| 6 |
Outstanding—a cogent, wellarticulated critique of the
argument, demonstrating
mastery of the elements of
effective writing. |
- clearly identifies and
insightfully analyzes
important features of the
argument
- develops ideas cogently,
organizes them logically, and
connects them smoothly with
clear transitions
- effectively supports the main
points of the critique
- effectively supports the main
points of the critique
|
| 5 |
Strong—a well-developed
critique of the argument,
demonstrating good control of
the elements of effective writing. |
- clearly identifies important
features of the argument and
analyzes them in a generally
thoughtful way
- develops ideas clearly,
organizes them logically, and
connects them with
appropriate transitions
- sensibly supports the main
points of the critique
- demonstrates clear control of
language, including diction
and syntactic variety
- demonstrates facility with the
conventions of standard
written English, but may
have minor flaws
|
| 4 |
Adequate—a competent critique
of the argument, demonstrating
adequate control of the elements
of effective writing. |
- identifies and capably
analyzes important features
of the argument
- develops and organizes
ideas satisfactorily, but may
not always connect them
with transitions
- supports the main points of the critique
- demonstrates adequate
control of language, including
diction and syntactic variety,
but may lack syntactic variety
- displays control of the
conventions of standard
written English, but may
have some flaws
|
| 3 |
Limited—a competent but clearly
flawed critique of the argument,
demonstrating some control of
the elements of effective writing. |
- does not identify or analyze
most of the important
features of the argument,
although some analysis is
present
- is limited in the logical
development and
organization of ideas
- offers support of little
relevance and value for
points of the critique
- uses language imprecisely
and/or lacks sentence variety
- contains occasional major
errors or frequent minor
errors in grammar, usage,
and mechanics
|
| 2 |
Seriously flawed—a paper
demonstrating serious weakness
in analytical writing skills. |
- fails to show an
understanding of and does
not identify or analyze the
main features of the
argument
- does not develop ideas or is
disorganized
- provides few, if any, relevant
or reasonable support
- has serious, frequent
problems in the use of
language and sentence
structure
- contains numerous errors in
grammar, usage, or
mechanics that interfere with
meaning
|
| 1 |
Fundamentally Deficient—a
paper demonstrating
fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing skills. |
- provides little evidence of the
ability to understand and
analyze the argument or to develop an organized
response to it
- has severe and persistent
errors in language and
sentence structure
- contains a pervasive pattern
of errors in grammar, usage,
and mechanics, thus
resulting in incoherence
|
| 0 |
Unscorable |
- a paper that is totally illegible
or obviously not written on
the assigned topic
|
