This week you wrote a persuasive submission arguing for or against expanding assisted dying eligibility in Australia. 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 parliamentary 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.
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 parliamentary committee arguing for or against expanding assisted dying eligibility in Australia, taking a clear position, supporting it with reasoning and addressing at least one opposing argument.
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 with explicit transitions. How it is calibrated for a parliamentary committee 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 a parliamentary committee, with a recommendation that audience could actually act on.
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.
Now read · Student sample
Should Assisted Dying Eligibility Be Expanded?
Year 10 sample · \~300 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 10 student in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
This submission argues in favour of expanding the current eligibility criteria for assisted dying in Australia, on the grounds that the existing criteria are too narrowly defined to address the full range of circumstances in which a person may face prolonged and irremediable suffering. The case for expansion rests on a principle that most people across the political spectrum accept: that individuals should have meaningful control over decisions that affect their own lives and deaths, particularly when those decisions concern the relief of suffering that cannot be otherwise addressed. The current criteria in most Australian states require that the person be suffering from a terminal condition with a prognosis of six to twelve months. This requirement excludes people who face prolonged, irremediable suffering from conditions that are not imminently terminal — including degenerative neurological conditions and treatment-resistant psychiatric illness — where suffering may be no less severe but the timeline is longer. The principle of autonomy that supports the existing legislation applies equally to these cases. The primary objection to expansion concerns safeguards: that expanding eligibility increases the risk of coercion, misdiagnosis or normalisation of assisted dying for people who could be supported by other means. This objection deserves serious engagement. The evidence from jurisdictions that have implemented broader eligibility — including Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada — does not indicate a general increase in abuse or misuse. What the evidence does indicate is that the quality of safeguards is more predictive of good outcomes than the breadth of eligibility. The question, therefore, is not whether to expand but how to expand with appropriate safeguards. This submission asks the committee to consider that maintaining an artificially narrow eligibility threshold does not eliminate the suffering of those excluded from access — it simply declines to provide a remedy. The committee is invited to recommend an expansion of eligibility accompanied by a strengthened safeguards framework, with mandatory multi-practitioner sign-off, independent psychiatric assessment for non-terminal cases and an annual review mechanism.
