[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-436936-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-436936-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","summary-of-scoring-approaches-for-the-individual-written-argument","Summary of Scoring Approaches for the Individual Written Argument","","Summary of scoring criteria for an individual written argument, organized into sequential rows covering context, perspective, evidence use, argument establishment, and conclusion quality. It explains what to look for in each dimension, identifying where it typically appears in a response and how performance levels are judged from zero through high. Criteria stress integration of stimulus material, clarity of research-question significance, engagement with complexity through multiple perspectives, synthesis of relevant sources, explicit linkage of evidence to claims, and a sufficiently detailed resolution that fully addresses the research question.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/summary-of-scoring-approaches-for-the-individual-written-argument/436936/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/summary-of-scoring-approaches-for-the-individual-written-argument/436936.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"RuangKosong","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-08","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How do the criteria judge whether stimulus materials are used in the argument?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"They look for whether a stimulus material is actually referenced and whether removing the part that references it weakens or changes the argument. Scoring ranges from no meaningful link (Zero) to high integration where stimulus evidence and connecting themes are clearly related.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What makes context strong in the scoring rubric?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Strong context explains why the research question matters and provides specific, relevant details. Scoring increases from vague or missing context (Low) to clear significance supported by specific information about area, stakeholders, timing, location, and importance (High).",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is required for evidence to receive a high score?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Evidence should be clearly relevant and synthesized to develop and support the argument. High performance includes a range of sources across perspectives and types, with mainly high quality, and avoids evidence that dominates without integration or relevance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},436936,1791180938,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,99,104,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":30,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":110},962090883219,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Summary of Scoring Approaches for the Individual Written Argument  \n\n| Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| What to look for | Where? |\n| 1. Is one of the stimulus materials actually used in the argument?(If you remove the part that references the stimulus material does it weaken or change the argument?)\u003Cbr>2. Is it related to a theme from the stimulus materials (connecting two)? | Usually somewhere in the first few paragraphs introducing context. |\n| Zero: Link to stimulus materials spurious or extremely tenuous. No relationship to connecting theme at all.\u003Cbr>Low: Link to stimulus material is tangential (not spurious but not convincing either) . Some theme relating to stimulus materials can be inferred with difficulty.\u003Cbr>Medium: Stimulus material is discussed but is like an “add on” or jumping off point (could be removed from the response and the argument not be weakened as a result) . Can reasonably infer a connection to a theme in the sources.\u003Cbr>High: Stimulus material is integrated into the argument (e.g., as evidence, counterargument, integral to context) . There is a clear relationship to a connecting theme (this can also be seen if there is integration of two stimulus material sources into the argument) . |  |\n| Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context |  |\n| What to look for | Where? |\n| 1. Does it make clear why the research question matters?\u003Cbr>2. Are specific and relevant details provided?\u003Cbr>Typically context includes: what the area of inquiry is, who the major voices/stakeholders are in the debate, when it began, where it is an issue, and why it is important/significant. | Usually first few paragraphs. |\n| Zero: If no problem, issue or question is identified (without, there is nothing to put in context) .\u003Cbr>Low: Very broad or vague context/research question (which doesn’t lend itself to evidence-based argument) . May make huge assumptions about why the question is important.\u003Cbr>Medium: General or simplistic, some context provided but it lacks the specifics to make the significance clear.\u003Cbr>High: Significance of research question is made very clear by providing specific information about the context. |  |\n| Row 3: Understand and Analyze Perspective |  |\n| What to look for | Where? |\n| 1. Does the response address the complexity of the problem (through engaging with more than one perspective)?\u003Cbr>2. Does it compare perspectives or does it put them it conversation with one another? | Throughout. |\n| Zero: If no problem, issue or question is identified (without, there is nothing to have a perspective on) . Low: Lists or makes reference to more than one perspective (doesn’t compare them), no interaction. Problem is presented simplistically.\u003Cbr>Medium: Compares perspectives, may oversimplify them or make general comparisons.\u003Cbr>High: Draws connections between perspectives, puts them in conversation with each other. |  |\n\n\n| Row 4: Select and Use Evidence |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| What to look for | Where? |\n| 1. Is the evidence clearly relevant and brought together to develop and support the argument?\u003Cbr>2. Does it include a range of sources (in terms of variety of perspective or type) and is the quality mainly high? | Throughout, where evidence is deployed. Bibliography or Works Cited. |\n| Low: No academic or scholarly sources. Information is not used to support an argument.\u003Cbr>Medium: Evidence used to develop and support argument (but may be inconsistent in its relevance or not well integrated) . Sources are varied in type and quality. Evidence may dominate or drive the response.\u003Cbr>High: Relevant evidence synthesized to develop and support the argument. Sources are from a variety of perspectives and include scholarly sources. |  |\n| Row 5: Establish Argument |  |\n| What to look for | Where? |\n| 1. Is the argument logically organized? And well-reasoned?\u003Cbr>2. Does the commentary fully explain how the evidence supports claims? | Overall paragraph structure.\u003Cbr>Often at the end of paragraphs and / or i","cbCaip2pZWHDSnBR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaip2pZWHDSnBR","pdf",108115,"English","# Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Zero to High\n# Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Zero to High\n# Row 3: Understand and Analyze Perspective\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Zero to High\n# Row 4: Select and Use Evidence\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Low to High\n# Row 5: Establish Argument\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Low to High\n# Row 6: Establish Argument\n## What to look for\n## Scoring levels: Low to High\n# Row 7: Understand and Analyze Argument\n## What to look for","[{\"question\":\"How do the criteria judge whether stimulus materials are used in the argument?\",\"answer\":\"They look for whether a stimulus material is actually referenced and whether removing the part that references it weakens or changes the argument. Scoring ranges from no meaningful link (Zero) to high integration where stimulus evidence and connecting themes are clearly related.\"},{\"question\":\"What makes context strong in the scoring rubric?\",\"answer\":\"Strong context explains why the research question matters and provides specific, relevant details. Scoring increases from vague or missing context (Low) to clear significance supported by specific information about area, stakeholders, timing, location, and importance (High).\"},{\"question\":\"What is required for evidence to receive a high score?\",\"answer\":\"Evidence should be clearly relevant and synthesized to develop and support the argument. High performance includes a range of sources across perspectives and types, with mainly high quality, and avoids evidence that dominates without integration or relevance.\"}]","Summary of Scoring Approaches for the Individual Written Argument | PDF",1790679505]