Y10W40PA - Should the Federal Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission about the federal voting age. 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 judge whether the argument truly convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position, but naming the mechanism behind the problem. Evidence that genuinely supports the claim. 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 between sections. A recommendation that is specific, not vague.

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

Audience & Purpose

Framing calibrated for a specific professional audience. Framing that matches what that audience is equipped to evaluate. A recommendation that is actionable for them.

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

Language Choices

Precise analytical language throughout. Key claims expressed exactly, and 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 reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity show command of formal written 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 parliamentary committee arguing for or against lowering the federal voting age to 16.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Audience & Purpose and Language Choices. The quality of ideas decides whether the evidential gap is specifically identified. The calibration for a parliamentary committee decides whether the submission is credible. The precision of language — particularly distinctions such as consistency versus capacity — 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 reasoning that serves this task: a clearly identified evidential gap, not a general claim about young people.

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.

Audience & Purpose

Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for calibration that serves this task: framing pitched for a parliamentary committee, 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: exact phrasing at key moments, such as the distinction between consistency and capacity.

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 the Federal Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

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

This submission argues against lowering the federal voting age to 16, on the grounds that the policy case for doing so has not been established with sufficient evidence to justify a change to one of democracy’s foundational thresholds. The case against change rests on two observations. First, advocates for lowering the voting age have not produced evidence that 16-year-olds as a group are better positioned to make informed electoral decisions than the current threshold of 18 produces. The argument most commonly offered is that 16-year-olds pay taxes, can drive and can enlist in the military, and are therefore entitled to vote. This is a claim about consistency, not about capacity, and consistency arguments do not themselves establish that the proposed change would produce better electoral outcomes. Second, thresholds in democratic systems are rarely changed without compelling evidence that the status quo produces worse outcomes than the proposed alternative. The age of 18 was not chosen arbitrarily: it represents a considered judgement that full civic participation requires a degree of maturity and independence that is, on average, better established at 18 than at 16. Changing it requires demonstrating that this judgement is wrong, not merely that it is arguable. The objection most commonly raised in favour of change is that young people are sufficiently informed and engaged to participate meaningfully. This may be true of many 16-year-olds, and acknowledging this does not require opposing the change. What it requires is recognising that electoral thresholds apply to the age cohort as a whole, not to the most engaged members of it. The relevant question is whether the cohort as a whole is ready, not whether the most prepared members of it are. The evidence for this — for the cohort rather than selected individuals — has not been made. The committee is respectfully asked to maintain the current threshold and to invite further research on the question before any change is considered.