“`html
| Criteria | Excellent (4 points) | Good (3 points) | Fair (2 points) | Poor (1 point) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis Statement | Clear, strong thesis that takes a specific stand on who is most to blame for the Donner Party Tragedy. | Clear thesis that takes a stand, but may lack specificity or strength. | Thesis is present but unclear or vague in its stance. | No clear thesis statement or stance is taken. |
| Argument Development | Arguments are well-developed, logical, and supported with strong evidence and examples. | Arguments are logical and supported with evidence, but may lack depth or detail. | Arguments are present but lack strong evidence or logical development. | Arguments are poorly developed and lack evidence or logic. |
| Use of Historical Evidence | Effectively integrates accurate historical evidence that enhances the argument. | Uses historical evidence, but it may be limited or not fully integrated. | Some historical evidence is used, but it is inaccurate or irrelevant. | Little to no historical evidence is used, or evidence is incorrect. |
| Organization | Essay is well-organized with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. | Essay is organized, but transitions between sections may be weak. | Essay has some organization, but lacks clear transitions or structure. | Essay lacks organization and structure. |
| Conventions | Few to no grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors; writing is clear and polished. | Some grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors, but they do not impede understanding. | Frequent errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation that may impede understanding. | Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation that significantly impede understanding. |
| Persuasiveness | Essay is highly persuasive and effectively convinces the reader of the argument. | Essay is persuasive and mostly convinces the reader of the argument. | Essay attempts to persuade but is not fully convincing. | Essay is not persuasive and fails to convince the reader. |
“`