Ideas & Content
A position that is specific — exactly what should happen, not just 'this is bad'.
Concrete reasons or realistic scenarios that prove the point.
Genuine engagement with the other side, then a clear reason your view still wins.
-
Reasoning: specific and logical, with real examples or scenarios that prove the point.
Audience & Purpose
Serious, measured tone — never casual or overly emotional.
Professional, consistent register suited to a government reader.
Arguments framed in terms the official actually cares about.
-
Register: consistently formal, professional, appropriate to government consultation.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Audience & Purpose. Reasoning decides whether the argument convinces. Structure decides whether the reader can follow it. Audience decides whether officials take it seriously.
Ideas & Content
Strong writing this week presents a clear position with specific, convincing reasoning. The writer uses realistic examples to back up the point. They acknowledge the other side, then explain why their position still holds.
What markers scan for
- Specific reasons supported by detail, not the same general idea repeated.
- Genuine engagement with what others might say.
- Evidence the writer has thought the argument through.
Score Bands
-
Basic
A position with some reasons, but the reasoning is general or repeated; counterargument is mentioned but not really engaged.
-
Strong
Specific, realistic reasons backed by detail; a counterargument is acknowledged and the writer explains why their position still wins.
-
Excellent
Specific and detailed throughout; genuine engagement with the other side before showing why the writer's position is stronger.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong writing this week reads like one continuous argument. The opening sets the position, the middle develops it, the closing brings it together. Transitions show how ideas connect, so the reader is never lost.
What markers scan for
- Each paragraph starts where the last one ended — not as a separate point.
- Connecting words and phrases that show the relationship between ideas.
- A real build toward the conclusion, not a piece that just stops.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Paragraphs sit on the same topic but their connection is loose; the submission jumps between ideas or repeats itself.
-
Strong
Paragraphs are clearly connected and build on each other; the submission has a sense of progression from opening to close.
-
Excellent
Every paragraph flows naturally from the one before; the reader understands not just each point but why it comes when it does.
Audience & Purpose
Strong writing this week keeps a formal, respectful tone throughout. The writer sounds professional and measured. Arguments are framed in terms of policy or public benefit — never text-speak, slang or overly personal examples.
What markers scan for
- Consistently formal tone — never slipping into casual or overly emotional moments.
- Language that addresses officials, not friends.
- Reasons framed in terms of public or policy impact.
Score Bands
-
Basic
The tone is sometimes formal but inconsistent, with casual moments or examples that feel personal rather than public.
-
Strong
The tone is consistently formal and professional; the writer clearly understands they are addressing government decision-makers.
-
Excellent
The tone is formal and assured; arguments are framed in terms of policy impact, showing deep understanding of the audience.
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Manufacturers should be required to design products for repair because repairing products is better for the environment and saves money for families. Right now, when something breaks, people just throw it away and buy a new one, which means more waste in landfill and more stuff being made. If companies had to make products that could be fixed, fewer things would end up as rubbish. This would be good for everyone. Companies argue that making repairable products costs more money and slows down their business. However, this argument does not account for the fact that people would be willing to pay extra for a product that lasts longer. In fact, many people already choose to repair things rather than replace them when they have the choice. If repair services were easier to access and products were designed for it, more people would do this. The money saved by families would add up over time and would benefit the economy. Another reason why repair should be required is that it creates jobs in repair services and reduces the cost of living for ordinary people. When people can fix their phones or computers instead of buying new ones, they spend less money overall. Poor families especially benefit from this because their money goes further. A government that cares about people should support this. In conclusion, the government should require manufacturers to design products that can be repaired. This is the right choice because it helps the environment, saves families money and supports local communities through repair jobs. It is time to stop allowing companies to make products that fall apart deliberately just so people have to buy new ones. Right to repair is a policy that supports both people and the planet.
