6 - Outstanding

A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.

A typical paper in this category

• clearly identifies and insightfully analyzes important features of the argument
• 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 diction and syntactic variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws

A 5 paper presents a well-developed critique of the argument and demonstrates good control of the elements of effective writing.

A typical paper in this category

• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally thoughtful way
• develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions
• sensibly supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of the language, including diction and syntactic variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have occasional flaws

A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing.

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 convey ideas with reasonable clarity
• generally follows the conventions of standard written English but may have some flaws

A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in analytical writing skills and in its control of the elements of writing but is plainly 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
• devotes most of its time to analyzing tangential or irrelevant issues
• is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
• offers support of little relevance and value for points of the critique
• does not convey meaning clearly
• contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics

A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing skills.

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
• provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support
• has serious and frequent problems in the use of language and in sentence structure
• contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that interfere with meaning

A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing skills.

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

• provides little evidence of the ability to understand and analyze the argument
• provides little evidence of the ability to develop an organized response
• has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure
• contains a pervasive pattern or errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that results in incoherence

0----illegible, off-topic, in a foreign language, or merely copies the topic
NR--blank or nonverbal

(Adapted from a holistic scoring rubric used for the GMAT exam.)