This week you wrote a comparative piece analysing two persuasive techniques. Now you'll read another student's analysis and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate analytical writing builds your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Analytical – Comparative piece
Strong comparative analysis of persuasion goes past describing what each approach does. It explains how each works, what it accomplishes, and what a reader convinced by each has actually been convinced of.
Ideas & Content
Strategic choices in each technique identified, not just techniques named.
What each approach accomplishes and what it risks overlooking.
Consequences considered — what does the reader leave each piece convinced of?
Gaps in each approach explored, not ignored.
-
Strategic understanding: explains what each persuasive technique accomplishes and what it sacrifices.
Structure & Cohesion
Structure that integrates both approaches into ongoing dialogue.
Explicit connectives and parallel phrasing holding both techniques in view.
Reader always conscious of how the two strategies relate.
No separate-then-compare structure that splits the techniques.
-
Integrated analysis: weaves both approaches together throughout the comparison.
Audience & Purpose
Details and arguments chosen to show how persuasive techniques function.
Analytical, thoughtful tone — inviting readers to think, not take sides.
No inadvertent advocacy for the position the pieces argue.
Focus on how persuasion works, not on whether it is right.
-
Analytical distance: maintains analytical perspective rather than advocating for one approach.
Language Choices
Verbs that capture how each technique works — 'evokes,' 'compels' versus 'demonstrates,' 'proves'.
Descriptors that differentiate emotional from evidence-based persuasion.
Parallel structures reinforcing the comparison through grammar.
No vague language that blurs distinctions the analysis must highlight.
-
Precise technique language: captures exactly how each persuasive approach works.
Conventions
Sentence boundaries and paragraph breaks that help readers track complex ideas.
Consistent tense and clear pronoun references throughout.
No mechanical errors that distract from the analytical content.
Technical accuracy that lets analysis stay accessible.
-
Transparent precision: keeps conventions clear so complex analysis stays accessible.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a comparative piece on two persuasive techniques arguing the same position, analysing what each accomplishes and what a combined approach would require.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. Look at whether the writer explains how each technique works. Look at how the comparison is woven. Look at whether words differentiate or blur.
Ideas & Content
Strong comparative analysis moves past identifying techniques to understanding how and why they work. Here that means explaining what emotional appeal accomplishes that evidence cannot, and what evidence proves that emotion glosses over. The strongest analysis considers what each approach risks, and what combining them would require.
What markers scan for
- Where does the writer explain how a technique actually works on the reader?
- Are consequences considered — what is a reader convinced of by each approach?
- Are the gaps in each strategy named, not ignored?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Identifies the techniques but analysis stays surface; doesn't explore how each works or what it accomplishes.
-
Strong
Explains what each technique does and accomplishes, though one aspect could be developed further.
-
Excellent
Deeply explores how each approach works, what it achieves, what it risks, and what combining them would require.
Structure & Cohesion
Strong comparative structure integrates both techniques into ongoing dialogue. Connectives, parallel phrasing and a pattern that keeps both approaches in view simultaneously hold the analysis together. This is different from describing Piece 1 fully, then Piece 2, then comparing them at the end.
What markers scan for
- Is the reader always conscious of both techniques together?
- Do connectives and transitions create direct comparison?
- Are the techniques presented in dialogue, not in sequence?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Structure separates the two techniques into distinct sections; comparison happens mainly at the end.
-
Strong
Weaves the two techniques together in most places, using connectives and parallel structures.
-
Excellent
Seamlessly integrates both techniques throughout, using sophisticated connectives and parallel constructions.
Language Choices
Language precision serves the analytical purpose. Verbs and descriptions that capture each technique's exact nature — 'evokes,' 'imagines,' 'compels' for emotional appeal; 'demonstrates,' 'proves,' 'establishes' for evidence — help readers see how each works. Vague language blurs the distinctions the writer must highlight.
What markers scan for
- Which verbs and descriptors does the writer use for each approach?
- Are they precise enough to show exactly how each technique differs?
- Do parallel structures reinforce the comparison through grammar?
Score Bands
-
Basic
Language choices are general; the comparison is blurred by imprecision and shared vocabulary.
-
Strong
Word choices distinguish the two approaches; language mostly captures how each technique works.
-
Excellent
Language is precise throughout; word choices capture exact technique and parallel structures reinforce contrasts.
Now read · Student sample
Two Different Persuasive Approaches
Year 8 sample · \~500 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
The two pieces arguing for greater student voice in school decisions use fundamentally different strategies to convince their audiences. The first piece relies entirely on emotional appeal—it invites the reader into a student's experience of voicelessness and asks them to feel the frustration and harm of having no say. The second piece builds its argument entirely on evidence—it cites research, reports outcomes, and presents logical connections between student participation and measurable benefits. Both pieces argue the same position. Both are persuasive. But they persuade in almost opposite ways. Piece 1 works by making the reader feel what it's like to be a student in a system that ignores your voice. 'Imagine spending six hours a day in a place where no one asks what you think.' This opening forces the reader to step into a student's shoes. It doesn't ask the reader to think about education policy—it asks them to feel excluded and unvalued. The piece then describes the emotional cost of this exclusion: it is 'a kind of daily message about whose voice counts.' The emotional appeal is powerful because it creates empathy. A reader who feels the weight of voicelessness is already halfway convinced that something must change. Piece 2 does the opposite. It avoids emotion entirely. Instead, it presents a series of facts: student participation improves wellbeing, increases engagement and attendance, strengthens community trust, and reduces behavioural issues. Each claim connects to measurable outcomes. 'Research consistently shows' that when students participate, 'rates of engagement and attendance increase.' The authority of research and the specificity of measurable outcomes make this piece persuasive in a different way. A reader convinced by evidence trusts that the argument is grounded in reality, not in someone's feelings. The difference between these approaches matters because they accomplish very different things. Piece 1 persuades the reader that the situation is genuinely wrong—that there is a human cost to voicelessness that matters morally. But it doesn't actually prove that giving students voice would fix anything. A reader could feel the injustice and still worry: 'But maybe students aren't ready to make good decisions. Maybe their voices would make things worse.' Piece 1 doesn't address this concern. Piece 2 persuades the reader that giving students voice would produce measurable benefits. It proves that this change would work. But it doesn't persuade the reader that it matters morally. A reader might think: 'Okay, so participation improves wellbeing. But why do I care about that?' The piece fails to make the reader feel why student voice is fundamentally about fairness and human dignity—the emotional foundation that makes policy change feel urgent rather than merely sensible. A genuinely persuasive argument about student voice would need both elements. It would need the emotional resonance that makes readers feel why this matters—the sense of injustice that Piece 1 creates. But it would also need the evidence that Piece 2 provides—the reassurance that this change would actually work and produce the benefits it promises. Without emotion, evidence feels empty. Without evidence, emotion feels manipulative. Together, they could create an argument that not only makes readers care, but makes them confident that caring will lead to real, positive change.
