Skip to main content
iRubric: AP Synthesis Rubric

iRubric: AP Synthesis Rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
AP Synthesis Rubric 
AP Synthesis Rubric
This rubric is designed so that individual pieces of the essay can be graded seperately. Essays or individual categories that are blank, off-topic, or illegible will receieve a 0 score.
Rubric Code: S3C3B4
By jacobsonm
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: English  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: (none)

Powered by iRubric AP Argument Rubric
Write an essay that defends, challenges or qualifies the position. Support your argument with appropriate evidence from your reading, observation, or experience.
  Extra Effective

100/50/25

9 pts

Effective

96/48/24

8 pts

Less Effective but More Than Adequa

92/46/23

7 pts

Adequate

86/43/21

6 pts

Less Adequate

78/39/19

5 pts

Indequate

72/36/18

4 pts

Less Inadequate

64/32/16

3 pts

Little Success

60/30/15

2 pts

Simplistic/Very weak!

50/25/12

1 pts

Overall
9 pts

This will be determined based on the average score of individual grading categories, regardless of how many categories are graded. This may also be used as an overall essay grade when individual categories are not used.
Extra Effective

Sophisticated in argument through their development, or particularly impressive in their control of language.
Effective

Effectively defend, challenge or qualify. The evidence and explanations are appropriate and convincing. The prose demonstrates a consistent ability to control a wide range of elements of effective writing
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Fit the description of a 6 but provide a more complete explanation, more thorough development, or a more mature prose style.
Adequate

Adequately defend, challenge or qualify. The evidence and explanations are appropirate and sufficient. The writing may contain lapses in dictio nor syntax but generally the prose is clear.
Less Adequate

Adequate position that defends, challenges or qualifies, but the evidence or explanations used may be unever, in consistent, or limited. The writing may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but it usually contains the author's ideas.
Indequate

Inadequately defends, challenges or qualifies. The evidence or explanations may be inappropriate, insufficient, or less convincing. The prose generally conveys the writers ideas but may be less consistent in controlling the elements of effective writing.
Less Inadequate

Demonstrate less success than a 4 in defending, challenging, or qualifying. The papers show less maturity in control of writing.
Little Success

Demonstrate little success in defending, challenging, or qualifying. These papers may misunderstand the prompt, or substitute a simple task by responding to the prompt tangentially with unrelated, inaccurate, or inappropriate explanation. The prose often demonstrates weaknesses in writing, such as grammatical problems, a lack of development or organization, or a lack of control.
Simplistic/Very weak!

Undeveloped, especially simplistic in their explanation and argument, or weak in their control of language.
Introduction
9 pts

Focus is on the introduction and/or narration pieces of the essay and understanding of prompt.
Extra Effective

Introduction is skillfully written to engage the audience and make them receptive. Prompt is clearly understood and addressed in a sophisticated manner. The thesis is well crafted, clearly stated, argumentative in nature, and clearly defends, challenges, or qualifies the issue at hand in a more complex and eloquent fashion than an 8 response. The issue is contextualized and the author explains why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Effective

Introduction is well written and engages the audience and makes them receptive. Prompt is clearly understood and addressed in an original manner. thesis is well crafted, clearly stated, argumentative in nature, and clearly defends, challenges, or qualifies the issue at hand, doing justice to the complexity of the issue. The issue is contextualized and the author explains why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Introduction is well written and engages the audience and attempts to make them receptive. Prompt is clearly understood and addressed. The central claim is well-written and clearly takes a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the issue at hand. The issue is somewhat contextualized and the author explains why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Adequate

Introduction attempts to engage the audience and/or make them receptive. Prompt is mostly understood and addressed. The central claim takes a positition that defends, challenges, or qualifies the issue at hand but may awkward ornot complex. The issue is somewhat contextualized. The author does not explain why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Less Adequate

Introduction makes a limited attempt at engaging the audience in some fashion. Prompt is understood somewhat but may not be fully addressed. The central claim takes a position that either defends, challenges, or qualifies an issue but is slightly off topic, awkwardly cponstructed, or unclear. Either the issue is barrely contextualized or the author fails to explain why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Indequate

Attempt to engage the audience awkward or vague. Prompt is somewhat misunderstood but partially addressed. The central claim is inappropriate, weak, or unclear. The issue is not contextualized and the author does not explain why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Less Inadequate

Little or no attempt to engage the audience. An attempt to address the prompt is made but it is clearly misunderstood. Their is an attempt at a central claim but it is unclear or weakly constructed. The issue is not contextualized and the author does not explain why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Little Success

No attempt to engage the audience. The prompt is completely misunderstood and/or not addressed. the central claim is not argumentatively based and does to defend, challenge, or qualify any issue. The issue is not contextualized and the author does not explain why educated, informed citzens should read on.
Simplistic/Very weak!

Makes not attempt to engage the audience, or engages an inapproriate audience. Prompt is not addressed at all, demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of expectations. There is not central claim.
Organization, Diction and Syntax
9 pts

Focus is on language choice, usage, grammar, and mechanics.
Extra Effective

Clearly and artfully ordered. Rich and substantive sentence construction that is more sophisticated than a score of 8. Variety of diction and syntax enhances style and effect. Rich, effective vocabulary. No errors in structure, usage, or mechanics
Effective

Organization enhances meaning. Rich and substantive sentence construction. Variety of diction and syntax enhances style and effect. Rich, effective vocabulary. Few or no errors in structure, usage, or mechanics
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Clearly focused and skillful development of ideas. Sophisticated sentence patterns. Appropriate variety of diction and syntax. Generally uses rich, effective vocabulary. Limited errors in structure, usage, or mechanics
Adequate

Mostly focused. Development of ideas is effective. Attempts sophisticated language and varied sentence patterns. Consitent use of good vocabualry. Some errors in either structure, usage, or mechanics
Less Adequate

Somewhat focused. Development of ideas is somewhat effective. Some sentence variety. Acceptable vocabulay. Some errors in structure, usage, or mechanics.
Indequate

Inconsistent focus. Development of ideas is somewhat ineffective. Limited sentence variety and/or simple vocabulary. Errors in structure, usage, or mechanics start to interfere with meaning.
Less Inadequate

Limited or no focus. Development of ideas is ineffective. Relies on simple sentence patterns. Repetitive structure or awkward syntax. Errors in structure, usage, and/or mechanics effect meaning.
Little Success

Clearly unorganized. Simple vocabulary. Frequently uses the wrong word choice. Construction of sentences or paragraphs is illogical. Errors in structure, usage, and/or mechanics severely impact meaning.
Simplistic/Very weak!

Errors in usage, mechanics, and structure are so severe that almost no meaning is discerned. Completely illogical.
Synthesis/Analysis
9 pts

Focus is on how well the three given sources were incorporated into the essay.
Extra Effective

Does everything an 8 does but in a more eloquent, sophisticated manner.
Effective

Goes beyond general commentary, referring to the texts, explicitly or implicitly, offers specifc details (blending quotes where appropriate) to support their analyses; offers compelling connections between techniques and effect. Forges connections between the writer's position and that of the author of the source. Sources are properly cited. Writer enter's into conversation with the source materials.
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Goes beyond general commentary, referring to the texts, explicitly or implicitly, offers specifc details (blending quotes where appropriate) to support their analyses; offers connections between techniques and effect. Forges connections between the writer's position and that of the author of the source. Sources are properly cited.
Adequate

These essays contain all the qualities of a 5 but may be more artfully crafted or more complex. However, they do not quite meet the requirements for a 7.
Less Adequate

Source material is quoted and commented on briefly in order to connect the material to their thesis. There are links between their own positions and those represented by the sources, but links are either very literal or strained. Most source material is cited properly.
Indequate

These essays meet all of the requirements of a 3, but may contain better synthesis, more analysis, or better understanding of sources. However, they are not quite at the level of a 5.
Less Inadequate

Synthesis is limited. Author does not use at least three sources. Sources are misused or misunderstood. Little or no credit is given to source material. Little or no explanation of sources or commentary.
Little Success

Synthesis is seriously limited or flawed. Author does not use at least three sources. Sources are significantly misused or misunderstood. No credit is given to source material. Little or no commentary.
Simplistic/Very weak!

No synthesis incorporated. Author does not use the source material at all.
Development of Argument
9 pts

Focus is on the development of the argument- the warrants, backing, evidence, and conditions of rebuttal.
Extra Effective

Warrants and backings are eloquently considered. Conditions of rebuttal show keen insight and eloquently contribute to the persuasiveness of the argument. Argument is fully developed and is overwhelmingly effective at supporting the central claim.
Effective

Warrants and backings are effectively considered. Conditions of rebuttal show keen insight and contribute to the persuasiveness of the argument. Argument is fully developed and very effective at supporting the central claim.
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Warrants and backings are clearly considered. Conditions of rebuttal contribute to the persuasiveness of the argument. Argument effectively supports the central claim.
Adequate

There is some evidence of warrants and backings. Conditions of rebuttal are limited. Argument does a fairly good job supporting the central claim.
Less Adequate

Argument is insufficiently developed and does little to support the claim. Warrants are missing backing when needed and/or warrants are not addressed when necessary. Opposing perspectives are rarely considered.
Indequate

Argument is flawed or illogical. Warrants are wrong or missing when needed. Opposing perspectives are overly simplistic or wrong, if present.
Less Inadequate

Argument is not developed. Does not stay on topic in relation to the central claim. No warrants, backing, or conditions of rebuttal.
Little Success

Argument is not developed. Claim is not supported. No warrants or backing. No conditions of rebuttal.
Simplistic/Very weak!

Reads more like a report than an argument. There is no effort to support the central claim.
Conclusion
9 pts

Focus is on the concluding paragraph and its tie back to the thesis.
Extra Effective

Makes a sophisticated and eloquent summary of the arguments. Arouses sympathy for the topic and motivates the audience to action. Effectively enhances ethos and makes use of emotional appeals.
Effective

Makes a sophisticated summary of the arguments. Arouses sympathy for the topic and motivates the audience to action. Effectively ehances ethos and makes use of emotional appeals.
Less Effective but More Than Adequa

Clearly summarizes the arguments. Attempts to arouse sympathy for the topic and motivate the audience to action. Attempts to ehance ethos and makes use of emotional appeals.
Adequate

Clearly summarizes the arguments and reinforces the thesis. Motivates the audience to action. Makes a limited attempt to ehance ethos and/or make use of emotional appeals.
Less Adequate

Summary of the arguments and thesis is somewhat clear. Attempts to appeal to the audience either by calling them to action, appealing to ethos, or appealing to pathos.
Indequate

Summary of the arguments is limited. Awkward tie back to thesis. Ineffective attempt to appeal to audience in any fashion.
Less Inadequate

Summary of the arguments is unclear. Conclusion is awkwardly organized. Tie back to thesis is awkward or unclear. Too wordy. Off topic.
Little Success

No summary of arguments. Tie back to thesis is not clear. Does not wrap the essay up.
Simplistic/Very weak!

Simple restatement of thesis. No summary of arguments.




Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n60