This week you wrote a persuasive submission arguing for or against extending the smartphone ban to all school grounds. 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.
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.
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.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Structure & Cohesion, Audience & Purpose and Language Choices. How the submission is built decides whether the argument moves logically. How it is calibrated for an education department decision-maker decides whether it is credible. The precision of language at key moments decides how clearly the case is expressed.
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.
Audience & Purpose
Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for framing that serves this task: an argument calibrated for an education department decision-maker, 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.
Language Choices
Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for precision that serves this task: key claims expressed exactly and the recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms.
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.
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 10 student in Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia.
This submission argues in favour of extending the current smartphone ban to cover all school grounds, including outdoor areas, on the grounds that limiting the ban to classrooms creates a two-tier system that undermines the benefits of reduced smartphone use during the school day. The case for extension rests on the documented benefits of the existing classroom ban and on the observation that those benefits are partially offset by unrestricted use in other school spaces. Students who are unable to access social media and peer comparison during class time but have unrestricted access during breaks and lunch are still subject to the anxiety-generating, attention-fragmenting effects of smartphone use for a significant portion of the school day. The benefits of the classroom ban — which include documented improvements in attention, reported reductions in social anxiety and reduced peer conflict — are most fully realised when the school day as a whole functions as a low-distraction environment. Extension to all school grounds would achieve this. The most commonly raised objection concerns student safety and parental communication: many parents rely on direct phone contact with their children during the school day for genuine safety reasons. This concern is real. However, it is addressable through existing infrastructure: schools have office phones that parents can use to contact students in emergencies, and schools can communicate with parents directly in the event of significant incidents. The objection applies with equal force to the classroom ban, which has not demonstrably increased safety risk. Extending the ban to outdoor areas does not remove the capacity for emergency communication; it routes it through the school rather than through the student’s personal device. The department is asked to consider that the current policy creates a daily experience of restriction followed by unrestricted access, which may actively reinforce the compulsive checking patterns the ban is designed to address. A consistent environment throughout the school day is more likely to create the conditions for sustained attention and genuine social connection than one in which restricted periods alternate with unrestricted ones.
