Each “Analyze a quarrel” essay may be scored on a 6-point holistic scale according to your criteria below.

Each “Analyze a quarrel” essay may be scored on a 6-point holistic scale according to your criteria below.

A single combined score is reported because it is more reliable than either task score alone although the GRE ® Analytical Writing measure contains two discrete analytical writing tasks. The score reported will represent the common of this scores when it comes to two tasks.

Score of 6 Outstanding

A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique associated with the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A paper that is typical this category:

  • clearly identifies important top features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
  • develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically and connects them with clear transitions
  • effectively supports the primary points for the critique
  • demonstrates control of language, including word that is appropriate and sentence variety
  • demonstrates facility aided by the conventions (for example., grammar, usage and mechanics) of standard written English but may have errors that are minor

Score of 5 Strong

A 5 paper presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed critique associated with argument and conveys meaning clearly.

A paper that is typical this category:

  • clearly identifies important top features of the argument and analyzes them in a way that is generally perceptive
  • develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically and connects them with appropriate transitions
  • sensibly supports the primary points for the critique
  • demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
  • demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor errors

Score of 4 Adequate

A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and conveys meaning adequately.

A typical paper in this category:

  • identifies and analyzes important top features of the argument
  • develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily, but might not connect them with transitions
  • supports the key points associated with critique
  • Demonstrates control that is sufficient of to express ideas with reasonable clarity
  • generally demonstrates control over the conventions of standard written English, but may have some errors

Score of 3 Limited

A 3 paper demonstrates some competence with its critique of this argument as well as in conveying meaning, but is obviously flawed.

A paper that is typical this category exhibits a number of of this following characteristics:

    write my paper for me

  • will not identify or analyze a lot of the important features of the argument, while some analysis for the argument is present
  • mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly
  • is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
  • offers support of little relevance and value for points for the critique
  • lacks clarity in expressing ideas
  • contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that may interfere with meaning

Score of 2 Seriously Flawed

A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits a number of for the following characteristics:

  • will not present a critique predicated on logical analysis, but may instead present the writer’s own views on the subject
  • Does not develop ideas or is illogical and disorganized
  • provides little if any relevant or reasonable support
  • Has problems that are serious the usage of language plus in sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning
  • contains serious errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that frequently meaning that is obscure

Score of 1 Fundamentally Deficient

A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits a number of of the following characteristics:

  • provides little or no proof of the ability to understand and analyze the argument
  • provides little if any proof of the capacity to develop an organized response
  • Has problems that are severe language and sentence structure that persistently interfere with meaning
  • contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that end up in incoherence