Category	Low range (1 point)	Mid range (3 points)	High Range (5 points)
Universal Scholarly Standards
Clarity: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give an illustration? Could you give an example?	Student makes points, but these are confusing. There is no effort to elaborate, to express the same point in other ways, or to give an illustration or an example of the point.	Student makes points that are not confusing because s/he elaborates, express the same point in other ways, gives an illustration or an example of the point, but not consistently or effectively.	Student makes points that are not confusing because s/he elaborates, express the same point in other ways, gives an illustration or an example of the point, consistently and effectively
Accuracy: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?	Student uses facts through assertion without any effort at verification, or evaluation of authority or source.	Student uses facts with verification, or evaluation of authority or source, but not consistently or effectively.	Student uses facts with verification, or evaluation of authority or source, consistently and effectively.
Precision: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?	Student makes statements that are clear and accurate, but not in sufficient detail or specificity for us to understand scale of the statements.	Student makes statements that are clear and accurate, and supplies sufficient detail or specificity for us to understand scale of the statements, but does not do so consistently or effectively.	Student makes statements that are clear and accurate, and supplies sufficient detail or specificity for us to understand scale of the statements, and does so consistently and effectively.
Relevance: How is evidence connected to the question? How does it bear on the issue?	Student uses evidence, but does not link it to the specific issue, controlling idea or research question.	Student links evidence to the specific issue, controlling idea or research question, but does not do so consistently or effectively.	Student links evidence to the specific issue, controlling idea or research question, consistently or effectively.
Depth: How does the student’s solution address the complexities in the question? How does s/he take the ambiguities of the question into account? Does the student deal with the most significant factors?	The student’s solution does not match the complexity of the problem or does not engage the most significant factors. (Level 0 reasoning skills)	The student’s solution matches the complexity of the problem or engages the most significant factors, but fails to prioritize these factors. The conclusion is weak. (Level 2 reasoning skills)	The student’s solution matches the complexity of the problem. The writer prioritizes the most significant factors. The conclusion is strong. (Level 3 reasoning skills)
Breadth: Are other points of view considered? Is there another way to look at this question? Does the student refute the counterpositive position?	The student fails to consider alternative points of view. Student confuses argument with opinion-mongering. Conclusion is static. (Level 1 reasoning skills)	The student considers other points of view, but cannot differentiate or evaluate their relevance. The conclusion is essentially absent. (Level 2 reasoning skills)	The student evaluates different points of view, refutes the counterpositive and provides a dynamic conclusion. (Level 3 reasoning skills)
Logic: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true?	The student’s argument is based on fallacious or contradictory thinking. (Level 1 reasoning skills)	The student’s argument is free of most obvious forms of contradiction and fallacy, but the induction is based on very thin evidence.	The student’s argument is logically robust and based on strong evidence.
Genre-Specific Topics
Topic Selection and Development: Is the topic appropriate to the level of the course? Does the student explore ground not covered elsewhere in the course? What does the student “discover?”	The student chooses a less sophisticated topic and discovers the obvious.	The student chooses a topic consistent with the level of course but cannot exceed beyond exploring familiar ground.	The student chooses a topic that is at least as sophisticated as the class, if not more so. The student “discovers” features through the analysis of evidence that appears original and compelling.
Organization of the Argument/Arrangement of Parts: Is there a definite structure to the paper (using meta-language, sectioning and/or transitions)? If something akin to the IMRAD format is assigned or implied, is there a clear separation between results, analysis and discussion? Is the conclusion prefigured in the introduction?	The argument is disorganized. There is no discernable effort to structure it for the reader. IMRAD categories are confused. The intro and conclusion do not match.	The student makes an effort to structure the argument for the reader in larger categories (including the appropriate use of IMRAD categories when required), but there are inconsistencies, weak transitions and/or dead-ends in the draft.	The structure is clear concise and consistent. The structure of the argument contributes to the writer’s authority in reaching their conclusion.
Style: Is the student writing in standard English? Does the student vary sentence length and sentence structure to maintain interest?	The writer is not using standard English. The writer does maintain interest.	The writer maintains an interesting style, but not consistently	The writer consistently maintains an engaging style.
Diction/ Word Choice: Has the student consistently maintained a formal voice throughout the paper? Is the level of vocabulary appropriate to the class? Are jargon terms defined and used appropriately?	The writer makes faulty word choices	The writer make appropriate word choices, but not consistently	The writer makes appropriate word choices consistently in ways that advance the authority of their argument.
Sentence Sense: Does the writer use active, instead of passive, verb constructions? Does the student use conditional and subjunctive moods appropriately?	The writer hides behind passive constructions and/or misuses mood syntax.	The writer uses mostly active constructions and correct syntactic mood.	The writer used active dynamic sentences that advance the authority of the argument.
Figures or Speech: Does the writer employ metaphors as part of the efforts to be clear and precise? Does the writer use a central metaphor to organize the paper?	The writing is devoid of figures of speech.	Figures of speech are used occasionally as part of the authors effort to clarify points.	Figures of speech are used as the controlling “central” metaphor of the argument. .
Citation Conventions: Does the writer use the citation conventions appropriate to the task, source material and disciplinary custom?	The writer uses mixed, inappropriate, or inadequate citation conventions.	The writer uses appropriate citation conventions, but with the occasional error.	The writer uses correct citation conventions consistently.