| Organization/PurposeHow clearly the writer states and keeps an opinion, and how well the piece is put together from introduction to conclusion.1–4 points | A clear, effective structure that feels unified and complete, with a consistent, purposeful focus on the opinion. - The organization holds up between and within paragraphs.
- The opinion is introduced and clearly stated, and the focus stays strong for the purpose and audience.
- A variety of transitions is used consistently to show how ideas relate to each other.
- The introduction and conclusion are effective.
- Ideas move logically from beginning to end, with strong links between them and some variety in sentence structure.
| An evident structure and a sense of completeness; any flaws are minor and do not hurt overall coherence, and the response is generally focused. - The organization is adequately sustained between and within paragraphs.
- The opinion is clear, and the focus is mostly held for the purpose and audience.
- Transitions are adequate and show some variety.
- The introduction and conclusion are adequate.
- Ideas progress adequately, with adequate links between them.
| An inconsistent structure with some evident flaws; some ideas are loosely connected and the focus may drift a little. - The organization is only somewhat sustained between and within paragraphs.
- The opinion may be somewhat unclear, or the focus is not held well enough for the purpose and/or audience.
- Transitions are used inconsistently or with little variety.
- The introduction or conclusion, if there is one, may be weak.
- Ideas progress unevenly or follow a formula, and the links between them may be inconsistent or unclear.
| Little or no discernible structure; the response may relate to the opinion but has little or no focus. - The opinion may be confusing or ambiguous, the response may be too brief, or the focus may shift away from the purpose or audience.
- There are few or no transitions.
- The introduction and/or conclusion may be missing.
- Unrelated ideas show up often, and ideas may be in random order or hard to follow.
| —Not used for this criterion | |
|---|
| Evidence/ElaborationHow well the writer supports the opinion and its reasons with facts and details from the sources, and how clearly ideas are developed.1–4 points | Thorough, convincing elaboration of the support for the opinion and its reasons, with effective use of the sources; ideas are developed clearly in precise language. - Evidence (facts and details) from the sources is comprehensive, relevant and specific, and it is worked into the writing.
- Citations or attributions to the sources are clear.
- A variety of elaboration techniques is used effectively.
- Vocabulary clearly fits the audience and purpose.
- An effective, appropriate style strengthens the content.
| Adequate elaboration of the support for the opinion and its reasons, with use of the sources and a mix of precise and more general language. - Evidence from the sources is relevant and integrated, but it may be general.
- Citations or attributions to the sources are adequate.
- Some elaboration techniques are used adequately.
- Vocabulary is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose.
- The style is generally appropriate.
| Uneven, cursory elaboration with partial or uneven use of the sources; ideas are developed unevenly in simple language. - Some evidence from the sources is weakly integrated, imprecise, repetitive, vague or copied.
- Citations or attributions to the sources are weak.
- Elaboration techniques are weak or uneven; the development may be mostly a summary of the sources.
- Vocabulary is uneven or somewhat ineffective for the audience and purpose.
- The attempt at an appropriate style is inconsistent or weak.
| Minimal elaboration with little or no use of the sources; the response is vague, unclear or confusing. - Evidence from the sources is minimal, irrelevant, missing, used incorrectly or mostly copied.
- Citations or attributions to the sources are insufficient.
- Elaboration techniques are minimal, if present.
- Vocabulary is limited or ineffective for the audience and purpose.
- There is little or no sign of an appropriate style.
| —Not used for this criterion | |
|---|
| ConventionsCommand of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling, scored as one holistic judgment.0–2 points | —Not used for this criterion | —Not used for this criterion | Adequate command of conventions. - Sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling are adequately correct for the length of the response.
| Partial command of conventions. - Correct use of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling is limited.
| Little or no command of conventions. - Correct use of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling is infrequent.
| |
|---|