Settling marks on two argumentative essays about authorial intention
Two scripts answer the same 250–300 word argumentative prompt: 'A poem means what its reader finds in it, not what its author intended. Argue.' The paper is marked out of 30: thesis and reasoning 10, textual evidence 8, organisation 6, language accuracy 6. Script A runs 292 words in five paragraphs, states a clear thesis, cites two lines from a prescribed poem, but paraphrases both quotations loosely and misattributes one of them. Script B runs 214 words in a single paragraph, has a sharper thesis and an original counter-argument, cites nothing, and contains twelve spelling and agreement errors. The first marker gives A 21 and B 20. The second marker wants to give B 23 because 'the thinking is better'. A senior examiner must settle the marks and write two comments of no more than 40 words each.
1. Mark both scripts against the four criteria and explain the divergence from the second marker.
Read the worked answer
Script A. Thesis and reasoning 8/10: clear position, but the argument stays at the level of assertion after the first paragraph. Textual evidence 5/8: two citations are a genuine strength, but loose paraphrase and a misattribution are accuracy faults inside this criterion. Organisation 5/6: five paragraphs, visible signposting. Language 5/6: occasional clumsiness, meaning never obscured. Total 23.
Script B. Thesis and reasoning 9/10: sharper, and the counter-argument is handled rather than dodged. Textual evidence 2/8: no quotation and no close reference; original reasoning cannot substitute for evidence when the criterion names evidence. Organisation 3/6: one paragraph, no progression markers. Language 3/6: twelve errors, some of them agreement faults that force re-reading. Total 17.
The second marker is rewarding quality of thought but entering it under evidence. Thinking belongs to the first criterion, where B already scores higher than A. Accepting 23 would pay B twice for the same strength and forgive the absence of the skill the task exists to test.
2. Script B is 36 words under the minimum. Where should the shortfall be penalised, and where must it not be?
Read the worked answer
Penalise once. The shortfall is visible as underdevelopment, so it belongs to organisation (no room for a second and third move) and is already reflected there. Charging it again under language would be double jeopardy: the twelve errors are counted for what they are, not for the fact that there are twelve of them in 214 words.
Nor should length be treated mechanically. Two hundred and fourteen words are enough for a complete argument at this level, so 'under length equals fail' is the wrong rule; the question is whether the argument is finished. B's is not, which is why organisation loses three points rather than one.
Symmetrically, A's misattributed quotation costs evidence marks, not language marks - attribution is not a grammar error. The moderation note should list each deduction against exactly one descriptor so the second examiner can audit the arithmetic.
3. Draft the two comments (maximum 40 words each) and state what each is designed to change.
Read the worked answer
To A: 'Your thesis is clear and your structure works. Check every quotation against the text before you use it: one attribution is wrong, and loose paraphrase weakens evidence that could be strong. Tighten the argument's middle.' What it changes: it protects the structural strength and redirects effort to verification and to the weak middle paragraph.
To B: 'The thinking is the best in the set, but an argument about a poem must quote the poem. Add two short quotations and a second paragraph, then proofread for agreement. That alone would raise this by several marks.' What it changes: it validates the reasoning so the candidate does not conclude that thinking is unrewarded, and converts the abstract advice 'use evidence' into two named actions.
Both comments name one strength and one actionable change, and both avoid marks arithmetic, which belongs to the sheet rather than the margin.