This week you wrote an analytical piece examining two contrasting positions on objectivity and reliable understanding. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how markers evaluate analytical writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Analytical – Analytical piece
An analytical piece unpacks ideas, examining their assumptions, strengths and limitations. It doesn't just describe positions — it weighs them.
Ideas & Content
Analysis identifies the assumptions embedded in each view about knowledge, truth or human nature.
It locates genuine strengths — where the reasoning is sound.
It pinpoints genuine difficulties — what problem the view struggles to explain.
The analysis feels earned, specific to the positions, not generic.
-
Assumption testing: identifies strengths and difficulties specific to each view.
Structure & Cohesion
Structure may be by position (Student A, then B, then synthesis) or by theme (assumptions, strengths, difficulties).
Whichever you choose, readers follow the reasoning step-by-step.
Transitions signal how one idea builds on or complicates another.
Without signposting, even strong analysis reads as scattered.
-
Reasoning route: gives readers a clear path through positions or themes.
Audience & Purpose
Your readers are literate peers who handle complexity; they don't need oversimplification.
They do need fairness to both positions, even if you ultimately favour one.
Your purpose is to help them think more clearly about objectivity.
Be precise about what each position actually claims, not what you wish it claimed.
-
Peer fairness: handles complexity without oversimplifying either position.
Language Choices
Avoid sweeping claims like 'obviously' or 'everyone knows.'
Use qualifiers ('might', 'suggests', 'seems to assume') where warranted.
Choose verbs that capture what positions do: 'assumes', 'overlooks', 'exposes'.
Clichés flatten analysis — a phrase you've heard a hundred times rarely sharpens your thinking.
-
Qualified language: avoids overstatement and captures uncertainty where needed.
Conventions
Sentences should be clear on first reading.
Avoid tangling multiple ideas into one sentence when a clearer structure would serve you better.
Quote sparingly, only when exact words matter.
Attribute ideas clearly so readers know whose position you're discussing.
-
Readable sentences: express complex ideas clearly on first reading.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Examine what Student A and Student B each assume about how knowledge works, where each has strength, where each becomes difficult, and whether both can be right.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. The ideas decide whether your analysis goes beyond summary. The structure decides whether readers can follow your reasoning. The language decides whether your thinking reads as precise or vague.
Ideas & Content
The strongest analytical pieces identify what each position assumes (often unstated) and show why each has genuine force. They don't just say 'Student A believes X' — they explain what it would take for X to be true, why someone might believe it, and what it leaves unexplained.
What markers scan for
- Explicit identification of assumptions underlying each position.
- Specific examples of where each position has genuine strength.
- Precise identification of where each position becomes difficult to sustain.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Summarises both positions but analysis is surface-level; doesn't clearly identify what each assumes or where difficulties lie.
-
Strong
Identifies key assumptions in each position; shows where each has strength and where it struggles, though analysis could be more detailed.
-
Excellent
Penetrating analysis of what each position assumes; clear examples of genuine strength and difficulty; demonstrates sophisticated understanding.
Structure & Cohesion
Clear structure makes complex analysis readable. The strongest pieces establish their direction early, guide readers through analysis point by point, and use transitions that show how ideas relate. Without structure, even good thinking gets lost.
What markers scan for
- Clear opening that signals what the analysis will examine.
- Logical progression; each paragraph builds on or complicates what came before.
- Transitions that show how one idea connects to another.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Structure is unclear; ideas seem to jump around; hard to follow the line of reasoning.
-
Strong
Structure is generally clear; analysis flows logically, though some transitions could be smoother.
-
Excellent
Clear, purposeful structure; analysis unfolds logically; smooth transitions show how ideas connect.
Language Choices
Precise language makes analysis sharp. Vague qualifiers, clichés and casual phrasing distance readers from your thinking. Precise verbs ('assumes', 'overlooks', 'exposes') and careful qualifiers ('might', 'suggests') show you're thinking rigorously.
What markers scan for
- Precise verbs that capture what positions do (assume, suggest, overlook, expose).
- Appropriate qualifiers that acknowledge complexity without hedging legitimate claims.
- Absence of clichés and sweeping generalisations.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is vague or casual; relies on clichés; imprecise word choice weakens analysis.
-
Strong
Language is generally precise; some clichés present but don't dominate; mostly accurate word choice.
-
Excellent
Precise, purposeful language; no clichés; verbs and qualifiers chosen to reveal careful thinking.
Now read · Student sample
How Reliable Understanding Is Achieved
Year 9 sample · \~350 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
Student A's position rests on a significant assumption: that bias is something we can reduce through effort and discipline. This assumption has real force. Scientific progress seems to require exactly this kind of disciplined approach—setting aside what feels comfortable and testing claims against evidence rather than intuition. The strength here is undeniable: many genuine discoveries happen because someone bothered to check their assumptions rather than accept them. Imperfect objectivity as a goal has produced measurable results. But the position becomes harder to sustain when we ask what 'setting aside bias' actually means. Can we really set it aside, or only notice some of it? Student A seems to assume that bias operates like dirt on a lens—something we can clean off and see clearly through. Yet bias runs deeper. The questions we decide to ask, the evidence we consider relevant, the measurements we choose to take: these are all shaped by our position before we even get to the data. Student A doesn't adequately address this. Student B's position identifies something Student A misses: that objectivity might not be a lens we can clean, but something more like the frame itself. Every observation involves a perspective—that's undeniably true. And exposing whose perspective is operating is valuable work. The strength of this view is that it refuses to hide behind false neutrality. Yet Student B's position faces its own difficulty. If every observation is perspective-laden, how do we distinguish between better and worse perspectives? If all viewpoints are equally positioned, why trust scientific consensus over speculation? Student B seems to suggest that acknowledging perspective makes all perspectives equivalent, but that doesn't follow. Two observers with different biases might still observe something real—they're just observing from different angles. The position risks making objectivity impossible rather than just difficult. Both positions might be right about different things. Student A is right that the effort to check bias matters. Student B is right that we can't escape perspective. But they seem to mean different things by objectivity. Student A means 'doing the hard work of checking our assumptions,' while Student B means 'achieving a view from nowhere,' which might genuinely be impossible. The real question isn't which position is correct, but what we actually need objectivity to do.
