This week you wrote a persuasive submission on whether athletes should speak politically in their official role. Now you'll read another student's submission 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
Persuasive writing convinces readers to accept a viewpoint or take action. Check each strand below to see what strong work looks like.
Ideas & Content
Build the argument on clear reasoning and sound ideas.
Develop the main argument and support it with specific examples or logical reasoning.
Weak work asserts opinions without explaining why readers should agree.
Markers ask: can they follow the logic and find it convincing?
-
Sound reasoning: makes the submission persuasive through defensible ideas.
Structure & Cohesion
Move readers systematically toward the conclusion.
Organise ideas so they build momentum and reinforce each other.
The opening establishes position, body paragraphs develop the argument, the conclusion returns to the main point strengthened.
Weak structure buries the main argument where readers miss it.
-
Systematic movement: carries readers step by step toward the conclusion.
Audience & Purpose
Understand who will read your submission and what might convince them.
Make choices about tone, examples and language for that audience.
For submissions, understand the body you're addressing and its likely concerns.
Weak work uses a tone that alienates readers or ignores their concerns.
-
Audience strategy: targets the concerns that could actually change the reader’s mind.
Language Choices
Use precise language and strategic repetition to reinforce key ideas.
Rhetorical techniques — rhetorical questions, parallel structure, emotive language — can strengthen a case when used carefully.
Choose vocabulary that carries weight.
Casual or vague language weakens the argument.
-
Strategic emphasis: reinforces key ideas through precise words and controlled repetition.
Conventions
Technical accuracy supports persuasive purpose by maintaining credibility.
Readers take a persuasive argument more seriously when it's cleanly edited.
Errors distract and suggest carelessness, undermining the persuasive effect.
-
Credible accuracy: makes the submission look serious, professional and considered.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a persuasive submission to a sports association arguing for or against athletes making political statements in their official capacity, addressing at least one opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Ideas & Content and Language Choices. Audience & Purpose decides whether the association feels addressed. Ideas & Content decides whether your reasoning holds up. Language Choices decide whether your wording strengthens or undermines the case.
Audience & Purpose
Markers reward writing that genuinely understands the audience. Understand the association's concerns (maintaining neutrality, preserving inclusivity, avoiding controversy) and address them directly. Strong submissions acknowledge these and explain why your position is still preferable. Keep the tone respectful and serious — you're addressing decision-makers with legitimate concerns, not dismissing them.
What markers scan for
- Does the writer acknowledge the association's likely concerns or the strongest argument against their position?
- Is the tone respectful, serious and suited to an official body?
- Does the writer show they've considered why the opposite view exists?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Addresses the audience but doesn't acknowledge opposing concerns; tone may be inappropriate or dismissive.
-
Strong
Acknowledges the strongest counterargument and explains why the writer's position is still preferable; tone is respectful and serious.
-
Excellent
Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the association's dilemmas; engages concerns genuinely; builds a case that respects the complexity.
Ideas & Content
Markers reward writing built on clear, sound reasoning. Develop the main argument with ideas that genuinely support it. If athletes should speak out, why — freedom of expression, social responsibility, authentic representation? If against, what are the reasons? The strongest responses develop a few key ideas thoroughly rather than listing many weak ones.
What markers scan for
- Are the main supporting ideas clearly stated and developed with reasoning?
- Do all the ideas support the main position, or are there points that seem off-topic?
- Does each idea genuinely strengthen the central case?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Supports the position with ideas, but development is thin; reader may not fully understand the reasoning.
-
Strong
Develops 2–3 clear supporting ideas with reasoning; all ideas strengthen the main position; reader can follow the logic.
-
Excellent
Ideas are well-developed with nuanced reasoning; shows understanding of the complexity of the issue; argument feels complete and convincing.
Language Choices
Markers reward language used strategically. Word choice should be precise and carry weight. Repetition of key terms reinforces main ideas. Rhetorical techniques — questions, parallel structure, carefully chosen examples — can strengthen persuasive effect. Language should never be manipulative or inflammatory; the best persuasion comes from sound reasoning supported by strong wording.
What markers scan for
- Is vocabulary precise and chosen to support the argument?
- Are rhetorical techniques (repetition, parallel structure, rhetorical questions, concrete examples) used effectively?
- Does the language reinforce ideas without tipping into manipulation?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is appropriate but general; few strategic choices evident; argument relies on reasoning rather than language.
-
Strong
Vocabulary is precise and well-chosen; some strategic repetition or techniques used; language reinforces the argument.
-
Excellent
Language is strategic throughout; precise vocabulary carries weight; rhetorical techniques strengthen persuasive effect without manipulation.
Now read · Student sample
Should Athletes Speak Politically in Their Official Role?
Year 9 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Mount Waverley, Victoria, Australia.
The association should permit athletes to make public statements on political issues in their official capacity. While maintaining a neutral brand image is important, the cost of silence—abandoning athletes to choose between their conscience and their career—is higher. Athletes are influential members of their communities and often have personal stakes in the issues they care about. An athlete advocating for climate action, Indigenous rights or international peace isn't betraying sport; they're being honest about who they are. The alternative—requiring athletes to separate their official role from their convictions—is unrealistic and ultimately unfair. We don't ask artists to stay silent about issues that matter to them. Why should athletes be different? Their influence is real and can raise awareness about serious issues. The main argument against this is that political speech from official representatives could alienate fans who disagree. An athlete wearing the national colours might offend supporters with different political views. This is a legitimate concern. However, the solution isn't silence. Many athletes already make political statements unofficially, and fans know their players' values. Requiring official silence doesn't erase the reality of those beliefs—it just prevents athletes from speaking as themselves. Additionally, some issues like climate change and human rights aren't truly 'political' in a partisan sense; they're humanitarian concerns that transcend party lines. Permitting political speech also respects athletes as full human beings rather than corporate symbols. They've trained for years, achieved excellence and earned a platform. That platform shouldn't require them to abandon their values. Sport is stronger when it includes voices with something meaningful to say. The association should trust athletes to speak responsibly and trust fans to engage thoughtfully with views they may not share. Political speech by athletes won't destroy sport—it will make it more authentic.
