A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A typical paper in this category

• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
• develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
• effectively supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor errors

A 5 paper presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed critique of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.

A typical paper in this category:

• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally perceptive way
• develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions
• sensibly supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors

A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and conveys meaning adequately.

A typical paper in this category:

• identifies and analyzes important features of the argument
• develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions
• supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with reasonable clarity
• generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English but may have some errors

A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in its critique of the argument and in conveying meaning but is obviously flawed.

A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:

• does not identify or analyze most of the important features of the argument, although some analysis of the argument is present
• mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly
• is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
• offers support of little relevance and value for points of the critique
• lacks clarity in expressing ideas
• contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that can interfere with meaning

A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:

• does not present a critique based on logical analysis, but may instead present the writer's own views on the subject
• does not develop ideas, or is disorganized and illogical
• provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support
• has serious problems in the use of language and in sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning
• contains serious errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning

A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits MORE THAN ONE of the following characteristics:

• provides little or no evidence of the ability to understand and analyze the argument
• provides little or no evidence of the ability to develop an organized response
• has severe problems in language and sentence structure that persistently interfere with meaning
• contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that result in incoherence