“`html
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100 points) | Good (80-89 points) | Satisfactory (70-79 points) | Needs Improvement (60-69 points) | Poor (0-59 points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction & Thesis | Engaging introduction that captures attention; clear, concise thesis statement that presents a strong opinion. | Good introduction; thesis statement is clear but could be more engaging. | Introduction is present but lacks engagement; thesis statement is vague. | Weak introduction; thesis statement is unclear or missing. | No introduction or thesis statement. |
| Background Information | Comprehensive and relevant background information; well-researched and informative. | Good background information; mostly relevant and informative. | Some background information; lacks depth or relevance. | Limited background information; not well-researched. | No background information provided. |
| Judgment & Criteria | Clear, well-supported judgment with detailed criteria; balanced discussion of positive and negative aspects. | Judgment is clear with some support; criteria are mostly detailed; some balance in discussion. | Judgment is present but lacks support; criteria are vague; limited discussion of aspects. | Judgment is unclear; criteria are missing or poorly defined; unbalanced discussion. | No judgment or criteria provided. |
| Evidence & Examples | Strong, relevant examples and evidence that support claims; builds credibility. | Good examples and evidence; mostly supports claims. | Some examples and evidence; limited support for claims. | Few examples and evidence; weak support for claims. | No examples or evidence provided. |
| Comparison | Insightful comparison to similar products; clear reasoning. | Good comparison; reasoning is mostly clear. | Some comparison; reasoning is vague. | Limited comparison; unclear reasoning. | No comparison provided. |
| Entering the Conversation | Effectively integrates multiple perspectives; well-cited sources. | Good integration of perspectives; mostly well-cited sources. | Some integration of perspectives; limited citations. | Limited perspectives; few citations. | No integration of perspectives or citations. |
| Conclusion & Recommendation | Persuasive conclusion; clear recommendation for action. | Good conclusion; recommendation is mostly clear. | Conclusion is present but lacks persuasion; vague recommendation. | Weak conclusion; unclear or missing recommendation. | No conclusion or recommendation. |
| MLA Format & Length | Correct MLA format; meets length requirement. | Mostly correct MLA format; slightly off length requirement. | Some MLA format errors; does not fully meet length requirement. | Many MLA format errors; significantly off length requirement. | No MLA format; does not meet length requirement. |
| Language & Style | Professional and descriptive language; clear personal voice. | Good language; mostly clear personal voice. | Some descriptive language; limited personal voice. | Limited descriptive language; unclear personal voice. | No descriptive language; no personal voice. |
| Works Cited | Complete and correctly formatted Works Cited page. | Mostly complete and correctly formatted Works Cited page. | Some errors in Works Cited page. | Many errors in Works Cited page. | No Works Cited page. |
“`