iRubric: SBAC Argumentative Rubric for Letter

The response is fully sustained and consistently and purposefully focused:
--claim is clearly stated, focused and strongly maintained
--alternate or opposing claims are clearly addressed*
--claim is introduced and communicated clearly within the context

The response has a clear and effective organizational structure creating unity and completeness:
--effective, consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies
--logical progression of ideas from beginning to end
--effective introduction and conclusion for audience and purpose
--strong connections among ideas, with some syntactic variety

The response provides thorough and convincing support/evidence for the writer’s claim that includes the effective use of sources, facts, and details. The response achieves substantial depth that is specific and relevant:
--use of evidence from sources (research) is smoothly integrated, comprehensive, relevant, & concrete
--effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques

The response clearly and effectively expresses ideas, using precise language:
--use of academic and domain-specific vocabulary is clearly appropriate for the audience and purpose

The response demonstrates a strong command of conventions:
--few, if any, errors are present in usage and sentence formation
--effective and consistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, all four business letter parts are complete

The response is somewhat sustained and may have a minor drift in focus:
--may be clearly focused on the claim but is insufficiently sustained
--claim on the issue may be somewhat unclear and unfocused

The response has an inconsistent organizational structure, and flaws are evident:
--inconsistent use of basic transitional strategies with little variety
--uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end
--conclusion and introduction, if present, are weak
--weak connection among ideas

The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the writer’s claim that includes partial or uneven use of sources, facts, and details, and achieves little depth:
--evidence from sources is weakly integrated, and citations, if present, are uneven
--weak or uneven use of elaborative techniques

The response expresses ideas unevenly, using simplistic language:
--use of domain-specific vocabulary may at times be inappropriate for the audience and purpose

The response demonstrates a partial command of conventions:
--frequent errors in usage may obscure meaning
--inconsistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, only two parts of the business letter format are intact

A response gets no credit if it provides no evidence of the ability to clearly state the claim

A response gets no credit if it provides no evidence of the ability to create unity and completeness through an organized structure.

A response gets no credit if it provides no evidence of the ability to provide convincing support for the writer's claim.

A response gets no credit if it provides no evidence of the ability to clearly express ideas and use precise language and vocabulary.

A response gets no credit if it provides no evidence of the ability to demonstrate a strong command of conventions (i.e., sentence forms, capitalization, punctuation, spelling). Correct business letter format was not used.