Argument-

Centered
Component 2 4 6 8 10

Fully sufficient reference to speific

Numerous references to specific details from the novel -- strong
Some reference to specific plot and character details -- basic indication of understanding of the Expert and creative use of the
content details and narrative in ability to put references to the overall narrative and plot of the details and overall understanding
the novel, but no clear indication novel into their proper context -- novel, in addition to its specific of the novel and all of its major
of understanding, overall -- some facility with most of these details and characterization -- elements: character, plot, details,
Very little if any reference to signficant vagueness and limited elements from the novel: command of the novel and ability narrative -- imaginative and
Specific Content specific details and context from ability to put characters, plot, characters, plot, details, and to put discussion of the novel in a insightful reading of the novel and
Knowledge the texts details, and narrative into context narrative clear and precise context use of it in argumentation

Argumentative claims are clear Argumentative claims are clear

---- Argumentative claims mainly Argumentative claims fully clear ---- Argumentative claims
Argumentative claims somewhat separated, focused, and coherent, ---- Argumentative claims well flawlessly separated, focused, and
Argumentative claims unclear and unclear, slightly unfocused ---- but with some flaws present ---- organized, separated, focused, coherent ---- Argumentation
unfocused ---- Argumentation Argumentation sometimes Argumentation mostly but not and coherent ---- not only consistent, but also
Argumentative Claims shifting and utterly inconsistent inconsistent or irrelevant always consistent Argumentation fully consistent especially insightful and creative

All arguments supported by Evidence and reasoning very

Very little if any evidence and
reasoning used at all ---- No
demonstrated understanding of
the role of evidence and
reasoning in argument ---- No
Evidence and reference to other teams'
Reasoning evidence
evidence and strong reasoning precisely supportive of each
Some limited use of evidence and Most arguments supported with ---- Evidence is aligned with argumentative claim ----
reasoning ---- Partial evidence and solid reasoining ---- claims, though not always Evidence contains or is
understanding of the role of Basic understanding of the role perfectly ---- Sometimes not supplemented by highly
evidence and reasoning in of evidence and reasoning ---- properly formatted ---- Some persuasive warrants ----
argument ---- Evidence lacking Evidence has some warrants and examples of especially persuasive Evidence properly formatted ----
in warrants and credibilty some credibility reasoning Evidence highly credible

Some limited and Most arguments are responded High-level counter-arguments

Very little if any refutatation of
counter-arguments ---- Almost
or actually no engagement at all
with other views ---- No
Refutation evidence of crtical thinking
incomprehensive refutation of
counter-arguments ----
Refutation often indirect ----
Not much depth of critical
thinking
to, often partially refuted ----
Refutation sometimes direct,
sometimes indirect ----
Refutation has signs of critical
thinking depth
Basically comprehensive
refutation of counter-arguments
---- Refutation mostly direct
---- Solid, engaged level of
critical thinking
responded to or refuted ----
Refutation both very direct and
very comprehensive ----
Advanced critical thinking leading
to persuasive refutation