Name: Quantitative Reasoning Assessment Rubric—Question 1

Higher Order Skill / Not Attempted (0) / Emerging (1, 2)* / Developing (3, 4)* / Mastering (5, 6)*
Evaluating evidence provided
Identifying relevant evidence, evaluating evidence credibility, reliability, relevance.
Keep scores low for people that misunderstand what evidence says/can say.
Must deal with C, can’t get more than 1 if don’t do something with C, and can’t get more than 2 if don’t do it well (spirit of rubric, see developing).
OK eval is to see % of headaches stays stable across ages.
Good eval is to see % of headaches is stable, even though % of users is increasing with age.
Someone going straight to E is making a mistake, but ignoring E is not unreasonable. / Mentions 1 or 2 documents with:
no or wrong evaluation on both (1)
cursory–to-OK evaluation on C and no or flawed evaluation on the other (2) / Mentions 2 documents (one must be C) with:
cursory–to-OK evaluation on both (3)
or
more than 2 documents (one must be C) but evaluation is wrong on half or more (3)
Good evaluations on both documents (4)
or
more than 2 documents with OK-to-good evaluation on the majority (4) / Evaluation of C is good and evaluates two other documents with:
acceptable evaluations (5)
good evaluations (6)
Analysis/synthesis /conclusion
0 for not attempting a conclusion or for making a conclusion that isn't relevant to the question (eg. concluding on the chance that Sauer might be successful, ignoring the issues of whether or not it would make sense to be successful).
Trying to make a conclusion is a 1.
Disagreeing is automatically a 3.
0 on conclusion means 0 on acknowledging alternatives / Implies or directly incorrectly agrees that “banning aspartame would improve the health of the state’s citizens” with no evidence (1) or with evidence (2). / Implies or directly disagrees with Sauer, noting inconsistency of claim with data in doc C but reason is inaccurate/unclear or incomplete(3) or is good (4). / Says C doesn’t support claim and is clear about reason and uses F reasonably well (5). Satisfactorily uses conditional probability when discussing relationship between headaches and aspartame usage (6).
Presenting/”creating” evidence / Tries to reorganize information to new format but does so poorly (1). / Makes some reasonable effort to reorganize information but could do more/better (2) / Reorganizes information to create compelling graphs/tables (3)
Acknowledging alternatives to their conclusion
0 on conclusion means 0 on acknowledging alternatives
IF agree with Sauer, BUT question strength of evidence, 1.
IF agree with Sauer, BUT do better with evidence, 2.
Weak agreement should get credit for considering alternatives, documents A or F especially. / Mentions doc B without any analysis (1) or with incomplete analysis (2). / Mentions doc B but rejects b/c of n=1 and presence of many confounding variables. (3 is less complete analysis than 4) / Mentions B with good analysis and also brings in D (5) and notes it does not speak directly to the claim about banning aspartame (6)
Completeness
A 0 on conclusion and alternatives might get a slight “spirit of the rubric” bump. Must have made an effort to earn this, however. / Only makes conclusion about Sauer's claim, but uses no evidence beyond personal opinion (1)
or
only talks about evidence and not about the claim (1) / Deals with question about Sauer’s claim and with question about strengths and/or weaknesses (2). / Deals with Sauer’s claim, strengths and weaknesses, and is specific about strengths and/or weaknesses (3) mentions conditional probability in relationship between aspartame and headaches (4).
Mechanics/persuasiveness
Exhibiting facility with the English language, especially sentence structure and overall organization. / Distracting errors, poor sentence structure, poor organization (1). / Few errors, generally well-constructed sentences, fair-good organization (2).
/ Hardly any errors, good sentence structure, good overall organization (3).