Y06W16PA - Should Advertising to Children Be More Strictly Regulated?

This week you wrote an opinion piece on advertising rules for children. Now you'll read another student's piece and decide how strong it is. Every module sharpens how you spot a clear, well-supported argument.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Opinion piece

Markers look for opinion writing that takes a clear position and builds a careful case. Check each strand below to see what strong work looks like.

Ideas & Content

Claims backed by examples or clear reasoning. Specific evidence — not just feelings. Ideas that explain why the position holds up.

  • Supported claims with: examples or reasoning.

Structure & Cohesion

A clear position stated near the start. Reasons built up one after another. The other side noted, then answered.

  • Cumulative reasoning that: builds toward persuasion.

Audience & Purpose

Acknowledges readers' likely doubts. Meets the other side's argument head-on. Explains why this position is stronger.

  • Responsive to readers': potential concerns and doubts.

Language Choices

Words that stress what's at stake — "protect," "vulnerable." Sentence variety used for emphasis at key moments. Shows more than tells; no vague repeats.

  • Strategic word choices: that persuade without manipulation.

Conventions

Punctuation used for rhetorical effect. Sentence variety that lifts key ideas. Clear expression that supports the argument.

  • Controlled use of: conventions to support persuasive effect.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write an opinion piece arguing for or against stricter rules on advertising to children, using clear reasoning.

Let’s Focus

Two strands matter most this week: Language Choices and Audience & Purpose. The words you pick decide whether the piece persuades. Engaging readers' doubts decides whether they trust your case.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week chooses words for effect. Terms like "protect," "vulnerable," or "exploit" raise the stakes. Examples feel real and resonant. Sentence variety lifts the key moments. Vague language or the same sentence shape over and over flattens the argument and loses the reader.

What markers scan for

  • Words that raise the stakes — "protect," "vulnerable."
  • Examples that feel real and land with readers.
  • Sentence variety that emphasises key moments.
  • No vague repeats or empty phrasing.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language is general and persuasive strategies are few.

  • Strong

    Word choices raise stakes and examples feel specific and resonant.

  • Excellent

    Language is strategic throughout and sentence variety strengthens every key moment.

Audience & Purpose

Strong writing this week meets the other side instead of ignoring it. The writer names the opposing view, treats it fairly, then explains why their position holds up better. That respect builds trust with readers. Pieces that brush off opposing views feel weaker and less believable.

What markers scan for

  • The opposing view named clearly.
  • That view treated fairly, not dismissed.
  • A reason given for why this position is stronger.
  • Reader doubts answered, not avoided.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    The other side is absent or brushed aside.

  • Strong

    The opposing view is acknowledged and the writer explains why their position holds.

  • Excellent

    The opposing view is engaged with respect and the rebuttal strengthens the argument.

Now read · Student sample

Children Deserve Protection from Advertising

Year 6 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 6 student in Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.

Every day, children see thousands of advertisements designed to make them want things. Cartoons are interrupted by toy ads. YouTube videos are preceded by advertisements. Even playground games have product placements. We have decided it's acceptable to use advertising techniques on young people whose brains are still developing—and that decision needs to change. Advertising to children should be more strictly regulated. Some argue that stricter regulation would limit business and parental choice. It's true that advertising drives the economy, and parents ultimately make purchasing decisions. But here's what these arguments miss: children aren't mini-adults. Their brains don't fully develop until the mid-twenties, particularly the parts that handle impulse control and long-term thinking. Advertisers know this. They deliberately use bright colours, fast cuts, and emotional appeals because they work on developing brains. If we know children are vulnerable, why do we allow marketers to target that vulnerability? The costs of current advertising are real. Children push parents toward sugary foods, which contribute to obesity. They pester for expensive toys, creating family conflict. They absorb messages about what their bodies should look like, feeding insecurity. These aren't small problems. They're health and wellbeing issues affecting millions of young people. Stricter regulation doesn't mean eliminating advertising. It means setting limits: no advertising of unhealthy foods before 9pm, age-appropriate warnings on ads targeting children, and restrictions on using child psychology in marketing. Other countries—Sweden, Norway, Belgium—have implemented these limits without destroying their economies. Their children are no less happy. Their toy markets still thrive. We regulate advertising for cigarettes and alcohol because we recognise that young people need protection. Children cannot vote or buy independently. They rely on adults to make decisions for them. If we're willing to protect them from some dangers, we must be willing to protect them from advertising designed to exploit their developing minds.