This week you wrote a persuasive submission on whether community service should be required for the Year 12 certificate. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate submissions sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Persuasive – Submission
A submission is a formal persuasive text written to an official body. It presents a clear argument with reasoning, acknowledges opposing views, and persuades a decision-maker. Check each strand below.
Ideas & Content
The central claim is clear, and reasons are credible and specific to the issue.
Reasoning feels grounded in real examples or principles, not abstract or recycled.
Objections are addressed directly, showing the writer has thought the issue through.
The best submissions engage opposing views rather than dismissing them.
-
Credible claim: is supported by reasons specific to the certificate issue.
Structure & Cohesion
The opening establishes the issue and the writer's position without delay.
Middle sections develop reasons logically — most accessible to most complex, or principle to consequence.
Opposing views are integrated into the argument, not bolted on at the end.
The conclusion reinforces the central claim and often points to consequences or next steps.
-
Immediate stance: tells the reader the position before developing the case.
Audience & Purpose
Language, tone and reasoning are shaped for an audience with real power to decide.
The tone is formal but not distant, reasoned but not detached.
The writer shows they understand what decision-makers care about.
Evidence is chosen for relevance to that specific audience, not general appeal.
-
Decision-maker fit: shapes language and reasoning for people with authority.
Language Choices
Persuasive language is precise, measured and strategic — never shouting.
Strong verbs, specific nouns and careful modifiers make reasoning compelling.
Emotional language serves the argument, not as a substitute for it.
Repetition emphasises key points purposefully, not defensively.
-
Measured persuasion: argues firmly without sounding aggressive or inflated.
Conventions
Spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct throughout; errors suggest the writer does not take the task seriously.
Paragraphs are well-formed and of appropriate length.
Sentences vary in structure to maintain interest and clarity.
Tone is impersonal or semi-formal, avoiding slang or colloquialisms.
-
Serious polish: shows care through accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a submission to a government review of community service requirements, taking a clear position, supporting it with two reasons and addressing one opposing argument.
Let’s Focus
Two strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose and Language Choices. Audience and purpose decide whether the tone, evidence and structure signal that the writer understands the government review and the stakes. Language decides whether word choices feel precise and strategic, or vague and overheated.
Audience & Purpose
When a submission is attuned to its audience, the reader feels the writer understands the stakes and the decision-maker's concerns. The tone signals respect and seriousness. The reasoning appeals to a government body's values — fairness, feasibility, community impact. The writer shows awareness that this is a real policy decision with real consequences.
What markers scan for
- Formal, measured tone appropriate to writing a government body.
- Reasoning shaped to address the concerns of decision-makers, not just fellow students.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Tone is occasionally inconsistent; reasoning is sometimes generic rather than tailored to the audience.
-
Strong
Tone is consistently formal and measured; reasoning shows awareness of the audience's concerns.
-
Excellent
Tone is assured and appropriate; reasoning is sharply attuned to the specific values and priorities of a government review body.
Language Choices
Persuasive language in a submission builds a case through careful word and structure choices. Strong verbs, specific nouns and measured phrasing serve the argument. Precise word choice signals serious thought. Vague or repetitive language drains force. Strategic repetition of key terms reinforces the central claim; empty repetition weakens it.
What markers scan for
- Verbs are strong and specific; nouns are concrete rather than abstract.
- Language persuades through reasoning and precision, not emotional appeals or exaggeration.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language choices are sometimes vague; repetition may feel unintentional or defensive.
-
Strong
Word choices are mostly precise and serve the argument; repetition feels purposeful.
-
Excellent
Language choices are precise, strategic and measured; each word choice reinforces the reasoning.
Now read · Student sample
Submission to the Education Policy Review Panel
Year 9 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Thornbury, Victoria, Australia.
I am writing to argue against making community service a compulsory requirement for the Year 12 certificate. While community service has genuine value, making it mandatory creates unfair burdens, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and undermines the voluntary nature of meaningful community engagement. Compulsory requirements disadvantage those who can least afford the cost. Forty hours of service work often requires transport to volunteer sites, time away from part-time employment, or upfront costs for training or uniforms. Students from low-income families frequently work to help support their households. Adding a government mandate forces them to choose between meeting the requirement and maintaining necessary income. A student in the city might volunteer at a nearby community centre; a student in a rural area might face hours of travel. The same requirement does not affect all students equally. Furthermore, mandatory service removes what makes community engagement meaningful. When people choose to volunteer, they invest in something they believe in. They develop commitment and genuine understanding of the issue. When service becomes a box to tick, it becomes a chore. Students complete the hours to gain the certificate, not because they care about the community. This reduces both the quality of the service and the depth of the learning. Schools already struggle with engagement; a mandate may make it worse. Proponents argue that community service builds civic responsibility. This is true, but responsibility cannot be forced. It develops through choice, reflection and genuine connection. Schools can encourage and celebrate voluntary service without mandating it. They can recognise students who choose to contribute, create pathways to meaningful work, and teach civic value through the curriculum. The government should invest in making community service accessible and attractive, not compulsory. Remove barriers, create clear opportunities, and let students choose. Civic responsibility built on choice is far stronger than duty enforced by a requirement.
