Name (class #): ____________________
Block: _____
Exemplary
4 points per criteria
Introduction


Hook
Background
Thesis/Claim



Complex
Argument
Specific policy
Background
Paragraph
Support
(3 supporting
arguments)
 Body Thesis
 Evidence
 Explanation/
Analysis
 Connection
to Main
Thesis
Conclusion





Restate
Main Thesis
Summarize
Support
Morality
Realpolitik
Parting shot
Foreign Policy Position Paper Rubric
___ Inviting and creative hook, draws the reader in;
clearly connects to content
___ Brief but clear background info helps reader
understand Main Thesis
___ Clearly written, unique argument; debatable
___ Specific and well thought-out policy
___ Complex: clearly answers the why? or how?
___ Uses evidence to clearly describe the history and
causes of the issue.
___ 3 clearly written supporting arguments (body
thesis) relate to the policy/main thesis
____ Contain thorough and clear explanations of the
arguments.
___ Integrate evidence and analysis; thoroughly
explains at least 6 pieces, including:



2 Numbers/statistics
2 Quotes
1 geographic fact
At Standard
3 points per criteria
___ Competent hook
___ Adequate
background
___ Debatable thesis
___ Some
specificity
___ Some
complexity
___ Uses evidence
to describe history
___ Hook does not clearly connect to content of
paper
___ Background is scanty or too long; info does
not relate clearly or help us understand the Main
Thesis
___ Thesis is not clearly written, or is formulaic
___ Policy proposal is not specific
___ Thesis lacks complexity
___ Background lacks evidence, specificity, or
clarity.
___ Lacks a hook; hook is confusing and
lacks an attempt to connect to content
___ Background is lacking, unclear, or
missing
___ Thesis is not an argument
___ Policy proposal is not specific
___ Thesis lacks complexity
___ Body Theses
present
___ Body theses are
explained, but lack
depth and clarity
___ Uses and
explains some
appropriate evidence
___ connects
evidence to thesis
___ Body Thesis poorly written, unclear, or not
connected to policy; missing body thesis
___ Explanation of argument is not clear/thorough
___ Attempts to prove thesis; most info links to thesis
focus
___ Body paragraphs attempt to integrate evidence
and analysis; presents and explains less than:

2 Numbers/statistics

2 Quotes

1 geographic fact
___ Support lacks sufficient specific details; support is
not strong
___ Body Thesis is not an argument, poorly
written, or does not address prompt.
___ Explanation is uclear or missing
___ Little or no detail support at all; very
weak support; presents and explains
significantly less than: 2 #s/statistics, 2
quotes and 1 geographic fact
___ Fails to prove body thesis; Info has
little or no focus
___ Restates main
thesis.
___ Summarize
supporting
arguments
___ Connects policy
with American values
___ Connects policy
with American
interests
___ Competent
parting shot
___ Word choice
conveys meaning
clearly
___ No fragments or
run-ons
___ Structure is
sound
___ Uses transitions
___ Restatement of Main Thesis is not clear,
simply repeats main thesis. Fails to clearly state
why policy will work.
___ Summary of supporting arguments fails to
connect to main thesis
___ Fails to clearly demonstrate a moral aspect to
this policy
___ Fails to clearly demonstrate a practical aspect
to this policy
___ Parting shot is confusing or poorly written
___ Fails to review policy and argument
___ Incompletely summarizes supporting
arguments
___ Fails to clearly demonstrate a moral
aspect to this policy
___ Fails to clearly demonstrate a practical
aspect to this policy
___ Lacks a parting shot
___ Some problems with word choice, wordiness
___ Sentences have some variety; lack fluency;
some problems with construction
___ Paragraphing is attempted but may run
together or have incorrect breaks
___ At times unclear how sentences, thoughts &
¶s interrelate; formulaic transitions
___ Limited or generic vocabulary;
poor/repetive use of words
___ Sentences tend to be
awkward/incomplete/lack variation
___ Paragraphing missing/irregular or has
no clear structure
___ Missing or inappropriate transitions
___ argument supported with strong details that are
clearly connected to the policy
___ Restates Main Thesis (policy) in interesting new way
Answers the question: why will this policy work?
___ Summarizes supporting arguments, connects to Main
Thesis
___ Idealism/morality: clearly address why this policy is
the right thing to do (why is this policy good?)
___ Realpolitik: clearly addresses why this policy will
protect American national security/interests (why is this
policy good for us?)
___ Clear and creative parting shot shows the
relevance of the content.
Total: ____/100
Approaching Standard
2 points per criteria
Needs Work
0-1 points per criteria
___ Background is unclear, vague, and/or
unsupported with evidence.
Style and
Organization
___ Words convey message clearly and precisely; strong word
choice
___ Sentences well built w/ strong/varied structure; no runons or fragments
___ Paragraphing sound & reinforces the organizational
structure
___ Uses creative/appropriate transitions between thoughts,
sentences, and paragraphs
Conventions
___ Grammar, usage, and spelling correct
___ Punctuation accurate
___ Grammar and
spelling correct
___ Punctuation
___ Grammar, usage, and/or spelling error(s).
___ Punctuation almost entirely accurate
___ Many grammar/usage errors
___ Punctuation often missing or incorrect
MLA Format
___ 1" margins; 12 pt., TNR font; double-spaced
___ Catchy title and correctly-formatted heading &
header
___ MLA format
___ Title and
header
___ Minor errors in margins, font, & spacing
___ Minor errors in title, heading, & running
header
___ Many errors in margins, font, &
spacing
___ Many errors in title, heading, & header
___ Cites sources
___ Cites sources properly
___ Citation of sources sometimes incorrect
___ Citations are completely incorrect
___ Uses citations
___ Uses citations always when needed
___ Uses citations usually when needed
___ Missing most needed citations
Points will be lost for: Inaccurate facts, spelling and grammar errors, bias, informal tone, lack of clarity, failure to adhere to MLA format, and the existence of run-on or poorly constructed sentences.
Sources