Contains an unidentifiable central claim/thesis statement; position is unclear
Contains an unclear or emerging central claim/thesis statement; position on the topic is vague.
Contains a central claim/thesis statement that takes a purposeful position on an issue.
Contains a clear, compelling central claim/thesis statement that takes a purposeful position on an issue.
Contains limited evidence to support the central claim/thesis statement.
Introduces evidence inconsistently and ineffectively, with no provision of context
Attempts to support the central claim/thesis statement with some evidence but lacks quality or relevance. May provide too much data that is irrelevant or unnecessary.
Introduces evidence and provides limited context, but does so superficially and/or with limited clarity and cohesion
Provides sufficient evidence to explain the topic and support the central claim/thesis statement.
Introduces evidence, providing context, clarity, and cohesion.
Provides significant and relevant evidence that develops the topic and supports the central claim/thesis statement.
Dynamically introduces evidence effectively & skillfully. Transitions into evidence are seamless, providing context, clarity, & cohesion
Lacks original analysis or commentary. Fails to make clear the connections between the evidence and the central claim/thesis statement.
Draws limited connections between evidence and central claim/thesis statement. May simply restate or paraphrase the evidence, or be lacking in development.
Supports central claim/thesis statement with analysis that attempts to explain the significance of evidence; however, analysis needs further development and explanation.
Supports central claim/thesis statement with thorough analysis and detailed commentary.
Demonstrates informal or inappropriate tone throughout. Errors distract from content. No evidence of proofreading
Demonstrates limited awareness of conventions or formal tone with several errors. Little evidence of proofreading and editing.
Presents a formal tone with minor errors. Some evidence of proofreading and editing.
Presents engaging, formal tone with few or no errors in standard conventions of English. Ample evidence of proofreading and editing.
CLAIMS AND REFUTATION
Does not address and refute counterclaims. Fails to acknowledge the audience’s biases or concerns about the claim.
Attempts to present and address some counterclaims. May misidentify the essential biases, or concerns of opposing perspective. May confuse organization of claims and counterclaims and fail to provide clear refutation.
Addresses and refutes some counterclaims. Addresses some of the key biases or concerns of the opposing perspective. Differentiates between claims and counterclaims and attempts to link refutation back to the central claim
Effectively addresses and refutes important counterclaims. Acknowledges and addresses the essential biases or concerns the opposing perspective may have about the claim. Clearly differentiates between claims and counterclaims and strategically links refutation back to the central claim.
Doesn’t include most citations, and those present are formatted incorrectly.
References page is poorly formatted or missing information (if applicable).
Citations are inconsistent and contain multiple formatting errors
Includes a references page, but may contain multiple formatting errors (if applicable).
Cites all evidence, but may have minor formatting errors or ineffective quote introductions.
Includes a references page with minor errors (if applicable).
Cites all evidence without errors.
Includes a properly formatted references page (if applicable).