For reference, here are the official score descriptions from The ACT Writing Test Scoring Rubric.
The writer generates an argument that critically engages with multiple perspectives on the given issue. The argument’s thesis reflects nuance and precision in thought and purpose. The argument establishes and uses an insightful context for analyzing the issue and its perspectives. The analysis examines implications, complexities and tensions, and/or underlying values and assumptions.
Development of ideas and support for claims deepen insight and broaden context. An integrated line of skillful reasoning and illustration effectively conveys the significance of the argument. Qualifications and complications enrich and bolster ideas and analysis.
The response shows a skillful organizational strategy. The response is unified by a controlling idea or purpose, and a logical progression of ideas increases the effectiveness of the writer’s argument. Transitions between and within paragraphs strengthen the relationships among ideas.
Language use strengthens the argument. Word choice is skillful and precise. Sentence structures are consistently varied and clear. Stylistic and register choices, including voice and tone, are strategic and effective. While a few minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics may be present, they do not impede understanding.
The writer generates an argument that productively engages with multiple perspectives on the given issue. The argument’s thesis reflects precision in thought and purpose. The argument establishes and uses a thoughtful context for analyzing the issue and its perspectives. The analysis addresses implications, complexities and tensions, and/or underlying values and assumptions.
Development of ideas and support for claims deepen understanding. A mostly integrated line of purposeful reasoning and illustration capably conveys the significance of the argument. Qualifications and complications enrich ideas and analysis.
The response shows a productive organizational strategy. The response is mostly unified by a controlling idea or purpose, and a logical sequencing of ideas contributes to the effectiveness of the argument. Transitions between and within paragraphs consistently clarify the relationships among ideas.
Language use supports the argument. Word choice is precise. Sentence structures are clear and often varied. Stylistic and register choices, including voice and tone, are purposeful and productive. While minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics may be present, they do not impede understanding.
The writer generates an argument that engages with multiple perspectives on the given issue. The argument’s thesis reflects clarity in thought and purpose. The argument establishes and uses a relevant context for analyzing the issue and its perspectives. The analysis recognizes implications, complexities and tensions, and/or underlying values and assumptions.
Development of ideas and support for claims clarify meaning and purpose. Lines of clear reasoning and illustration adequately convey the significance of the argument. Qualifications and complications extend ideas and analysis.
The response shows a clear organizational strategy. The overall shape of the response reflects an emerging controlling idea or purpose. Ideas are logically grouped and sequenced. Transitions between and within paragraphs clarify the relationships among ideas.
Language use conveys the argument clearly. Word choice is adequate and sometimes precise. Sentence structures are clear and show some variety. Stylistic and register choices, including voice and tone, are appropriate for the rhetorical purpose. While errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics are present, they rarely impede understanding.
The writer generates an argument that responds to multiple perspectives on the given issue. The argument’s thesis shows some clarity in thought and purpose. The argument establishes limited or tangential context for analyzing the issue and its perspectives. The analysis is simplistic or somewhat unclear.
Development of ideas and support for claims are mostly relevant but overly general or simplistic. Reasoning and illustration largely clarify the argument but may be somewhat repetitive or imprecise.
The response shows a basic organizational structure. The response largely coheres, with most ideas logically grouped. Transitions between and within paragraphs sometimes clarify the relationships among ideas.
Language use is basic and only somewhat clear. Word choice is general and occasionally imprecise. Sentence structures are usually clear but show little variety. Stylistic and register choices, including voice and tone, are not always appropriate for the rhetorical purpose. Distracting errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics may be present, but they generally do not impede understanding.
The writer generates an argument that weakly responds to multiple perspectives on the given issue. The argument’s thesis, if evident, shows little clarity in thought and purpose. Attempts at analysis are incomplete, largely irrelevant, or consist primarily of restating the issue and its perspectives.
Development of ideas and support for claims are weak, confused, or disjointed. Reasoning and illustration are inadequate, illogical, or circular, and fail to fully clarify the argument.
The response shows a rudimentary organizational structure. Grouping of ideas is inconsistent and often unclear. Transitions between and within paragraphs are misleading or poorly formed.
Language use is inconsistent and often unclear. Word choice is rudimentary and frequently imprecise. Sentence structures are sometimes unclear. Stylistic and register choices, including voice and tone, are inconsistent and not always appropriate for the rhetorical purpose. Distracting errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics are present, and they sometimes impede understanding.
The writer fails to generate an argument that responds intelligibly to the task. The writer’s intentions are difficult to discern. Attempts at analysis are unclear or irrelevant.
Ideas lack development, and claims lack support. Reasoning and illustration are unclear, incoherent, or largely absent.
The response does not show an organizational structure. There is little grouping of ideas. When present, transitional devices fail to connect ideas.
Language use fails to demonstrate skill in responding to the task. Word choice is imprecise and often difficult to understand. Sentence structures are often unclear. Stylistic and register choices are difficult to identify. Errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics are pervasive and often impede understanding.