What do the four criteria of the 6-point argument rubric reward, and how do you write toward a 5 or 6?
The argument rubric and scoring: the four criteria of the Part 2 6-point holistic rubric (Content and Analysis, Command of Evidence, Coherence/Organization/Style, Control of Conventions), what each rewards at the top bands, and what separates a 6 from a 4 and a 4 from a 2.
How the Regents Part 2 argument is scored: the four criteria of the 6-point holistic rubric (Content and Analysis, Command of Evidence, Coherence/Organization/Style, Control of Conventions), what each rewards at the top, and what separates a 6 from a 4 and analysis from summary.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this skill is asking
Part 2 is scored on a 6-point holistic rubric built from four criteria: Content and Analysis, Command of Evidence, Coherence, Organization, and Style, and Control of Conventions. Knowing what each criterion rewards (and what separates a 6 from a 4) lets you write toward the score instead of hoping for it. This page covers the four criteria, the top-band descriptors, and the recurring difference between bands: precision and analysis. The transferable skill is treating the rubric as a checklist of what raters look for and building those qualities in deliberately.
The four criteria
The rubric is holistic (one overall score), but it is built from four named criteria.
Because the score is holistic, you cannot ace one criterion and ignore the rest. A brilliant claim with no evidence, or strong evidence in a chaotic structure, both land in the middle. The top bands reward a response that is strong across all four.
What the top band rewards
The difference between a competent essay and a top one is consistent across criteria.
The single most common ceiling is summary. A response that accurately cites evidence but mostly restates the sources, with thin explanation, is the signature mid-band essay. The lift is always the same: add the analysis that explains how each piece of evidence supports the claim and why it matters.
Writing toward the score
Try this
Q1. What are the four criteria of the Part 2 rubric? [Recall]
- Cue. Content and Analysis, Command of Evidence, Coherence/Organization/Style, and Control of Conventions, scored holistically out of 6.
Q2. A response cites three texts accurately but mostly restates them. Which criterion is limited, and what one change raises it? [Short explanation]
- Cue. Content and Analysis (the summary ceiling). Add analysis: after each piece of evidence, explain how it supports the claim and why it matters, rather than paraphrasing the source.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of NYSED exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Regents ELA (Part 2, style)6 marksSource-based argument. Name the four criteria of the Part 2 rubric and state, for each, what distinguishes the top band from the middle. (Knowledge of the rubric; scored on the 6-point rubric.)Show worked answer →
The four criteria and the top-versus-middle distinction: (1) Content and Analysis: a 6 introduces a precise and insightful claim with in-depth analysis that distinguishes it from opposing claims, while a 4 has a clear but less precise claim and competent analysis; (2) Command of Evidence: a 6 makes highly effective use of specific, relevant evidence from several texts, while a 4 uses appropriate evidence less thoroughly; (3) Coherence, Organization, and Style: a 6 is logically organized in a sophisticated, formal style, while a 4 is clear but more ordinary; (4) Control of Conventions: a 6 has few or no errors, while a 4 shows occasional errors that do not hinder comprehension.
Markers score holistically across the criteria. The recurring lift from 4 to 6 is precision and depth: a sharper claim and analysis that explains rather than summarizes.
Regents ELA (Part 2, style)4 marksSource-based argument. A response cites accurate evidence from three texts but mostly restates what each text says with little explanation. Which criterion is most limited, and what one change would raise it? (Rescoped to a 4-mark diagnosis.)Show worked answer →
The most limited criterion is Content and Analysis (and, relatedly, Command of Evidence): accurate evidence that is restated rather than explained is the signature of a mid-band, summary-heavy response. The single change that raises it is adding analysis: after each piece of evidence, explain how it supports the claim and why it matters, rather than paraphrasing the source.
Markers reward evidence marshalled toward a point. Moving from "Text 2 says X, Text 3 says Y" to "X and Y both show that the claim holds because..." converts summary into analysis and lifts the score.
Related dot points
- Understanding the source-based argument: the Part 2 task (four texts on one issue, take a position, use at least three sources), how it differs from a personal-opinion essay, and what each line of the task directions requires.
What Part 2 of the Regents ELA exam asks: four texts on one issue, establish a precise claim, distinguish it from opposing claims, and use specific evidence from at least three of the texts. How the source-based argument differs from a personal-opinion essay, line by line through the task directions.
- Establishing a precise claim: writing a single, defensible claim that takes a clear position on the Part 2 issue, distinguishing a precise claim from a vague or two-sided one, and placing it so it controls the whole argument.
How to write a precise, defensible claim for the Regents Part 2 argument: taking a clear position on the issue, the difference between a precise claim and a vague or fence-sitting one, and placing the claim so it controls the whole essay. The Content and Analysis criterion rewards a precise and insightful claim.
- Integrating evidence from multiple sources: selecting specific and relevant evidence from at least three of the four texts, weaving it across paragraphs organized by reason rather than by source, and explaining how each piece supports the claim, as the Command of Evidence criterion requires.
How to integrate evidence from at least three Regents Part 2 sources: selecting specific and relevant evidence, organizing paragraphs by reason rather than by text, and weaving evidence from several sources into one point. The Command of Evidence criterion rewards highly effective use of specific evidence from multiple texts.
- Organizing the argument essay: a coherent structure for the Part 2 argument (introduction with claim, reason-based body paragraphs, a counterclaim paragraph, conclusion), using transitions and a formal style, as the Coherence, Organization, and Style criterion requires.
How to structure the Regents Part 2 argument: an introduction that states the claim, body paragraphs organized by reason, a counterclaim paragraph, and a conclusion, joined by transitions and written in a formal style. The Coherence, Organization, and Style criterion rewards logical organization and a formal voice.
- Understanding the scoring rubrics: how the two holistic essay rubrics work (Part 2 out of 6, Part 3 out of 4), the four shared criteria they both use, what holistic scoring means, and how to use the band language to lift a response.
How the two Regents ELA essay rubrics work: the Part 2 6-point and Part 3 4-point holistic rubrics, the four shared criteria (Content and Analysis, Command of Evidence, Coherence/Organization/Style, Control of Conventions), what holistic scoring means, and how to use the band language to raise a response.
Sources & how we know this
- Educator Guide to the Regents Examination in English Language Arts — NYSED (2025)
- Regents Examinations in English Language Arts — NYSED (2025)