(4) Clear, crisp, focused, interesting; well written and well organized; motivated the problem; explains and clarifies the problem very effectively; lays the problem out quickly in an original, interesting, and imaginative way; shows that the problem is compelling; sums up a grand, important position in coachable terms; positions the discussion in relation to other work that has been done on the topic; specifies what the points are going to be advanced; provides an indication of the strategy; provides guidance on the structure of what is to come; discusses how the different parts of the dissertation contribute to the treatment of the problem; provides a complete answer to the “So what?” question.(3) Comprehensive but not exhaustive; reasonably succinct; reasonably well written; very clear; provides a novel and original statement of the problem; covers all the bases; provides a good sense of where the discussion is going; has a good road map of the problem space and of the major components.(2) Provides an off-the-shelf characterization of an established, usually small problem; a little turgid; student is unable to clearly distinguish between a couple of different problems; gives the reader a sense of where the discussion is going; shows appreciation for the issues; makes a small point that is vague or imprecise.(1) Not clear or succinct; question is ambiguous or not understandable; student misunderstands or misrepresents the problem; does not clarify the problem.


    (4) Clear, crisp, lucid; original, imaginative, and thorough coverage and review of the literature; runs through the entire discussion; shows sweeping grasp of the literature, including things that might not be obviously relevant at first; shows good judgment; not comprehensive, rather identifies the most appropriate.(3) Comprehensive but not exhaustive; reasonably succinct; laid out for easy comprehension; literature; may have missed an important argument in an article; may not have taken into account other things that people have been saying.(2) Workmanlike; lacks original insight; student read and basically understands the right texts; omits some important literature that is not particularly interesting or worthwhile; does not quite get the most interesting insight or perspective on a particular part of the relevant literature; treats the literature uncharitably; problems with arguments and interpretations throughout; critiques are easy or pointless.(1) Student reads the right literature but does not understand or address something important; gets the literature; provides caricature versions of important philosophers or texts; does not call upon primary sources completely or adequately; relies on secondary sources.
    *Note
    • Upper primary : 10 journals
    • Secondary : 20 journals
    • IGCSE and A Level : 30 journals


    (4) Very well done; has a developed, mature distinct voice and point of view; student has arrived at own positions; develops the arguments in defense of the thesis; presents effective convincing arguments that have not been made before; shows where student’s positions differ from the standard and what is new; makes interesting points; demonstrated that seemingly implausible points are plausible; presents a serious new argument as a dialectic.(3) Not quite as clear; the whole structure does not progress with the same kind of clarity, rigor, and fullness.(2) Well-developed but not interesting; does not make all arguments needed to deal with the problems for the thesis and then does not consider some of the plausible objections.(1) Unclear; not well articulated; has mistakes in logic; not clear what is being argued or how the pieces fit together; make claims that are not particularly plausible and does not provide adequate support for them; leaves claims hanging; examples are not relevant; the conclusions does not follow from the argument.


    (4) Exhibits a degree of sophistication in dealing with particular objections and in understanding what it is to object and respond appropriately; shows a good sense of how to weigh objections and responses; raises potential objections, responds to them and sets parameters for what is reasonable to consider; takes n really big objections and gives plausible responses to them; is alert to the objections in the literature and makes the stronger; impressively answers seemingly unanswerable objections; turns up something deep and important.(3) Gets most of the objections; has something reasonable to say about most of them; says something that balances the scales against objection.(2) Workmanlike; misses some objections that the student should have seen; does not fully answer the objections answers are not convincing.(1) Students is unaware of obvious objections; does not see potential objections; does not understand the objections, responses to the objections raises additional objections; the student thinks he or she has answered an objection but has not; has nothing to say about objections; cannot see what another person would argue or what anyone could possibly say against the position; cannot imagine anyone disagreeing.


    (4) Sums up what has been done and what it means; proves the point; arrives at some interesting, novel, and important conclusions; the conclusions are clear; identifies the contribution; identifies questions that need to be raised; discusses next steps; open up whole new set of issues.(3)Interesting but is not quite as interesting or important; well stated; well developed, shows how it relates to the argument; is not going to change the literature or affect the field significantly.(2) Mildly interesting; follows from the argument; restates what has been accomplished but is a little muddy; does not place the summary into a larger context or meaning; does not identify the next steps.(1) Uninteresting; very short; not well done or well-articulated; just a summary; student claims to have accomplished all kinds of things that were not accomplished.