This week you wrote an analytical piece exploring what success really means. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate analytical writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Analytical – Analytical piece
An analytical piece examines ideas, tensions and assumptions. It doesn't argue for one position but explores what different perspectives assume and what their disagreement reveals. Check each strand below.
Ideas & Content
The writer explores what each definition assumes about fairness, effort and responsibility.
What does A's definition require you to believe about opportunity and choice?
What does B's definition require you to believe about circumstance and achievement?
The most powerful analytical writing makes implicit assumptions explicit.
-
Hidden assumptions: make each definition’s view of fairness and effort visible.
Structure & Cohesion
Each section develops a distinct aspect of the analysis.
Strong structure weaves A and B together rather than describing them separately.
Transitions show how ideas connect and build.
The opening frames the question; the conclusion synthesises what the analysis reveals about achievement and fairness.
-
Integrated analysis: weaves both definitions together instead of separating them mechanically.
Audience & Purpose
The reader values careful thinking and can tolerate ambiguity.
The tone is thoughtful and exploratory, not certain or dismissive.
The writer invites the reader to think alongside them, not prove a point.
Language is formal enough for serious work, accessible enough to draw the reader in.
-
Reflective balance: keeps the tone thoughtful, open and serious.
Language Choices
Language is precise and measured, avoiding exaggeration and emotional appeal.
Verbs like 'assume', 'require', 'reveal' and 'suggest' show inferential thinking.
Claims are specific; vague generalisations are avoided.
Quotations or paraphrases from the source are exact and clearly attributed.
-
Precise claims: avoid exaggeration and make each inference traceable.
Conventions
Spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct throughout.
Paragraphs are well-formed and vary in length to develop ideas.
Sentences are clear and built for clarity, not ornament.
Opening and closing feel proportionate and thoughtful.
-
Clear control: supports difficult ideas with clean, proportionate sentences.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write an analytical piece exploring two definitions of success, examining what each assumes, what each leaves out, and what their disagreement reveals.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Audience & Purpose and Structure & Cohesion. Ideas decide whether the analysis digs beneath the surface to expose assumptions. Audience and purpose decide whether the tone invites the reader into thinking. Structure decides whether ideas develop or feel scattered.
Ideas & Content
Strong analytical writing makes the assumptions beneath each definition visible. What does A's definition assume about opportunity and choice — that obstacles are individual rather than structural? What does B's definition assume about fairness — that effort and circumstance are inseparable? The best analysis uses the gap between definitions to explore a larger question about measuring achievement fairly.
What markers scan for
- Analysis explores what each definition assumes about opportunity, effort and fairness.
- The gap between definitions reveals something important about how we think about achievement.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Analysis restates the definitions without exploring what they assume.
-
Strong
Analysis identifies the assumptions beneath each definition.
-
Excellent
Analysis uses the tension between definitions to reveal something significant about fairness and achievement.
Audience & Purpose
Analytical writing invites the reader into complex thinking. The tone is thoughtful and exploratory, not certain or judgmental. The writer doesn't declare one definition 'right' but explores the strengths and limits of each. Language signals serious intellectual work without being defensive or distant. The reader is trusted to follow nuance.
What markers scan for
- Tone is exploratory and fair; the writer does not dismiss either definition.
- Language invites the reader to think alongside the writer rather than passively accept conclusions.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Tone may be dismissive; the writer seems to prefer one definition over the other.
-
Strong
Tone is fair and exploratory; both definitions are treated as legitimate perspectives.
-
Excellent
Tone is assured and inviting; the reader is trusted to engage with nuance without needing reassurance.
Structure & Cohesion
Analytical structure unfolds ideas logically, building section by section. Rather than describing A and B separately, strong structure weaves them to show where they align and diverge. Transitions show how ideas connect. The opening frames the question; the conclusion synthesises insights rather than restating earlier points.
What markers scan for
- Ideas are organised thematically to build understanding, not simply to describe each definition in turn.
- Transitions show how ideas connect; opening and closing frame the analysis thoughtfully.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Structure is primarily descriptive (Student A, then Student B); transitions may be weak.
-
Strong
Structure organises ideas thematically; transitions show how ideas relate.
-
Excellent
Structure weaves perspectives together; opening and closing thoughtfully frame what the disagreement reveals.
Now read · Student sample
Who Gets to Be Successful?
Year 9 sample · \~400 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Coburg, Victoria, Australia.
When we talk about success, we usually mean reaching a goal. But success is not as simple as that. Student A defines success as setting a goal and achieving it. Student B asks: whose goals are possible in the first place? This disagreement is not really about what success is. It is about what fairness is, and whether the same achievement means the same thing for different people. Student A's definition makes sense if everyone starts from the same place. If two people decide to run a marathon and one finishes and one does not, the first is successful and the second is not. This is clear and measurable. But Student A's definition assumes that the important part—the goal you set—comes from your own choice. It treats success as an individual achievement, as if the effort and the outcome are all that matter. What Student A's definition does not account for is that goals themselves are shaped by circumstance. A student whose family has money can aim to attend an expensive university; a student who must work to support their family cannot. The goal is not freely chosen; it is shaped by what seems possible. Student B's definition tries to account for this. Student B argues that we should measure success not against the goal but against the odds. Someone who overcomes serious obstacles to achieve something modest has worked harder, tried harder, and overcome more than someone born into advantage who achieves something greater. In this definition, success becomes a measure of effort relative to circumstance. It is more complex, and it tries to be fair. But Student B's definition has limits too. If success is purely relative to circumstance, how do we measure it? How much disadvantage cancels out how much achievement? Student B's approach can seem to suggest that effort matters more than outcomes, which is not always true. Sometimes what the world needs is not the effort to overcome odds, but actual change. We need some people to reach ambitious goals, regardless of where they started. So which definition is more useful? Student A's definition works if we care mainly about individual ambition and clear measurement. It is useful if we want to recognise people who set their own goals. Student B's definition works if we care about fairness and effort. It is useful if we want to acknowledge that the same result means different things depending on starting point. In reality, both matter. Real success probably requires both: aiming for something genuinely ambitious, and also acknowledging the different odds people face in achieving it.
