Criteria |
5 Points |
4 Points |
3 Points |
2 Points |
1 Point |
Clarity and Focus |
The line of reasoning is clear and focused throughout the essay. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that ties back to the central claim, and every sentence within the paragraph supports this topic sentence. |
The line of reasoning is mostly clear and focused. Most paragraphs have a clear topic sentence, and most sentences support the topic sentence. |
The line of reasoning is somewhat clear but may have minor lapses in focus. Some paragraphs have clear topic sentences, but not all sentences support the topic sentence. |
The line of reasoning is unclear or unfocused in several parts of the essay. Few paragraphs have clear topic sentences, and many sentences do not support the topic sentence. |
The line of reasoning is unclear and unfocused throughout the essay. Paragraphs lack clear topic sentences, and sentences do not support the topic sentence. |
Logical Organization |
The argument is organized in a logical order that builds on previous points and advances the overall argument. The sequence of ideas flows smoothly. |
The argument is mostly organized logically, with minor lapses in the sequence of ideas. The flow is generally smooth. |
The argument has some logical organization, but there are noticeable lapses in the sequence of ideas. The flow is somewhat choppy. |
The argument is poorly organized, with several lapses in the sequence of ideas. The flow is often choppy. |
The argument lacks logical organization. The sequence of ideas is confusing, and the flow is very choppy. |
Relevance of Evidence |
The essay includes relevant, credible, and sufficient evidence to support each claim made. The evidence is seamlessly integrated into the argument. |
The essay includes mostly relevant and credible evidence, with minor lapses. The evidence is generally well-integrated. |
The essay includes some relevant and credible evidence, but there are noticeable gaps. The evidence is somewhat integrated. |
The essay includes little relevant and credible evidence. The evidence is poorly integrated. |
The essay includes no relevant and credible evidence. The evidence is not integrated. |
Explanation and Analysis |
Each piece of evidence is followed by a thorough explanation and analysis that demonstrates how it supports the claim. The reasoning is explicitly stated. |
Most pieces of evidence are followed by explanation and analysis, with minor lapses. The reasoning is mostly clear. |
Some pieces of evidence are followed by explanation and analysis, but there are noticeable gaps. The reasoning is somewhat clear. |
Few pieces of evidence are followed by explanation and analysis. The reasoning is unclear. |
No pieces of evidence are followed by explanation and analysis. The reasoning is not stated. |
Counterargument and Rebuttal |
Acknowledges potential counterarguments and refutes them effectively, strengthening the original argument and demonstrating understanding of multiple perspectives. |
Acknowledges counterarguments and attempts to refute them, with minor lapses in effectiveness or understanding. |
Acknowledges counterarguments but does not effectively refute them. Shows some understanding of multiple perspectives. |
Mentions counterarguments but does not refute them. Shows little understanding of multiple perspectives. |
Does not acknowledge counterarguments. Shows no understanding of multiple perspectives. |
Cohesion and Coherence |
The essay maintains coherence with transitional words and phrases that guide the reader. Consistent use of language and structure makes the argument easy to follow. |
The essay mostly maintains coherence, with minor lapses. Transitional words and phrases are generally used effectively. |
The essay has some coherence, but there are noticeable lapses. Transitional words and phrases are somewhat used. |
The essay lacks coherence, with several lapses. Transitional words and phrases are poorly used. |
The essay lacks coherence throughout. Transitional words and phrases are not used. |
Depth and Complexity |
The reasoning shows depth by addressing complexities and nuances of the topic, exploring deeper implications and connections. |
The reasoning shows some depth, addressing complexities and nuances with minor lapses. |
The reasoning shows limited depth, addressing some complexities and nuances. |
The reasoning shows little depth, addressing few complexities and nuances. |
The reasoning shows no depth, addressing no complexities or nuances. |