This week you wrote a persuasive submission to a parliamentary committee on whether anonymous social media accounts should be banned. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how markers evaluate submissions sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
A persuasive submission to a parliamentary committee is formal, clear and specific. It doesn't shout — it reasons. It respects the reader's intelligence and time.
Ideas & Content
Your audience is a busy, intelligent committee that hears all sides.
They respect evidence and reasoning more than emotional appeals.
They expect you to acknowledge real complexity, not pretend the other side has no points.
Your purpose is to help them think through the decision, not to trick them.
-
Committee awareness: recognises readers who expect balance, evidence and practicality.
Structure & Cohesion
Introduce your position, develop reasoning point by point, address opposing views, conclude.
Each section flows logically into the next.
Don't scatter your argument; build it steadily so readers can anticipate what comes next.
Clear architecture makes the case harder to dismiss.
-
Persuasive order: develops position, reasons, counterviews and conclusion deliberately.
Audience & Purpose
Confident but not aggressive; avoid absolute claims when qualified ones are more honest.
Use active voice and concrete language; choose verbs that convey meaning precisely.
Clichés like 'common sense' or 'the fact of the matter' make writing sound weak, not strong.
Let your reasoning do the persuading, not your tone.
-
Confident restraint: argues firmly without absolute or aggressive claims.
Language Choices
Your argument rests on reasoning — consequences, principles or evidence.
The strongest submissions combine these thoughtfully.
Each point should be genuine and defensible, not just convenient.
Acknowledging a real strength in the opposing view makes you credible; pretending it has no merit destroys credibility.
-
Reasoned case: rests on consequences, principles or evidence rather than slogans.
Conventions
Sentences are clear and direct; punctuation serves clarity.
Spelling and grammar are accurate — errors distract from your argument.
You're writing for a real audience in a real context, so technical accuracy matters.
Format matters too: a submission should look professional.
-
Clear mechanics: keep punctuation and sentences working for the argument.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Take a position on whether Australia should require platforms to ban anonymous accounts, support it with reasoning, and address at least one significant opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Language Choices and Ideas & Content. Audience awareness decides whether the committee takes you seriously. Language decides whether your case sounds reasoned or shouted. Ideas decide whether your reasoning is substantial or vague.
Audience & Purpose
Strong submissions demonstrate genuine understanding of the reader — a parliamentary committee examining policy. They present reasoning that would matter to a decision-maker, not just emotional appeals. They acknowledge real stakes without hedging legitimate claims. They show respect by being clear, specific and honest.
What markers scan for
- Clear statement of position early; audience understands what you're arguing for.
- Reasoning pitched at a busy, intelligent reader — specific, substantive, not condescending.
- Acknowledgment of real complexity and opposing concerns, not dismissal of them.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Position is stated but unclear; tone doesn't match audience; opposing view is dismissed or ignored.
-
Strong
Clear position; reasoning is substantive; opposing view is acknowledged, though engagement could be deeper.
-
Excellent
Crystal-clear position; reasoning is specific and pitched perfectly; thoughtful engagement with genuine complexity.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is precise and confident without being aggressive. Clichés and exaggeration undermine your case — they suggest you lack genuine reasoning. Strong submissions use specific language, appropriate qualifiers, and verbs that convey exact meaning. Tone is measured and respectful, even when disagreeing.
What markers scan for
- Confident, precise language; no reliance on clichés or exaggeration.
- Appropriate qualifiers ('may', 'could', 'suggests') that show nuanced thinking without undermining main claims.
- Active voice and specific language that conveys meaning clearly.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is vague, relies on clichés, or exaggerates claims; tone may be aggressive or uncertain.
-
Strong
Language is generally precise; mostly free of clichés; appropriate qualifiers present.
-
Excellent
Precise, confident language; no clichés; qualifiers show careful thinking; tone is respectful and measured.
Ideas & Content
Your argument is only as strong as your reasoning. The strongest submissions develop genuine reasoning specific to the issue — not generic arguments that could apply to anything. They acknowledge real strengths in the opposing view because that makes them more credible, not less.
What markers scan for
- Clear, specific reasoning for the position taken; not vague or generic.
- Engagement with at least one substantial argument on the other side.
- Genuine thinking about consequences, principles or empirical claims relevant to the policy question.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Reasoning is vague or generic; opposition is mentioned but not genuinely engaged; ideas lack substance.
-
Strong
Reasoning is specific and relevant; opposition is acknowledged and addressed, though engagement could be deeper.
-
Excellent
Specific, substantive reasoning pitched to the policy question; thoughtful engagement with opposing concerns; shows sophisticated understanding of stakes.
Now read · Student sample
Should Anonymous Social Media Accounts Be Banned?
Year 9 sample · \~350 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Coburg, Victoria, Australia.
I submit that Australia should not require social media platforms to ban anonymous accounts. While harassment and misinformation are genuine harms, anonymity itself is not their cause. Banning it would sacrifice important protections for vulnerable people and create a privacy database that poses significant risks. Anonymity enables several categories of people to speak where they could not otherwise. Journalists' sources rely on it to expose corruption without facing retaliation. Abuse survivors use anonymous accounts to share experiences and seek support without their abusers finding them. LGBTQ+ young people in unsupportive communities use anonymity to explore identity safely. These are not edge cases—they represent millions of people worldwide. Removing this option causes real harm. Harassment happens equally under verified identities. YouTube and Reddit have verified users who harass; Twitter has unverified users who don't. The problem is not anonymity itself, but absence of consequences for harmful behaviour. Platforms currently fail to enforce their own policies against harassment regardless of whether accounts are anonymous. Banning anonymity doesn't solve this—it just removes one tool from people who need it most, while leaving harassment intact. The proposal requires a national identity database. This creates a new vulnerability. Any database can be breached, leaked, or weaponised. A government database linking every social media account to a real identity would be an unprecedented surveillance tool. The risk is not hypothetical—healthcare providers, banks, and governments have all experienced major breaches. For vulnerable people—activists, minorities, abuse survivors—such a database is a safety threat, not a protection. Opponents rightly note that anonymity enables misinformation. But verification does not prevent it. Verified accounts spread false health claims, conspiracy theories, and election misinformation constantly. The solution is not verification but platform accountability—faster removal of demonstrably false claims, funding for media literacy, and consequences for accounts that repeatedly spread falsehoods, whether verified or not. The real question is whether we trust platforms to use enforcement power. They don't currently. A verified-identity system simply gives them more data to collect without requiring them to actually address harm. The committee should instead require platforms to enforce existing policies more aggressively, remove false claims faster, and be transparent about how they do so. These requirements would address the actual problem.
