This week you wrote a persuasive submission on whether online news creators should meet journalism standards. Now you'll read another student's piece 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 argues for a position. Check each strand below to see what strong work looks like.
Ideas & Content
Present reasons and evidence that are specific, relevant and logically sound.
'Registration improves accuracy by creating accountability for corrections' beats 'registration improves accuracy.'
Weak persuasive writing makes claims without support or includes reasons that don't support the position.
Ask: does each reason actually support my case?
-
Sound evidence: gives the argument logic, relevance and weight.
Structure & Cohesion
Build clear architecture: position, body paragraphs that develop reasons, acknowledgement of the other side, closing.
Move the reader logically from reason to reason.
Transitions between ideas should feel inevitable.
Weak writing jumps around, repeats itself or ignores opposing views.
-
Case structure: builds position, reasons, counterview and closing in order.
Audience & Purpose
Persuasive writing needs credibility with a specific audience.
Writing to a media regulator means sounding authoritative, evidence-based and fair.
Acknowledging legitimate concerns on the other side strengthens credibility.
Weak writing sounds biased or sounds uncertain about its own claims.
-
Public credibility: earns trust with a tone suited to a media standards debate.
Language Choices
Word choice shapes how readers judge your argument.
'Regulation' sounds more neutral than 'control'; 'independent creators' beats 'people on the internet.'
Strong verbs ('threatens', 'strengthens', 'demands') do more work than 'affects' or 'is important.'
Avoid words that sound emotional rather than reasoned.
-
Measured wording: makes the argument persuasive without exaggeration or attack.
Conventions
Conventions let readers focus on your argument, not your errors.
Correct spelling, punctuation and consistent grammar all support credibility.
Weak writing has spelling errors or punctuation that breaks attention and makes readers doubt the argument itself.
-
Error-free control: lets readers judge the reasoning, not the mistakes.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a 380-word submission to a media regulator arguing for or against requiring online news creators to register and meet professional accuracy and source-disclosure standards.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Ideas & Content and Structure & Cohesion. Audience & Purpose decides whether the regulator hears you as authoritative and fair. Ideas & Content decides whether your reasoning convinces. Structure & Cohesion decides whether the regulator can follow the argument.
Audience & Purpose
You're writing to a media regulator considering a real policy decision. The audience expects evidence-based reasoning, acknowledgement of legitimate concerns on both sides, and an authoritative tone without dismissal. Show awareness that this is a genuine disagreement, but still make a clear case. Weak submissions ignore the other side or sound like rants.
What markers scan for
- Does the opening clearly state the position, so the reader immediately knows which side you're arguing?
- Is there genuine engagement with at least one argument from the other side, rather than dismissing it?
- Does the tone sound authoritative without becoming dismissive?
Score Bands
-
Basic
States a position but doesn't clearly distinguish between sides, or dismisses opposing views without engagement.
-
Strong
Clear position, acknowledges opposing concerns fairly, and presents reasons for the chosen position.
-
Excellent
Strong position with specific evidence; fair acknowledgement of other side; authoritative tone throughout.
Ideas & Content
Reasons must be specific and logically sound. 'Registration creates accountability because creators must disclose sources, which reduces misinformation' beats 'registration is important.' Each reason should support your position without being generic. If you argue for registration, show why benefits outweigh costs. If against, show why the risks justify rejecting it.
What markers scan for
- Does each reason have specific reasoning or evidence that supports the position?
- Are the reasons logically sound, or do some claim things that don't follow?
- Does the writer think through the implications of the chosen position?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Presents reasons but without specific support or evidence; reader isn't convinced.
-
Strong
Each reason has reasoning or examples that support the position; argument is logical.
-
Excellent
Reasons are specific, well-evidenced, and show thoughtful consideration of implications.
Structure & Cohesion
The argument must have clear shape. Opening states position; body develops separate reasons; at least one paragraph engages the other side; closing reinforces position. Transitions guide the reader ('Furthermore', 'However', 'This suggests'). Weak writing repeats the same point or has no clear connection between paragraphs.
What markers scan for
- Does the structure move logically from one reason to the next, with clear transitions?
- Is there a distinct section that engages with the opposing view?
- Does the closing reinforce the position rather than just restating it?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Attempts organisation but structure is unclear; reader has to work to follow the argument.
-
Strong
Clear structure with distinct reasons; fair engagement with other side; logical flow.
-
Excellent
Strong structure; clear transitions; genuine engagement with other side; argument builds.
Now read · Student sample
Should Online News Creators Meet Journalism Standards?
Year 9 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Independent online content creators have enormous reach and influence over what millions of people believe. They should be required to register and meet the same professional standards of accuracy and source disclosure as traditional news organisations. While registration does impose costs on creators, the benefits to public trust and information quality far outweigh these costs. First, the scale of online influence demands accountability. A single social media post can reach millions of people faster than a traditional news article. When creators publish news-style content without accountability for accuracy, misinformation spreads rapidly and damages public trust in all information. Registration creates a public record: creators must disclose their sources and issue corrections when they are wrong. This accountability is not punishment—it is the basic framework that allows readers to trust information. Second, registration establishes minimum standards that protect vulnerable audiences. Young people especially are likely to treat online content as factual without questioning it. Professional journalists are trained in verification and source checking. Requiring online creators to meet similar standards ensures that news-style content, wherever it appears, meets basic accuracy thresholds. Without these standards, the most vulnerable audiences are most at risk. Opponents of registration argue that it threatens press freedom by burdening independent creators. This concern is legitimate, but it misunderstands what registration means. Registration is not censorship—it is not preventing anyone from speaking. Registration simply requires creators to meet basic standards of accountability: disclose sources and correct errors. These are not restrictions on speech; they are conditions that make speech trustworthy. Professional journalists work within these conditions every day and still exercise press freedom. In conclusion, the scale and speed of online influence means that accountability cannot be optional. Registration creates a framework for trust. Without it, the most accessible information source for many young people will remain unaccountable, with serious consequences for public understanding.
