This week you wrote an opinion piece on lowering the voting age to 16. Now you'll read another student's piece 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 – Opinion piece
Strong persuasive writing on a public issue combines a clear stance with reasoning that goes past opinion. The writer must show why their position makes sense and why reasonable people should consider it.
Ideas & Content
Ideas that move past opinion into reasoned argument.
Logic and evidence connecting a position to consequences or principles.
Legitimate concerns on the other side acknowledged and addressed.
No dismissal — opposing views answered, not waved away.
-
Reasoned argument: supports the position with logic and evidence.
Structure & Cohesion
Issue introduced, position stated clearly, supporting reasons developed.
Alternatives addressed before the main argument is reinforced.
Each paragraph serving a clear function in the build.
Connectives that help readers follow the logic of the argument.
-
Logical progression: builds each part toward a clear conclusion.
Audience & Purpose
Audience concerns anticipated and addressed directly.
Opposition presented fairly before the writer's position is defended.
Reader's intelligence respected throughout.
No dismissive treatment of disagreement.
-
Audience awareness: understands and addresses reader concerns directly.
Language Choices
Precise language making claims clear, not vague.
Parallel structures reinforcing comparisons and logical relationships.
Specific examples doing more work than generalisations.
Measured tone — confident without arrogance, no exaggeration.
-
Precise persuasion: supports the argument with clear, specific language.
Conventions
Consistent, accurate conventions that signal a careful writer.
No errors that suggest the writer was not paying attention.
A reader free to focus fully on the argument.
Technical accuracy supporting the persuasive purpose.
-
Credible presentation: supports reader trust through accurate conventions.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write an opinion piece arguing for or against lowering the voting age to 16, supporting your position with reasoning and addressing an opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Structure & Cohesion, Ideas & Content and Language Choices. Look at whether the case builds logically. Look at whether reasoning beats assertion. Look at whether language is precise and measured.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong persuasive writing has a clear, logical structure. The reader always knows where the writer stands and can follow the progression. Strong structure introduces the issue, states the position early, develops supporting points, addresses opposing views, and reinforces the main argument. Each paragraph serves a function.
What markers scan for
- Is the position clear early in the piece?
- Is supporting reasoning organised logically, paragraph by paragraph?
- Is opposition addressed somewhere in the build?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Position is stated but structure is unclear; supporting points scattered and opposition may not appear.
-
Strong
Position clear early; supporting points organised logically and opposition is addressed.
-
Excellent
Structure is strategic and sophisticated; supporting points build logically and opposition is addressed substantively.
Ideas & Content
Strong persuasive writing builds a substantial case through reasoning, not assertion. Supporting points are backed by logic or evidence. The strongest writing acknowledges legitimate concerns on the other side and addresses them — not dismissing them but showing why the writer's position still holds.
What markers scan for
- Are supporting reasons substantive or superficial?
- Does the writer provide logic or evidence for each main claim?
- Is opposition engaged seriously, not dismissed?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Position is stated but supported mainly by assertion; reasons are general and opposition is not seriously engaged.
-
Strong
Position is supported by specific reasoning or evidence; opposition is addressed and explained.
-
Excellent
Reasoning is substantive and specific; opposition is understood sympathetically and addressed thoroughly.
Language Choices
Language conveys confidence in the argument and respect for the reader. Precise language is clearer and more convincing than vague claims. Specific examples persuade more than generalisations. Tone conveys conviction without arrogance. Measured, grounded language is more persuasive than exaggeration.
What markers scan for
- Is language precise or often vague?
- Are examples specific enough to do real work?
- Does the tone respect the reader, or rely on exaggeration?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is often vague; tone may be dismissive and exaggeration substitutes for reasoning.
-
Strong
Language is specific and precise; tone is confident but respectful and examples support reasoning.
-
Excellent
Language is precise and powerful; tone conveys conviction and respect, and parallel structures strengthen the argument.
Now read · Student sample
Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?
Year 8 sample · \~200 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Sixteen-year-olds should be allowed to vote in federal elections. At this age, young people are paying taxes through part-time work, they're subject to criminal law, and they're expected to understand complex issues at school. If they have responsibilities that connect them to this democracy, they deserve a say in how it functions. Critics argue that sixteen-year-olds lack the maturity and life experience to vote responsibly. This is a legitimate concern. But maturity doesn't suddenly arrive at eighteen—it develops gradually. Plenty of seventeen-year-olds are thoughtless, and plenty of sixteen-year-olds are thoughtful. The question isn't whether they're perfectly mature; it's whether they're mature enough. Evidence from countries like Austria and Scotland shows that sixteen-year-olds who are allowed to vote participate at rates similar to or higher than slightly older voters. The practical evidence suggests they handle the responsibility well. Some also argue that lowering the voting age would lead to uninformed voting. But this assumes all current voters think carefully about their choices, which isn't true. Age alone isn't a guarantee of informed voting. What matters is giving young people a chance to participate in a system that affects them, and responsibility is how people develop genuine engagement rather than waiting passively until adulthood to join in.
