Y10W35PA - Should Federal Politicians Have Term Limits?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission arguing for or against term limits for federal politicians. 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 practically specific recommendation. Assessors weigh whether the argument convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position but identifying the mechanism that produces the problem. Evidence that genuinely supports the claim, not decoration. 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 linking each section. A recommendation stated with specific detail, not vaguely.

  • Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.

Audience & Purpose

Framing calibrated for a democratic reform committee — matching what that audience can evaluate. A recommendation the committee could actually act on. No framing pitched at the wrong reader.

  • Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.

Language Choices

Precise analytical language at key claims, especially when naming structural mechanisms. The recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms. No vague or informal language that weakens formal credibility.

  • Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, as expected in formal submissions. Errors matter most when they reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity 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 democratic reform committee arguing for or against introducing term limits for elected politicians at the federal level.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. The quality of ideas decides whether the structural case is specific and evidenced. How the submission is built decides whether the argument moves logically with explicit transitions. The precision of language decides how analytically rigorous it is.

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: a structural case built on specific mechanisms and evidence, 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 deliberate sequencing that serves this task: position, positive case, counterargument and recommendation moving logically with explicit transitions.

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.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for precision that serves this task: structural mechanisms named exactly and precise distinctions made at key argumentative moments.

What markers scan for

  • Language Choices applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language Choices is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Language Choices is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Language Choices is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Now read · Student sample

Should Federal Politicians Have Term Limits?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Mackay, Queensland, Australia.

This submission argues in favour of introducing term limits for elected politicians at the federal level in Australia, on the grounds that unlimited tenure creates structural incentives that are inconsistent with democratic accountability. The case for term limits rests on a straightforward structural observation: politicians who can stand for re-election indefinitely are subject to two forms of incentive that can conflict with good governance. The first is the incentive to prioritise electoral survival over policy substance — taking positions that are popular with core supporters rather than those that are evidence-based and in the long-term public interest. The second is the accumulation of power and resources that comes with long tenure: relationships with industry, familiarity with the mechanisms of influence and the institutional advantages of incumbency all compound over time in ways that reduce the competitive fairness of elections. Term limits address both incentives by ensuring that all elected members are eventually required to face the end of their tenure, regardless of their accumulated power. The most common objection is that term limits remove experienced and effective legislators from positions they are still capable of filling. This is a genuine cost. Experience in legislative processes, institutional knowledge and established working relationships across party lines have value that cannot be immediately replaced. However, this objection proves too much: by the same logic, the judiciary, the public service and the military should also have no term limits or mandatory retirement ages, which is not a position most democracies adopt. The value of accountability and the prevention of entrenchment are held, in other institutional contexts, to outweigh the value of accumulated individual experience. The case for applying the same reasoning to elected politicians is not obviously weaker. The committee is invited to recommend the introduction of a three-term limit for members of the House of Representatives and a two-term limit for senators, with transitional arrangements for current serving members.