This week you wrote a formal submission to a parliamentary inquiry on whether social media platforms should warn users about algorithmically recommended content. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate persuasive writing builds your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Formal submission
Strong parliamentary submissions identify a clear position early, develop it through logical reasoning grounded in evidence or observation, acknowledge the strongest counterargument fairly, and maintain a professional voice throughout.
Ideas & Content
A reasoned position, not just stated — developed through multiple supporting points.
Acknowledgment that the issue is complex, with stakes named for whom and why.
The strongest counterargument addressed by showing why your position outweighs it.
-
Reasoned argument: each point builds; consequences are traced.
Structure & Cohesion
A position that appears early and clearly.
Supporting points unfolding in a logical sequence, with counterarguments as a distinct section.
A conclusion that restates why the position matters, supported by transitions that link ideas.
-
Clear logical structure: position unmissable; sequence is easy to follow.
Audience & Purpose
Tone, evidence and stakes pitched for Parliament — policy-makers, not general readers.
Language that addresses parliamentary concerns: young users' wellbeing, regulation, platform economics.
The argument framed as a contribution to policy thinking, not personal opinion.
-
Parliamentary register: formal, evidence-based, focused on policy stakes.
Language Choices
Verbs that show consequence or causation.
Conditional language ('could', 'may', 'would') used where appropriate.
No hyperbole, emotional intensifiers or absolute claims that weaken under scrutiny.
-
Formal precision: language signals seriousness; claims are measured.
Conventions
Sentences constructed clearly without errors.
Logical paragraphing and punctuation that serves clarity.
Accurate spelling and grammar throughout.
-
Technical accuracy: error-free prose supports policy credibility.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a formal parliamentary submission for or against warnings on algorithmically recommended content, with a clear position, supporting reasoning and at least one counterargument addressed.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Audience & Purpose. Reasoned argument decides whether the case stands up. Clear logical structure decides whether Parliament can follow it. Parliamentary register decides whether the submission earns serious consideration.
Ideas & Content
Strong submissions develop two or three supporting reasons that are genuinely distinct and logically connected. Each reason includes an explanation of why it matters. The position itself is clear, specific and stated early. The counterargument is treated fairly — not caricatured.
What markers scan for
- An unmissable position stated early.
- Multiple supporting points, each explained rather than just asserted.
- A strong version of the counterargument addressed with reasoning.
Score Bands
-
Basic
The position is unclear or buried; supporting points are thin and the counterargument is dismissed.
-
Strong
The position is clear and specific; two or three points are explained and the counterargument is rebutted.
-
Excellent
The position is stated with precision; each point traces consequences and the counterargument is taken seriously.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong submissions announce their position in the opening paragraph so the reader knows immediately where you stand. Supporting points follow in a logical sequence. The counterargument appears as a planned section, and the conclusion restates the position and its stakes.
What markers scan for
- A clear position in the opening.
- Topic sentences linking each paragraph to the main argument.
- A counterargument as a distinct section, then a conclusion that restates the stakes.
Score Bands
-
Basic
The position is unclear or late; points are jumbled and the counterargument feels disconnected.
-
Strong
The position is clear from the start; points are ordered logically and the counterargument is addressed.
-
Excellent
The position is unmissable; each point connects through topic sentences and the closing elevates the stakes.
Audience & Purpose
Strong submissions adopt the register of formal persuasion for policy-makers. The tone is serious and measured, not casual or emotional. You acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the legitimate interests on both sides. Language shows awareness of parliamentary concerns.
What markers scan for
- A voice directed at policy-makers, not venting.
- Acknowledgment of multiple valid viewpoints and the complexity of the issue.
- Formal language that shows awareness of parliamentary concerns.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Tone is casual or emotional; arguments read like personal complaints.
-
Strong
Formal tone throughout; the writer acknowledges complexity and uses serious, direct language.
-
Excellent
Sophisticated formal register; the position is framed as a policy contribution, not personal opinion.
Now read · Student sample
Should Social Media Platforms Warn Users About Recommended Content?
Year 8 sample · \~350 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Social media platforms should be legally required to display clear warnings when content is being shown to users as a result of algorithmic recommendation, rather than user choice. This is not a suggestion for minor labelling; it is a proposal that warnings be as clear and prominent as any other content warning. Young Australians spend significant time on algorithmically driven platforms, often without full awareness of how those algorithms work or how they are being targeted. Without warnings, users cannot make informed choices about what they see and believe. This lack of transparency creates a responsibility for Parliament to step in. The primary concern is that algorithms are designed to keep users engaged, not to show them what is true or what is best for them. A warning would give users a moment to pause—to ask themselves whether this content appeared because it matches their interests or because an algorithm has decided it will keep them scrolling. This pause is crucial. Young people in particular are developing their beliefs about the world while their critical thinking skills are still developing. When algorithms optimise for engagement rather than accuracy, they may be shaping beliefs without users realising they are being shaped. A warning could interrupt that process. Some argue that warnings would clutter the interface and make platforms less enjoyable to use. They also suggest that users who understand how algorithms work don't need warnings; those who don't understand can't be helped by a warning anyway. However, this argument overlooks the purpose of regulation. Regulation doesn't protect only those who would protect themselves; it protects those who need protection, particularly young people. Seatbelt laws didn't make cars less safe just because some drivers would wear seatbelts anyway. Similarly, warnings may not change every user's behaviour, but they will change some users' behaviour, and that matters. Furthermore, 'cluttered interface' is not a genuine cost when set against young people's wellbeing. Parliament's role is to protect citizens when markets alone do not. Social media companies have no financial incentive to warn users about algorithmic targeting because warnings might reduce engagement. Only regulation can create that incentive. The evidence from the parliamentary inquiry shows that young Australians are deeply affected by algorithmic recommendation. A warning is a modest intervention, but a necessary one.
