This week you wrote a persuasive submission to a media regulation inquiry. Now you'll read another student's submission and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate formal persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
A strong persuasive submission takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasoning and evidence, addresses the strongest counterargument, and closes with a specific recommendation. Assessors weigh whether it genuinely convinces its professional audience.
Ideas & Content
Specific reasoning — identifying the mechanism that produces the problem, not just asserting a position.
Evidence that supports the claim.
The precise way the strongest objection fails to undermine the case.
-
Specific reasoning: shows mechanism, evidence and objection handling instead of assertion alone.
Structure & Cohesion
Deliberate movement from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation.
Clear transitions between sections.
A recommendation that is specific, not vague.
-
Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.
Audience & Purpose
An argument calibrated for its specific professional audience.
Framing that matches what the audience is equipped to evaluate.
A recommendation the audience can actually act on.
-
Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.
Language Choices
Precise analytical language that expresses key claims exactly.
A recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms.
No vague or informal language that reduces formal credibility.
-
Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.
Conventions
Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, as expected in formal submissions.
No errors that reduce professional credibility.
Sentence variety and controlled complexity that show command of formal expression.
-
Formal control: uses accurate mechanics and controlled sentence complexity to sustain credibility.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a submission to the media regulation inquiry arguing for or against requiring all news and media outlets to publicly disclose their ownership and funding sources.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Audience & Purpose. The quality of ideas decides whether the case is genuinely analytical. The structure decides whether the argument moves clearly through positive case, counterargument and recommendation. The calibration for a formal inquiry panel decides whether the submission is credible.
Ideas & Content
Strong writing this week shows Ideas & Content applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for genuine depth that serves this task: specific reasoning, real evidence and a clear answer to the strongest objection, not assertion.
What markers scan for
- Ideas & Content applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
- The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Ideas & Content is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.
-
Strong
Ideas & Content is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.
-
Excellent
Ideas & Content is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong writing this week shows Structure & Cohesion applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for organisation that serves this task: a clear move through positive case, counterargument engagement and recommendation.
What markers scan for
- Structure & Cohesion applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
- The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Structure & Cohesion is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.
-
Strong
Structure & Cohesion is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.
-
Excellent
Structure & Cohesion is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.
Audience & Purpose
Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for calibration that serves this task: an argument framed for a formal inquiry panel, with an actionable recommendation.
What markers scan for
- Audience & Purpose applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
- The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Audience & Purpose is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.
-
Strong
Audience & Purpose is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.
-
Excellent
Audience & Purpose is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.
Now read · Student sample
Should Media Ownership and Funding Be Publicly Disclosed?
Year 10 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 10 student in Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.
This submission argues in favour of requiring all news and media outlets to publicly disclose their ownership and funding sources, on the grounds that transparency about who controls and funds media is a precondition for citizens to evaluate the information they receive. The democratic case for disclosure is straightforward. Citizens rely on news media to form opinions and make decisions about matters of public significance. When the ownership and funding of media outlets are not publicly known, citizens cannot evaluate the degree to which the coverage they receive may be shaped by the interests of those who fund or control it. This is not a hypothetical concern: documented cases of politically motivated coverage, selective reporting and the suppression of stories adverse to media owners’ interests have been recorded in multiple countries, including Australia. Disclosure does not eliminate bias but it enables citizens to contextualise and evaluate it — which is the best available mechanism in a free society. The most common objection to mandatory disclosure is that it infringes media freedom by subjecting editorial decisions to a form of public scrutiny. This objection conflates two different things: disclosure of who owns and funds a media outlet is not the same as disclosure of editorial decisions or source identities, both of which can and should remain protected. Requiring outlets to state their ownership structure and major funding sources imposes no editorial constraint. It simply adds information to the public sphere that the public has a legitimate interest in holding. This submission asks the inquiry panel to consider that the current system of voluntary or patchy disclosure has not produced adequate transparency. Outlets that wish to obscure their ownership have generally been able to do so. A mandatory disclosure regime with enforceable standards and regular public reporting would address this gap. The panel is asked to recommend that all media outlets operating in Australia be required to publish standardised ownership and funding disclosures annually.
