This week you wrote a persuasive submission about whether reliable internet access should be recognised as a basic right. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate persuasive submissions sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
A persuasive submission aims to influence a decision-maker to support a position. It needs a clear stance, logical reasoning, acknowledgment of opposing views, and formal language.
Ideas & Content
Present a clear position and support it with specific, relevant reasoning.
Reference real examples — statistics, community stories, the role of internet in education.
Acknowledge opposing views to show intellectual honesty and strengthen your case.
-
Reasoned position: is supported by examples, evidence and fair counterargument.
Structure & Cohesion
Open with your position, then develop supporting points in a sequence that builds persuasive power.
Address counterarguments and close with conviction.
Use transitions between ideas to help readers follow your thinking.
-
Persuasive sequence: builds from stance through reasons to a convincing close.
Audience & Purpose
Your audience is a human rights organisation considering formal policy.
They expect respect for their intelligence, acknowledgment of complexity, and professional tone.
Avoid oversimplification and recognise legitimate concerns on both sides.
-
Rights audience: expects professionalism, complexity and respect for both sides.
Language Choices
Use precise vocabulary, varied sentence structures, and rhetorical devices such as anaphora or strategic questions.
Avoid inflammatory language; choose words that convey conviction without dismissing opposing views.
Formal tone, strong verbs, and specific modifiers strengthen your case.
-
Convincing language: uses strong devices without becoming inflammatory.
Conventions
Submissions follow formal conventions: a professional greeting, clear paragraphing, correct mechanics, and a polite closing.
These signal respect for the organisation and make your submission easier to read.
Errors in spelling, grammar or formatting undermine credibility.
-
Submission conventions: make the formal policy argument readable and credible.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a persuasive submission to a human rights organisation taking a clear position on internet access as a basic right, supporting it with reasoning and addressing one opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Structure & Cohesion, Audience & Purpose and Language Choices. Structure decides whether the argument builds persuasive momentum. Audience decides whether the formality matches a deliberative body. Language decides whether each word builds credibility or weakens it.
Structure & Cohesion
A well-structured submission takes readers on a journey through your thinking. They reach your position clearly, understand why each point matters, and feel the cumulative force of your argument. Transitions often transform a collection of good points into a compelling case.
What markers scan for
- Clear opening that establishes the writer's position early.
- Logical sequencing of points that builds persuasive momentum.
- Transitions that connect ideas and show relationships between paragraphs.
- Counterargument acknowledged and addressed within the structure.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Argument is present but sequencing feels random; few transitions; counterargument may be missing or underdeveloped.
-
Strong
Position is clear and supported logically; transitions connect most ideas; counterargument is addressed in a dedicated section.
-
Excellent
Argument builds with deliberate momentum; transitions show causal or logical relationships; counterargument is woven throughout, not isolated.
Audience & Purpose
Your audience is a real organisation making real policy decisions. They respect evidence over emotion and expect you to understand that some people hold different views in good faith. Writing for them means showing you've thought deeply, with formality that signals you understand the weight of the issue.
What markers scan for
- Formal, respectful tone appropriate to the organisation and issue.
- Acknowledgment that the issue has legitimate complexity.
- Evidence and reasoning that would persuade thoughtful readers, not just emotional appeals.
- Language that respects the audience's intelligence and deliberative process.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Tone is sometimes casual or dismissive of other views; emotional appeals dominate over evidence; formality is inconsistent.
-
Strong
Tone is professional throughout; opposing views are acknowledged as legitimate; evidence and reasoning are balanced with conviction.
-
Excellent
Tone conveys respect and intellectual seriousness; complexity is embraced; the writer anticipates questions and addresses them respectfully.
Language Choices
In persuasive writing, every word choice matters. Precise verbs, specific nouns, and varied sentence structures make your argument memorable and credible. Strong persuasive writers avoid vague language and clichés, choosing words that are bold without being inflammatory.
What markers scan for
- Precise, specific vocabulary rather than vague or general terms.
- Varied sentence lengths and structures for emphasis and rhythm.
- Strong verbs that convey action and conviction.
- Formal register maintained throughout; no slang or casual phrasing.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Vocabulary is vague or repetitive; sentences are similar in length and structure; some informal language appears.
-
Strong
Vocabulary is mostly precise; sentence variety is evident and effective; formal register is maintained consistently.
-
Excellent
Vocabulary is precise and well-chosen for persuasive effect; sentence structures vary strategically; formal register strengthens credibility.
Now read · Student sample
Should Reliable Internet Access Be a Basic Right?
Year 9 sample · \~250 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
To the members of the Human Rights Consultation Board,
Reliable internet access should be formally recognised as a basic right for all Australians. This is not a matter of privilege or convenience—it is essential infrastructure for participation in education, employment, healthcare and civic life in the 21st century. The digital divide deepens existing inequalities, and the government has a responsibility to ensure universal access, particularly in remote and regional areas where private investment has failed. Consider education. Students without reliable internet cannot access online learning resources, submit assignments digitally, or prepare for a future where digital literacy is non-negotiable. In remote Australia, this means some students are literally locked out of opportunities available to their urban peers. The same logic applies to employment. Job searching, skill development, and remote work are increasingly digital. Without access, remote Australians cannot compete fairly for opportunities. Healthcare is the third pillar. Telehealth services have become critical, especially in areas where specialists are hundreds of kilometres away. Internet access is no longer optional for health—it is health infrastructure. I understand that critics argue classifying internet access as a right would create unsustainable government obligations. This concern deserves respect, but it mistakes the question. Rights don't guarantee unlimited government spending; they establish a baseline obligation. We regulate electricity and water as utilities with universal service obligations. Internet is no different. The infrastructure cost exists regardless; recognising it as a right simply acknowledges the reality that we already consider it essential. Formal recognition would drive investment, protect vulnerable communities, and affirm that in Australia, access to opportunity should not depend on whether you live in a city or a town. This is not radical. It is overdue. Yours respectfully, [Student name]
