This week you wrote a persuasive submission on AI writing tools for a staff working group. Now you'll read another student's submission 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 persuasive writing for decision-makers combines a clear position with reasoning that shows genuine thinking. Credibility comes from careful thought — not from rhetorical force.
Ideas & Content
A position grounded in reasoning, not assertion.
Reasoning that explains foreseen benefits or harms, values or priorities.
Acknowledgment of what is genuinely difficult about the question.
Serious engagement with at least one opposing argument, not dismissal.
-
Reasoned position: supports the stance with genuine reasoning and acknowledgment of complexity.
Structure & Cohesion
Position introduced clearly, then reasoning developed step by step.
Serious engagement with an opposing view as part of the build.
Reinforcement of why the position holds despite legitimate concerns.
Clear transitions that show how each claim links to the next.
-
Logical development: builds a case step-by-step rather than presenting disconnected ideas.
Audience & Purpose
Respect for the reader's role in evaluating the quality of thinking.
A tone that takes the genuine difficulty of the decision seriously.
Legitimate concerns on both sides acknowledged, not waved away.
Position framed as the most sensible response — not the only view.
-
Respectful complexity: acknowledges genuine difficulty and respects the reader's need to think carefully.
Language Choices
Precise, measured language rather than inflammatory or exaggerated.
Qualifying words ('may,' 'could,' 'in some cases') used to signal careful thinking.
Specific examples supporting general claims, not vague assertions.
A tone that reads as thoughtful, not opinionated.
-
Measured precision: builds credibility through careful qualification and specific evidence.
Conventions
Consistent tense and clear pronoun references throughout.
Accurate punctuation that keeps the reader focused on the argument.
Formal register appropriate to a working-group submission.
Consistent structure that signals respect for the formal context.
-
Formal appropriateness: uses conventions that reflect the formal context and respectful audience.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a submission to a staff working group on whether students should use AI writing tools, taking a clear position and addressing an opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Audience & Purpose. Look at whether the position is supported by genuine reasoning. Look at how the case builds. Look at whether tone respects the reader's role.
Ideas & Content
Strong persuasive writing shows careful thinking, not simple assertion. The writer states their position, explains the reasoning, acknowledges what is genuinely difficult, and engages seriously with at least one opposing view. The strongest submissions show that the writer has thought from multiple angles and still finds their position defensible.
What markers scan for
- Where does the writer explain WHY their position makes sense, not just THAT it does?
- Is an opposing argument acknowledged fairly before being addressed?
- Is the complexity of the question taken seriously?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Takes a position with limited reasoning; opposing views may be dismissed without genuine consideration.
-
Strong
Clear position supported with genuine reasoning; engages with opposition, though one element could be developed further.
-
Excellent
Strong reasoning throughout; seriously engages opposing views and explains why position holds despite legitimate objections.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong structure builds toward conviction. Position introduced clearly, key reasons developed, opposing view seriously engaged, then reinforcement of why the position still holds. Clear transitions help readers follow how ideas build. Weak structure presents arguments randomly or fails to show connections.
What markers scan for
- Do ideas build step-by-step toward the conclusion?
- Can you follow the progression from position to reasoning to counterargument?
- Do transitions show how each part connects to the next?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Structure exists but progression is hard to follow; ideas don't always build logically.
-
Strong
Clear structure with logical progression; most ideas build step-by-step toward the conclusion.
-
Excellent
Strong logical structure throughout; ideas build clearly and the reader follows easily.
Audience & Purpose
Strong persuasive writing for decision-makers respects the reader's role and the difficulty of the question. Rather than dismissing opposing views, the writer shows they have understood them and explains why their position still holds. The tone is measured and respectful — helping the reader think, not just trying to win.
What markers scan for
- Does the tone respect the reader's role in deciding?
- Are opposing arguments treated fairly, not dismissed?
- Does the writer acknowledge genuine difficulty in the question?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Addresses the audience but may dismiss opposing views or skip past the question's difficulty.
-
Strong
Shows respect for audience and complexity; engages seriously with opposing arguments in a measured tone.
-
Excellent
Clearly understands the decision-maker audience; treats opposition fairly and respects the reader's intelligence throughout.
Now read · Student sample
Should Students Use AI Writing Tools for Assignments?
Year 8 sample · \~450 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Footscray, Victoria, Australia.
I believe students should be permitted to use AI writing tools for assignments, but only under clear conditions that protect the learning purpose of those assignments. The case for allowing AI tools is straightforward. These tools already exist. Students will use them regardless of whether the school permits it, and using them in secret means students don't develop safe, ethical practices around their use. If students are to live in a world where AI is ubiquitous, schools should help them learn to use these tools responsibly rather than banning them and creating an environment where they're used dishonestly. Additionally, AI tools can support students who struggle with writing—those with language processing difficulties, for example, or students whose first language is not English. These students may be able to focus on developing their ideas if they have AI support for the mechanical process of writing. But I understand the serious concern here. The fear is that AI tools will replace thinking—that students will use them as shortcuts and never develop their own writing skills. This is a legitimate concern. If a student lets AI generate their entire essay without thinking, they are avoiding the cognitive work that builds writing ability. That's a real risk. However, this concern doesn't require banning the tools. It requires clear conditions. Schools could permit AI as a revising tool—for checking structure, for suggesting improvements to unclear sentences—but not as a generative tool that produces the initial draft. Students could be required to write their own first draft, then use AI to refine it. This approach gives students the cognitive work of developing their own ideas and initial expression, while also letting them learn how to work with AI as a tool. It's not the only possible rule, but it's one that addresses the legitimate concern about thinking and skill development while still acknowledging that these tools exist and students should learn to use them. The reality is that teachers already use tools that previous generations of students didn't. Spellcheckers were once controversial. Search engines changed research entirely. These tools changed how writing works, but they didn't destroy writing—they changed what good writing requires. AI will be the same. The question is not whether to prevent students from ever encountering AI tools. The question is whether schools will help students learn to use them thoughtfully, or whether students will learn to use them in secret and develop poor habits. I recommend that the working group consider a trial period with clear conditions rather than a blanket ban. Let students use AI as a revising tool under specific rules. Monitor whether this affects learning and writing quality. Adjust the policy based on evidence. This approach respects the legitimate concern about skill development while acknowledging the reality that these tools are part of students' future.
