Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Component
THESIS:
/10
ORGANIZATION:
Introduction,
Counterargument &
Refutation
(if applicable),
Body Paragraphs w/
Topic Sentences,
Conclusion
/30
/5
A
The Thesis...
...fully addresses the question.
...takes a clear, well-analyzed position.
...provides at least 3 distinguishable, possibly
nuanced organizational categories.
...is factually defensible.
Name: __________________________________
B
The Thesis...
...mostly addresses the question.
...takes a clear position.
...provides at least 3 mostly distinguishable,
but potentially overlapping organizational
categories.
seems to be factually defensible.
10-9
Introduction
Introduction is captivating. It clearly establishes
topics relevance and makes effective links to thesis
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are elaborative sentences that clearly
connect to the organizational categories of the thesis.
Each paragraph provides a thorough direct/partial
answer the BIG QUESTION.
Each paragraph represents a distinct argument with
no overlap w/ other paragraphs
Introduction
Introduction is effective. It adequately establishes
topics relevance.
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are for the most part linked to the
organizational categories in the thesis.
For the most part, paragraphs provide a direct/partial
answer the BIG QUESTION but might require some
clarification.
Each paragraph represents a mostly-distinct argument
with limited overlap w/ other paragraphs.
D or F
The Thesis...
...partially addresses the question.
...has an overly simplistic/superficial position.
...provides weak organizational categories
that are somewhat unclear, overlapping
and/or inaccurate.
...may contain a factual inaccuracy.
The Thesis...
...does not address the question in a meaningful way
or demonstrates a misunderstanding of the
question.
...position is confused or undetectable.
...provides no organizational categories or
the organizational categories lack relevance.
...is factually inaccurate.
6 or less
Introduction
Introduction is weak or is not relevant to the topic and
it does not demonstrate the topics relevance.
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are inconsistent or are only
partially/loosely linked to the organizational
categories in the thesis.
Paragraphs seem to suggest a loose connection to the
BIG QUESTION. Some paragraphs seem out-of-place,
or they significantly overlap with other paragraphs.
In-paragraph evidence is marginally effective in
supporting the arguments made by the topic
sentences.
Counterargument (if applicable)
Counterargument (if applicable)
Counterargument (if applicable)
The counterargument is laid out clearly and
The counterargument is laid out in basic terms and
The counterargument is overly simplistic or is
demonstrates a deep understanding of the strongest
mostly expresses the strongest opposing position(s).
incomplete.
opposing position(s).
The refutation suggests flaws in the opposing position The refutation is incomplete and supporting evidence
The refutation clearly exposes flaws in the opposing
and, for the most part, uses evidence in support.
is limited.
view and offers a thorough evidence-based refutation. Conclusion
Conclusion
Conclusion
Adequately restates thesis arguments, and provides
Effectively restates thesis arguments, provides,
thoughtful commentary on the topic and arguments Inconsistently restates thesis arguments, and provides
insightful commentary, demonstrates personal
therein.
limited commentary on the topic and arguments
ownership of topic and arguments therein
therein.
Introduction
Introduction is extremely short, weak, irrelevant,
disconnected from the topic or is non-existent
Body Paragraphs/Topic Sentences/Main Argument
Points
Topic sentences are not linked to the organizational
categories in the thesis.
Paragraphs do not directly connect to the BIG
QUESTION. Many paragraphs are out-of-place, do not
reflect a position/argument and/or they significantly
overlap with other paragraphs.
In-paragraph evidence is not effective in supporting
the arguments made by the topic sentences.
Counterargument (if applicable)
The counterargument is either non-existent OR is not
presented as a counter-argument OR does not
represent a valid opposing argument to the writers
position.
The refutation is non-existent OR is invalid OR
contains no evidence.
Conclusion
Does not effectively restate thesis arguments, and
provides inadequate commentary on the topic and
arguments therein.
20 or less
30-27
26-24
23-21
Argumentative Support
...is thorough and draws upon an ample evidence from
6 or more sources.
...demonstrates a deep understanding for issues related
to the topic.
...conveys an nuanced understanding of various
perspectives/sources
Analysis is
highly sophisticated and demonstrates a personal
ownership and nuanced understanding of the topic.
40-36
Analysis is
uneven revealing some understanding for the topic,
but with some clear misperceptions.
31-28
Analysis is
limited, non-existent, or highly-flawed.
27 or less
The paper is poorly written and contains many
grammatical, spelling and mechanical errors.
There is limited-to-no evidence of proofreading.
10 or less
A basic, uneven, limited or no attempt has been made to be sure that in-paper citations and Works Cited page
adhere to MLA guidelines.
3 or less