NAME: ______________________________
TOTAL: ______
DIVIDE BY 5: ______
GRADE: _____
Paper 3 Grading Rubric
Logical
Argumentation
Use of Textual
Evidence and
Interpretation
Organization &
Clarity
Appropriateness
of Expression
Writing
Mechanics
A
3.85-4.0
A3.55-3.84
0 (F)
1 (D)
2 (C)
3 (B)
4 (A)
Argumentation is
systematically
flawed. Thesis may
be weak,
indiscernible or
nonexistent.
Weak thesis and
argumentation. Thesis
may be unclear or
ambiguous; or it may be
unarguable due to scope
or appropriateness.
Relation of paragraphs
to the argument or the
point at hand is
generally hard to figure
out.
May have a weak thesis
that undermines
relatively good
argumentation.
Alternately may have a
strong, clear thesis that
is not adequately
argued.
Has a clear,
strong thesis;
stays wellfocused on the
topic and each
point usually
builds on the
previous one.
Relation of each
paragraph to the
point is generally
discernible.
Has a clear,
sophisticated, and
nonobvious thesis
that drives the
argumentation
forward. Each
major point relates
back to the thesis
and each paragraph
relates back clearly
to one point of
argumentation.
Textual evidence is
not used at all
and/or is never
interpreted or
relevant to the
argument. Outside
research is not used
at all, or is used as
crutch that the
writer depends on
rather than his/her
own engagement
with the primary
text.
Textual evidence is used
only nominally with
little to no outside
research. Analysis is not
tied so much to a
reading of the language
but to plot summary
and/or retelling of plot
components. Whatever
textual evidence there is
presented is not
interpreted and tied into
the argument but
pointed to and then put
away. Alternately, the
argument hinges upon
one or more outside
sources, not the primary
text itself.
Unclear organization or
structure; little or
ineffective use of
transitions; introduction
and conclusion do not
provide adequate
framework for
argument. Lacks sound
structure.
Textual evidence is
incorporated into the
argumentation;
however, many of the
quotes are not fully
interpreted. Little
analysis comes from
close reading, though
outside research is used.
There may be
extraneous summary or
recapping of quotes,
largely in areas where
close reading is the goal
but isn’t quite achieved;
there may also be
secondary source
information that is not
fully explored.
Clear organization and
structure; some use of
transitions; introduction
and conclusion provide
some framework for
argument. Still room for
improvement.
Textual evidence
is incorporated
into the
argumentation
well; most of the
argument is built
upon writer’s
interpretation of
the text but makes
good use of
outside research.
Close reading
produces good
grounds for
analysis,
supported by all
the textual
evidence. Little to
no extraneous
summary.
Textual evidence is
incorporated into
the argumentation
seamlessly; most of
the argument is
built upon the
writer’s
interpretation of the
text but makes
great use of outside
research. Close
reading produces
rich grounds for
analysis, supported
by all textual
evidence. Little to
no extraneous
summary.
Excellent
organization and
structure; clear and
logical use of
transitions; wellformed introduction
and conclusion
provide great
framework for
argument.
Language use is basic
and/or repetitive. There
may be frequent errors
of tone or
generalizations
inappropriate to
academic writing.
Language use is
adequate to a college
level; there is some
variety of sentence
structure and few major
errors of voice or
construction. The tone is
usually appropriate to
academic writing. There
may be some errors of
colloquializing or
inappropriate
informality.
There are few spelling,
grammar, formatting, or
editing errors. They may
occasionally impede
meaning.
Good
organization and
structure; fair
and usually
logical use of
transitions;
introduction and
conclusion
provide good
framework for
argument.
Language use is
articulate; there
is some variety
of sentence
structures and
few major errors
of voice or
construction. The
tone is
appropriate to
academic
writing.
There are few
spelling,
grammar,
formatting, or
editing errors.
They generally
do not impede
meaning.
There are no
spelling, grammar,
formatting, or
editing errors.
No discernible
organization; no use
of transitions; no
introduction or
conclusion
Language use is
basic and/or
repetitive and/or
incorrect. There are
frequent errors of
expression or
generalizations
inappropriate to
academic writing.
Overall tone may be
too informal,
didactic, or
rhetorical.
Paper is illegible.
Alternately, paper
may be
significantly too
short.
B+
3.25-3.54
B
2.85-3.24
Paper is difficult to read
due to high frequency of
spelling, grammar,
formatting and/or
editing errors that
impede meaning.
Alternately, the paper
may be more than one
page too short.
BC+
2.55-2.84
2.25-2.54
C
1.85-2.24
C1.55-1.84
D+
1.25-1.54
Language use is
sophisticated and
clear; there are a
variety of sentence
structures and no
major errors of
voice or
construction. The
tone is appropriate
to academic
writing.
D
0.95-1.24
F
0-0.94