANGUAGE AND
MECHANICS
(10%)

25%

40%

50%

60%

75%

Most
sentences
have
grammatical
problems.
Consistent problems in
word choice. Awkward or
non idiomatic phrasing
often
obscures
the
meaning. Referencing is
inconsistent. Colloquial and
informal style.

Grammatical errors, but

overall demonstrates a
general understanding of
sentence
structure.
Competent but limited
vocabulary and problems in
word choice. Errors in
idiom, but general meaning
mostly remains clear. An
attempt is made at using
Harvard-style referencing.
An attempt is made at using
an academic style.

Contains a few minor

recurring grammatical and
sentence structure errors.
Uses mostly appropriate
and effective vocabulary. A
few
minor
recurring
language problems, but
they
rarely
obscure
meaning. Major recurring
errors in Harvard-style
referencing. Major recurring
errors in academic style.

Contains
only
minor
grammatical and sentence
structure errors. Mostly
varied and creative use of
vocabulary. Minor language
problems, but they rarely
obscure meaning. Harvardstyle referencing is used
with a few non-recurring
mistakes. Fluent academic
style with a few nonrecurring mistakes.

Few grammatical errors and

clear and fluent sentence
structure.
Varied
and
creative use of vocabulary.
Meaning
is
clear
throughout. Harvard-style
referencing is used correctly
and consistently. Fluent
academic style.

Papers shorter than 1,800 and longer than 2,200 words lose 10 points. Papers shorter than 1,600 words fail automatically. Papers where there are more than
two discrepancies between the references used in and after text fail automatically.