| Class/Mark |
Relevance |
Strength of Argument |
Use of Evidence |
Presentation |
Research |
| First Class
70-100
|
Engaged with the question in a particularly focused and imaginative way. |
Perceptive; detailed; well-developed; thoroughly consistent; fully convincing. |
Full command of textual evidence; pertinent quotation. |
Imaginative and subtle use of language; excellent command of grammar, spelling, punctuation, paragraphing; full references and bibliography. |
Extensive and apposite, with evidence of critical engagement. |
| Upper Second
60-69 |
Clearly relevant to the question. |
A convincing case made, reflecting appreciation of important issues and concepts. |
Firm grasp on texts; argument usually supported by relevant quotation. |
Fluent style; grammatically correct, with accurate spelling and punctuation; full referencing and bibliography. |
Argument informed by use of appropriate secondary sources. |
| Lower Second
50-59 |
In the right area. |
On the right lines, with reasonable detail and consistency; tends to be more descriptive than analytical. |
Sound textual knowledge; argument usually supported by quotation, but evidence not always apposite or well integrated. |
Grammar and style competent although occasionally awkward; references and bibliography present. |
Evidence of further reading, although it may be indiscriminate or relied upon too heavily. |
| Third Class
40-49 |
Some attempt to answer the question, but notable irrelevancies. |
Superficial understanding and coverage of the subject; a rather unconvincing and confused argument. |
Weak grasp on texts; scanty or inappropriate use of supporting evidence. |
Stylistically clumsy; faulty grammar, spelling and punctuation; inadequate referencing. |
Elementary research only; contributes little to argument. |
| Fail (condonable)
35-39 |
Fails to address the question adequately. |
Confused and sometimes incoherent; unconvincing. |
Inadequate knowledge of texts; little or no supporting evidence offered. |
Rudimentary grammatical errors; absence of references or bibliography. |
Little or no evidence of further reading. |
| Fail (uncondonable)
0-34 |
Mostly or entirely irrelevant. |
No discernible argument. |
Evidence either missing or irrelevant. |
Largely incoherent or unreadable. |
Little or no evidence of further reading. Plagiarism. |