In this rubric Table of contents
New York State Regents Argumentative Writing Rubric
Key Points
- This rubric guides assessment of argumentative essays on the NY Regents ELA exam
- It evaluates four main criteria: content/analysis, evidence, organization, and conventions
- It uses a 1-6 scoring scale with detailed performance descriptors
- It specifically focuses on argument writing using multiple sources
Full Rubric
| Score | Content and Analysis | Command of Evidence | Coherence, Organization, and Style | Control of Conventions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | - Introduce precise and insightful claim - Demonstrate in-depth analysis of texts | - Present ideas fully and thoughtfully - Use wide range of specific evidence | - Exhibit skillful organization - Use sophisticated language | - Control conventions with essentially no errors |
| 5 | - Introduce precise and thoughtful claim - Demonstrate thorough analysis | - Present ideas clearly and accurately - Use effective specific evidence | - Exhibit logical organization - Use fluent and precise language | - Control conventions with occasional errors |
| 4 | - Introduce precise claim - Demonstrate appropriate analysis | - Present ideas sufficiently - Use adequate specific evidence | - Exhibit acceptable organization - Use precise language | - Demonstrate partial control |
| 3 | - Introduce reasonable claim - Demonstrate some analysis | - Present ideas briefly - Use some relevant evidence | - Exhibit some organization - Use primarily basic language | - Demonstrate emerging control |
| 2 | - Introduce claim - Demonstrate confused analysis | - Present ideas inconsistently - Use irrelevant evidence | - Exhibit inconsistent organization - Use inappropriate language | - Demonstrate lack of control |
| 1 | - Do not introduce claim - Do not demonstrate analysis | - Present little or no evidence | - Exhibit little organization - Use incoherent language | - Are minimal |
Detailed Rubric Breakdown
Content and Analysis
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 6 | - Introduce precise and insightful claim as directed by task - Demonstrate in-depth analysis to distinguish from alternate claims |
| 5 | - Introduce precise and thoughtful claim - Demonstrate thorough analysis to distinguish from alternate claims |
| 4 | - Introduce precise claim - Demonstrate appropriate analysis to distinguish from alternate claims |
| 3 | - Introduce reasonable claim - Demonstrate some analysis but insufficiently distinguish from alternate claims |
| 2 | - Introduce claim - Demonstrate confused analysis failing to distinguish from alternate claims |
| 1 | - Do not introduce claim - Do not demonstrate analysis of texts |
Command of Evidence
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 6 | - Present ideas fully with highly effective evidence - Demonstrate proper citation of sources |
| 5 | - Present ideas clearly with effective evidence - Demonstrate proper citation |
| 4 | - Present ideas sufficiently with adequate evidence - Demonstrate proper citation |
| 3 | - Present ideas briefly with some evidence - Demonstrate inconsistent citation |
| 2 | - Present ideas inconsistently with irrelevant evidence - Demonstrate little use of citations |
| 1 | - Present little or no evidence - Do not make use of citations |
Coherence, Organization, and Style
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 6 | - Exhibit skillful organization - Use sophisticated language and structure |
| 5 | - Exhibit logical organization - Use fluent and precise language |
| 4 | - Exhibit acceptable organization - Use precise and appropriate language |
| 3 | - Exhibit some organization - Use primarily basic language |
| 2 | - Exhibit inconsistent organization - Lack formal style |
| 1 | - Exhibit little organization - Use predominantly incoherent language |
Control of Conventions
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 6 | - Demonstrate control with essentially no errors |
| 5 | - Demonstrate control with occasional errors only |
| 4 | - Demonstrate partial control with occasional errors |
| 3 | - Demonstrate emerging control with errors |
| 2 | - Demonstrate lack of control with frequent errors |
| 1 | - Are minimal, making assessment unreliable |
How to Use This Rubric
For Teachers: Use to assess students’ argumentative writing skills and their ability to effectively use source materials.
For Students: Use as a guide when writing arguments. Ensure you address all four criteria for comprehensive argumentative writing.
For Test Prep: Understand expectations for each score level to target improvements.
Tips for Success in Regents Argument Writing
Strong Claim: Develop a precise, insightful claim that addresses the task.
Evidence Integration: Support arguments with specific evidence from provided texts.
Clear Organization: Create a cohesive essay with logical progression of ideas.
Sophisticated Style: Use formal language and varied sentence structure.
Source Citation: Properly cite sources to avoid plagiarism.
Counter-Arguments: Address and distinguish from alternate or opposing claims.
Proper Conventions: Maintain control of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Important Notes
- Essays addressing fewer texts than required score no higher than 3
- Personal responses with minimal text reference score no higher than 1
- Completely copied responses receive a 0
- Responses unrelated to task/illegible receive a 0
Regular practice with this rubric will help students develop strong argumentative writing skills for the Regents exam. Remember to address all components and maintain focus on developing a well-supported argument using the provided sources.
Related content
New York State Regents ELA Rubrics
New York State Regents ELA examination rubrics with clear scoring guidelines. Grade student writing against the official rubric with CoGrader.
Score NY State ELA Essays Faster - Free Rubrics
All New York State ELA writing rubrics, easy to print. Grade student essays against the official rubric in minutes with AI. Free for teachers.
Score NY Grades 6-8 Writing Faster
New York State ELA writing rubrics for grades 6-8, easy to print. Grade student writing in minutes with AI scoring. Free for teachers.