What was the Biggest turning point in US History? How would US History be different if one event didn’t happen? (Continuity and change) Use the following rubric to answer the question:
Reporting Category Scoring Criteria Decision Rules
A. THESIS/CLAIM
(0–1 pt)

1 pt.
Responds to the prompt with a
historically defensible thesis/claim that
establishes a line of reasoning.

To earn this point, the thesis must make a
claim that responds to the prompt, rather
than restating or rephrasing the prompt.
The thesis must consist of one or more
sentences located in one place, either in
the introduction or the conclusion.

B. CONTEXTUALIZATION
(0–1 pt)

1 pt.
Describes a broader historical context
relevant to the prompt.

To earn this point, the response must
describe broader historical events,
developments, or processes that occur
before, during, or continue after the time
frame of the prompt that are relevant to
the topic. This point is not awarded for
merely a phrase or a reference.

C. EVIDENCE
(0–2 pts)

1 pt.
Provides
specific
examples
of at least
two pieces
of evidence
relevant to
the topic of
the prompt.

OR 2 pts.
Supports an
argument in
response to the
prompt using at
least two pieces
of specific and
relevant evidence.

To earn one point, the response must
identify specific historical examples
relevant to the topic of the prompt.
To earn two points the response must use
specific historical evidence to support an
argument in response to the prompt.
Reporting Category Scoring Criteria Decision Rules
D. ANALYSIS AND
REASONING
(0–2 pts)

1 pt.
Uses
historical
reasoning
(e.g.
comparison,
causation,
CCOT) to
frame or
structure an
argument
that
addresses
the prompt.

OR 2 pts.
Demonstrates
a complex
understanding
of the historical
development that
is the focus of the
prompt through
sophisticated
argumentation
and/or effective
use of evidence.

To earn the first point, the response
must demonstrate the use of historical
reasoning to frame or structure an
argument, although the reasoning
might be uneven or imbalanced, or the
evidence may be overly general or lacking
specificity.
To earn the second point, the
response may demonstrate a complex
understanding through sophisticated
argumentation that is relevant to the
prompt. This may be done in a variety of
ways, such as:
§ Explaining multiple themes or
perspectives to explore complexity or
nuance; OR
§ Explaining multiple causes or effects,
multiple similarities or differences, or
multiple continuities or changes; OR
§ Explaining both cause and effect,
both similarity and difference, or both
continuity and change; OR
§ Explaining relevant and insightful
connections within and across
periods or geographical areas. These
connections should clearly relate to
an argument that responds to the
prompt.
A response may demonstrate a complex
or nuanced understanding through
effective use of evidence relevant to an
argument that addresses the prompt. This
may be done in a variety of ways, such as:
§ Explaining how multiple pieces of
specific and relevant evidence (at least
four) support a nuanced or complex
argument that responds to the prompt;
OR
§ Using evidence effectively to
demonstrate a sophisticated
understanding of different
perspectives relevant to the prompt.
This complex understanding must
be part of the argument and may be
demonstrated in any part of the response.
While it is not necessary for this complex
understanding to be woven throughout
the response, it must be more than merely
a phrase or reference.