Stage 9

Check Your Commentary

You have a draft. Now mark it yourself before anyone else does. For each criterion, read across the row and find the level that best matches your work right now.

Work through all five criteria. Be honest: the point is to find the gaps while you still have time to fix them, not to feel good about where you are. If you are between two levels, you are at the lower one. Click the circle in the row that matches your work to select your mark.

A: Diagrams (out of 3)

Mark	Descriptor	What this looks like in practice
0	Diagrams are irrelevant to the article, or explanations contradict the diagrams.	No diagram is included, or the diagrams have no connection to the article, or your text says the opposite of what your diagram shows.
1	A relevant diagram is included but explanation is missing or incorrect.	You have a relevant diagram but explanations are missing, incorrect, or refer to labels that are not on the diagram. Descriptions are muddled (e.g. confusing MSB and MSC).
2	At least one relevant, correctly labelled diagram with some explanation.	You have a relevant diagram or two that is correctly labelled and you provide some explanation of what it shows. But the explanation uses textbook language without connecting to the article, or you included only one diagram when the article warrants more, or you included diagrams the article does not support, or some claims in your explanation have no basis in the article.
3	Diagrams are relevant, specifically labelled, and fully explained in the context of the article.	Diagram(s) are relevant to your article and cover two issues if the article warrants it. Axes and curves are labelled with the specific product and context from the article, using actual prices or values where given. Each diagram is fully explained in text: what the curves represent, what the shift shows, and how it connects to what the article describes.

B: Terminology (out of 2)

This criterion does not require definitions. You do not need to define terms. A paragraph of definitions wastes your word count and earns nothing.

Mark	Descriptor	What this looks like in practice
0	No relevant economic terminology used, or use is entirely incorrect.	No relevant economic terminology appears in the commentary, or every term used is incorrect. This is rare.
1	Some relevant economic terms included but use is inconsistent or incorrect.	You include some relevant terms. But you use incorrect terms (e.g. "devaluation" when you mean "depreciation," or "overproduction" when the issue is overconsumption), or you front-load all terminology into a definitions paragraph instead of using terms throughout, or you use acronyms without ever writing the full term.
2	Relevant economic terms used correctly throughout the commentary.	You use relevant terms throughout the commentary, not just the opening paragraph, and use them correctly. Terms are applied naturally in your analysis in relation to the article. You show you understand the terms by the way you deploy them.

C: Application and Analysis (out of 3)

This is where most students lose marks they could have earned. The difference between 2 and 3 is not about knowing more economics. It is about connecting your economics to the article.

Mark	Descriptor	What this looks like in practice
0	No relevant economic theory applied.	The commentary applies no economic theory. It may summarise the article but uses no analytical framework.
1	Some relevant theory applied but analysis is mostly descriptive.	You apply some relevant theory, but the analysis mostly restates what the article says rather than applying theory to it. There are significant errors in the theory applied, or entire paragraphs have no connection to the article.
2	Relevant theory applied throughout but analysis is generic rather than article-specific.	You apply relevant theory and it is theoretically correct throughout. But parts of the analysis could be copied into a commentary on a different article on the same topic. Paragraphs read like a textbook essay without referencing article specifics. Or you use "will" for outcomes that are uncertain, rather than "may" or "could."
3	Theory applied throughout, driven by specific data, quotes, and facts from the article.	You apply relevant theory throughout and use specific data, figures, quotes, and facts from the article to drive analysis. When you explain a shift, a surplus, or a welfare loss, it ties to something the article actually says. Your analysis would not make sense without the article.

D: Key Concept (out of 3)

The nine key concepts: scarcity, choice, efficiency, equity, economic well-being, sustainability, change, interdependence, intervention. You must use one of these. Each concept can only be used once across your three commentaries.

Mark	Descriptor	What this looks like in practice
0	Concept is not one of the nine, only on the coversheet, explained incorrectly, or already used in another commentary.	Your concept is not one of the nine listed above. Or it only appears on the coversheet and nowhere in your writing. Or you explain "sustainability" in a non-economic sense. Or you have used this concept in a different commentary.
1	Valid concept identified with some attempt to connect it to the article.	You identify one of the nine concepts and make some attempt to connect it to the article. But the link is vague or barely developed. The concept is named but not meaningfully explored in relation to the article.
2	Valid concept identified and linked to the article in some parts of the commentary.	You identify a valid concept and explain the link in at least some parts. But the link is not sustained throughout. Or the explanation relies on assumptions rather than article content. Or you use the concept as a label, bolding the word repeatedly, without explaining why the specific policy in the article is an example of it.
3	Key concept genuinely integrated throughout with specific article connections at multiple points.	You chose a concept that fits the article and refer to it at multiple points throughout, not just at the start and end. Each time you use the concept, you explain how it connects to something specific in the article. You show you understand the concept in its economic sense.

E: Evaluation (out of 3)

Evaluation is not a conclusion that summarises your analysis. It is a judgment: is this policy effective? For whom? Under what conditions? What are the trade-offs?

Mark	Descriptor	What this looks like in practice
0	No attempt at evaluation.	There is no evaluative content in the commentary. The final section is a summary of your analysis with no judgments made.
1	Some attempt at evaluation but judgments are mostly unsupported.	You make some attempt at evaluation, but judgments are mostly unsupported. The evaluation reads like a summary rather than a judgment. Alternatives or opinions are offered with no basis in the article.
2	Judgments with some reasoning but lacking article connection, balance, or independence.	You make judgments supported by some reasoning. But reasoning is theoretical with little connection to the article, or evaluation is one-sided, or you include unsupported personal opinions, or policy suggestions not mentioned in the article, or you restate the article author's own evaluation rather than developing your own.
3	Supported judgments from multiple perspectives, synthesised into a reasoned conclusion.	You make judgments about significance, effectiveness, or trade-offs and support every judgment with evidence from the article. You consider multiple angles: short-run vs. long-run, different stakeholders, or conditions under which the outcome changes. The evaluation is balanced: it does not reach an entirely positive or entirely negative verdict. Your conclusion synthesises into a reasoned overall judgment, not a summary of what you already said.

Your score

A: - B: - C: - D: - E: -

- / 14

Select a mark for each criterion above to see your total.

Next: Submitting It →