Argumentative Essay: Levels Of Achievement Criteria Score Of

Argumentative Essaylevels Of Achievementcriteriascore Of 1score Of 2sc

Argumentative Essay levels of Achievement Criteria Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 Score of 5 Introduction & Conclusion Weight 10.00% Missing introduction and conclusion Has vague or missing introduction or conclusion Contains both an introduction and conclusion Provides an informative introduction and conclusion Introduction provides a thesis statement and lays out structure of paper. Strong conclusion sums up the argument. Burden of Proof Weight 30.00% Omits concrete examples. Uses irrelevant or inaccurate information Includes accurate facts, examples, and details. Includes accurate and relevant facts, examples, and details, but may not support all claims sufficiently. Richly supports argument with accurate and relevant facts, examples, and details. Organization Weight 30.00% Attempts to complete the task, but demonstrates a major weakness in organization. Essay lacks focus: some structure, but inconsistent application. Satisfactorily developed essay: demonstrates a general plan of organization. A well-developed essay, demonstrating a clear plan of organization. A well-developed essay, consistently demonstrating a logical and clear plan of organization. (Conclusion and Premises are clear and identifiable Accuracy Weight 30.00% Lacks an analysis or evaluation of the issues beyond stating vague or inaccurate facts. Develops a faulty analysis or evaluation. (View expressed does not correspond to Philosopher chosen.) Demonstrates the ability to analyze and evaluate issues, from the philosophic view chosen, but not in depth. Demonstrates an ability to analyze, evaluate, and offer a resolution which is fundamentally consistent with the views of the philosopher chosen. Demonstrates an ability to expertly analyze, evaluate, and resolve a moral issue with a sound or cogent argument that is consistent with either Aristotle, Mill, or Kant.

Paper For Above instruction

In this essay, I will examine the strengths and weaknesses of various levels of achievement criteria used for evaluating argumentative essays. Critical assessment of these criteria can help educators better understand how to develop comprehensive rubrics that effectively measure student performance across different dimensions, including introduction and conclusion, burden of proof, organization, and accuracy of content.

Introduction and Conclusion

The introduction and conclusion are fundamental elements of an effective argumentative essay, serving to orient the reader and encapsulate the main argument. The criteria for these sections range from being completely missing or vague (score 1-2) to being informative, structured, and summing up the argument convincingly (score 4-5). A well-crafted introduction should include a thesis statement that clearly articulates the position taken and outline the structure of the essay. Conversely, a conclusion should synthesize the key points and reinforce the thesis, leaving the reader with a strong understanding of the argument’s significance. The highest scoring levels emphasize the importance of clarity and coherence in these sections, which are often neglected at lower achievement levels.

Burden of Proof

Evaluating the burden of proof involves assessing the extent to which the essay employs concrete examples and relevant facts to support claims. Lower scores reflect a lack of concrete evidence, reliance on irrelevant details, or inaccuracies, which weaken the overall persuasiveness of the argument. Higher achievement levels demonstrate mastery by supporting assertions with accurate, relevant, and sufficient evidence that convincingly backs the thesis. Richly supported arguments include detailed examples, data, or references that directly bolster each claim, thereby strengthening the argumentative quality and credibility of the essay.

Organization

Effective organization facilitates clarity and logical progression of ideas. The criteria for organization assess how well the essay demonstrates a clear plan of structure, with high-scoring essays exhibiting coherence, logical flow, and well-connected premises. Essays that display organizational weaknesses tend to be disjointed or unfocused, confusing the reader and undermining the argument's effectiveness. In contrast, top-tier essays showcase a deliberate structure, with each paragraph flowing smoothly into the next and each premise clearly linked to the overarching thesis.

Accuracy and Analysis

The most important and challenging criterion involves depth of analysis and factual accuracy. Lower levels may involve vague or incorrect facts coupled with little to no analysis, leading to a faulty or superficial evaluation of the issue. Mid-level scores indicate some capacity to analyze issues from the philosopher’s perspective, but with limitations in depth or consistency. Top scores are awarded when the student demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of specific philosophical views—be it Aristotle's virtue ethics, Mill's utilitarianism, or Kant's deontological ethics. These essays critically analyze the issue, evaluate different aspects comprehensively, and offer well-reasoned resolutions aligned with the chosen philosophical framework.

Conclusion

Overall, the grading criteria for argumentative essays serve to reward clarity, depth of analysis, organization, and evidence quality. Essays that excel not only address all structural components but also engage critically with philosophical perspectives and support claims with relevant, accurate evidence. Conversely, lower scores reflect lapses in structure, insufficient evidence, or superficial analysis. Developing robust rubrics that emphasize these dimensions can enhance the quality of student writing and critical thinking, ultimately fostering more rigorous academic discourse.

References

• Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Thinker’s Guide to How to Argue. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• Messick, S. (1994). The nature of test validation: Validity as an integrated evaluative judgment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(2), 9-32.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2018). They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2018). A Writer’s Reference (8th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books.
• Wiley, K. (2013). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Routledge.