This week you wrote a persuasive submission on whether public figures have reduced privacy rights. 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 through reasoning, evidence and strategic language. Check each strand below to see what strong work looks like.
Ideas & Content
Rest the argument on clear, defensible ideas.
Develop the main position with specific reasoning and examples that strengthen the case.
Weak work makes claims without adequate support or includes ideas that don't clearly connect.
Markers check whether you've genuinely thought through the topic.
-
Defensible claims: support the argument with reasoning readers can test.
Structure & Cohesion
Guide readers logically through the argument.
Ideas should build on each other and create momentum toward the conclusion.
Opening positions are clear, body paragraphs develop the case systematically, conclusions reinforce the main point.
Weak writing jumps between ideas or buries key points.
-
Logical momentum: builds the case so key points are never buried.
Audience & Purpose
Understand the audience and tailor the message to convince them.
Make choices about tone, examples and emphasis designed for that specific audience.
For submissions, address the body's actual concerns and what might change their thinking.
An inappropriate tone alienates readers.
-
Tailored persuasion: adapts tone, examples and emphasis to the audience.
Language Choices
Use precise vocabulary, strategic repetition and rhetorical techniques to strengthen the argument.
Word choice carries weight; language is chosen to reinforce key ideas.
Parallel structure, rhetorical questions and carefully chosen examples enhance persuasive effect.
Vague language misses opportunities for strategic impact.
-
Rhetorical control: strengthens ideas through precise vocabulary and purposeful techniques.
Conventions
Technical accuracy in spelling, grammar and punctuation supports the persuasive purpose by maintaining credibility.
Readers take a submission more seriously when it's cleanly edited.
Careless errors distract and suggest the writer hasn't treated the task seriously.
-
Edited credibility: keeps the submission persuasive by removing distracting errors.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a persuasive submission to a media ethics body arguing for or against the principle that public figures have reduced privacy rights across all aspects of their lives.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Language Choices, Ideas & Content and Structure & Cohesion. Language Choices decide whether your wording carries weight. Ideas & Content decides whether your reasoning is sound and supported. Structure & Cohesion decides whether the body can follow your case.
Language Choices
Markers reward writing that uses language strategically and precisely. Choose vocabulary that carries weight, use rhetorical techniques effectively and create language that reinforces key ideas. Strong submissions use parallel structure to compare ideas, rhetorical questions to challenge assumptions, or carefully chosen verbs and adjectives that support the argument. Weak writing uses imprecise language that weakens effect.
What markers scan for
- Are key terms and concepts expressed with precision and weight?
- Are rhetorical techniques — parallel structure, repetition, rhetorical questions, vivid examples — used effectively?
- Does the vocabulary choice support the argument or undermine it?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language is clear but generic; few strategic choices evident; argument relies on reasoning rather than language technique.
-
Strong
Vocabulary is precise and chosen strategically; some rhetorical techniques used effectively; language reinforces key ideas.
-
Excellent
Language is strategically precise throughout; rhetorical techniques enhance persuasive effect without manipulation; key ideas are reinforced through careful word choice.
Ideas & Content
Markers reward writing built on clear, sound ideas. Develop the main position with specific reasoning. What does it mean for someone to be 'public'? What responsibility do the media have? What does privacy mean and why does it matter? The strongest submissions develop a few key ideas thoroughly with reasoning rather than listing weak points.
What markers scan for
- Are the main supporting ideas clearly stated and developed with reasoning?
- Does the writer distinguish between relevant scrutiny (professional conduct) and irrelevant scrutiny (personal life) where appropriate?
- Do all the ideas strengthen the central position?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Ideas support the position but lack depth; reasoning is thin; reader may not fully understand the logic.
-
Strong
2–3 ideas are clearly developed with sound reasoning; distinctions are made where relevant; argument feels complete.
-
Excellent
Ideas are well-reasoned and nuanced; the writer shows understanding of complexity; argument acknowledges legitimate tensions while still taking a clear position.
Structure & Cohesion
Markers reward writing that builds a clear, logical argument. Move systematically through the case so readers can follow the thinking. Opening establishes the position; body paragraphs develop ideas in a sensible sequence; counterarguments are addressed; the conclusion reinforces the main point. Each paragraph connects to the one before and points toward the conclusion.
What markers scan for
- Is there a clear path through the argument so the reader follows the reasoning?
- Do paragraphs build logically on each other, rather than jump around?
- Are counterarguments addressed in their own clear section?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Ideas are present but structure feels disjointed; reader must work to understand how points connect.
-
Strong
Clear structure guides reader; connections between ideas are evident; each paragraph advances the argument.
-
Excellent
Argument builds systematically and feels inevitable; transitions are smooth; conclusion integrates all threads and feels earned.
Now read · Student sample
Do Public Figures Have Reduced Privacy Rights?
Year 9 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Clayfield, Queensland, Australia.
The media ethics body should reject the principle that public figures have reduced privacy across all aspects of their lives. Accepting a public role changes expectations about professional conduct and public decisions—but it does not justify scrutiny into personal relationships, health and family life. Public figures voluntarily enter roles of public responsibility. This means their professional decisions, conduct in their official capacity and statements made as public figures should be open to media scrutiny. A politician's handling of public funds, a CEO's business decisions, an athlete's statements about their sport—these are legitimately public. The media serves an important function in holding public figures accountable in their public roles. However, the line between public role and private life exists for a reason. A politician's personal relationship, a public figure's health struggles, a celebrity's family situation—these aspects don't affect their ability to serve in their role and aren't the media's business. The opposing view is that public figures made a choice to live in the spotlight and must accept that all aspects of their lives become public. This perspective treats accepting public status as accepting total exposure. However, this reasoning confuses 'public figure' with 'not having privacy'. Being known is not the same as consenting to invasive coverage. Many public figures have legitimate reasons to keep aspects of their lives private—protecting children from media attention, managing health conditions without public scrutiny, maintaining personal relationships without surveillance. These are reasonable boundaries, not hypocrisy. Additionally, the consequences of reducing all privacy are serious. When every detail becomes fair game, talented people may avoid public roles, fearing for their families' safety and wellbeing. This harms society by removing potential leaders and professionals from consideration. Media scrutiny should be sharp enough to hold power accountable but bounded enough to allow people to have some part of life protected. The media ethics body should clarify that public figures accept reduced privacy in matters relevant to their public role—but retain privacy rights in personal matters. This protects both accountability and humanity.
