Candidates who demonstrate most or all of the qualities required at a given level, and whose work successfully shows additional sophistication, ambition and/or willingness to take risks, may be awarded a mark in the higher category.

For example: A slight increase in avoidable errors expected at a given level may be offset by the successful demonstration of sophistication and ambition.

Scale	Mark 50%	Language: accuracy, range and sophistication	Mark 50%	Content/communication: scope of ideas / task understanding & fulfilment / clarity and coherence of structure
Excellent 1st	100(50) 94(47)	An exceptional piece of writing Virtually flawless command of the language. A stylish and ingenious manipulation of the structures of the language even in complex contexts. Exceptional in every aspect.	100 (50) 94 (47)	Exceptionally persuasive, sophisticated argument. Outstanding grasp of the subject matter. Highly original, intellectually challenging ideas. Expertly structured piece of writing. Original and/or sophisticated illustration/evidence.
High 1st High Mid 1st	88 (44) 82 (41)	An outstanding piece of writing Outstanding command of syntax. Stylish manipulation of the structures of the language with consistent flair. Virtually error-free. Wide-ranging and sophisticated topic-specific vocabulary. Rhetorical strategies are used idiomatically and with flair.	88 (44) 82 (41)	An outstandingly persuasive argument. Excellent grasp of subject matter and analytical skills. Excellent range of ideas. Expertly structured piece of writing. Excellent range of illustration/evidence. Appropriate use of register throughout.
Low Mid 1st Low 1st	78 (39) 74 (37)	An excellent piece of writing Excellent command of syntax. An excellent manipulation of the structures of the language with consistent flair. Highly accurate and fluent with few minor errors and/or isolated major errors. Wide-ranging and varied topic-specific vocabulary. A broad range of rhetorical strategies are used to great effect.	78 (39) 74 (37)	A highly persuasive argument. Excellent grasp of subject matter and analytical skills. Excellent range of ideas. Rigorously structured piece of writing. Excellent range of illustration/evidence. Appropriate use of register throughout.
High 2:1	68 (34)	A very good piece of writing Very good command of syntax. Very confident manipulation of the language. Very good range of complex sentences. Very good range of vocabulary and idioms. Generally accurate and fluent with a few minor and occasional major grammatical and/or lexical errors. A variety of rhetorical strategies are used to great effect.	68 (34)	A very persuasive argument. Very good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills. Very good range of ideas. Very well-structured piece of writing. Very good range of illustration/evidence. Appropriate use of register throughout.
Mid 2:1	65 (32.5)	A good piece of writing Good command of syntax. Confident manipulation of the language. A good range of complex sentence structures are used. Good range of vocabulary and idioms. Generally accurate and fluent with some minor and occasional major grammatical and/or lexical errors.	65 (32.5)	A persuasive argument. Good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills. Good range of ideas. Well-structured piece of writing. Good range of illustration/evidence. Mostly appropriate register.
Low 2:1	62 (31)	A mostly good piece of writing Mostly good command of syntax. Largely confident manipulation of the language. Complex sentence structures are attempted but not always successfully executed. Mostly good range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision may occur. Mostly accurate and fluent but with several minor and occasional major grammatical and/or lexical errors.	62 (31)	A mostly persuasive argument. Mostly good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills. A fair range of ideas. Reasonably well-structured piece of writing. A fair range of illustration/evidence. Mostly appropriate register.
High 2:2	58 (29)	A reasonable piece of writing Reasonable command of syntax. Reasonable manipulation of the language with some awkwardness of expression. Lacking fluency in some places. Complex sentences may be attempted but these are error-prone. Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision occurs. Some anglicisms may be present in syntax and vocabulary. Reasonably accurate but more regular minor and with several major grammatical and/or lexical errors.	58 (29)	A reasonable if rather flat argument. Reasonable grasp of main issues but at times understanding of these can be somewhat limited. Essential information may be lacking. Satisfactory analytical skills, though these may be uneven. Ideas may not always be sufficiently developed. A fair attempt to produce a structured argument though its focus may be erratic. Illustration may not always be consistently provided. Some occasional inconsistencies in register may be present.
Mid 2:2	55 (27.5)	An inconsistent piece of writing Inconsistent command of syntax, which may be anglicised and/or clumsy in places. Inconsistent manipulation of the language with frequent awkwardness of expression. Lacking fluency, stilted in places. Few attempts to create complex sentences, and these are frequently error-prone; or largely accurate but rather simple sentences. Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but imprecisions frequently occur. Frequent minor and a number of major grammatical and/or lexical errors are present.	55 (27.5)	An erratic and/or pedestrian argument. Limited grasp of main issues. Some attempt at discussion and analysis but the argument lacks focus and/or argumentative reach. Limited range of ideas. Patchy evidence of analytical skills. Structure may be weak and/or unconvincing. Illustration is weak, inaccurate and/or not always to the point. Some inconsistencies in register may be present.
Low 2:2	52 (26)	An insecure piece of writing Insecure command of syntax, frequently anglicised and/or clumsy. Limited manipulation of the language with frequent awkwardness of expression. Lacking fluency, stilted. Rare attempts to create complex sentences, and these are error-prone. Limited range of vocabulary and idioms. Persistent minor and regular major grammatical and/or lexical errors.	52 (26)	A consistently weak argument. Some awareness demonstrated of main issues but poor grasp of overall picture. May contain some material that is irrelevant. Very little evidence of analytical skills. Little evidence of a structured approach. Illustration is weak, not to the point, inaccurate and/or offered in lieu of argument. Inconsistencies in register may be present.
High 3rd	48 (24)	A poor piece of writing Poor command of syntax, which may compromise comprehension in places. Frequent inability to manipulate the language. Very rare attempts to create complex sentences and these are largely unsuccessful. Some sections are affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors. Poor range of vocabulary.	48 (24)	A rather simplistic, superficial approach that struggles to convey an intelligible argument. Rather vague understanding of how to present the issues. Occasional recourse to padding. May contain some material that is irrelevant. Key information may be missing and/or inaccurate. Poor structure. Poor illustration and/or illustration offered in lieu of argument. Inconsistencies in register may be present.
Mid 3rd	45 (22.5)	A very poor piece of writing Poor command of syntax, which may occasionally impede comprehension. Very rare attempts to create complex sentences and these are nearly always unsuccessful. Some sections are seriously affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors. Very poor range of vocabulary.	45 (22.5)	A simplistic, superficial approach that struggles to convey an intelligible argument. Vague understanding of how to present the issues. Frequent recourse to padding. Contains some material that is irrelevant. Key information is missing and/or inaccurate. Very poor structure. Very poor illustration and/or illustration offered in lieu of argument. Inconsistencies in register may be present.
Low 3rd	42 (21)	An extremely poor piece of writing Poor command of syntax, which occasionally impedes comprehension. Overall performance is affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors. Extremely poor range of vocabulary.	42 (21)	A very simplistic, superficial approach that often struggles to convey an intelligible argument. Very vague understanding of how to present the issues. Frequent recourse to padding. Contains a significant amount of material that is irrelevant. Key information is missing and/or inaccurate. Very poor structure. Hardly any illustration and/or illustration frequently offered in lieu of argument. Inconsistencies in register may be present.
High Fail (sub honours)	38 (19)	An unsatisfactory piece of writing Very poor command of syntax, which hinders comprehension. Widespread inability to manipulate the language. No successful attempts to create complex sentences. Persistent minor and major lexical and grammatical errors predominate. Very poor range of vocabulary. Comprehension is hindered by awkward expression and anglicisms. May fall short of the length required.	38 (19)	Largely inadequate grasp of the subject matter. Little or no awareness demonstrated of the main issues. The argument is generally incoherent and/or irrelevant. Essential information is either missing and/or inaccurate. Very poor or no structure. Extremely poor or no illustration. Inappropriate register.
Fail	32 (16)	A very unsatisfactory piece of writing Extremely poor command of syntax which nearly always hinders comprehension. Severely limited in every aspect: grammar, vocabulary, spelling. Falls short of the length required.	32 (16)	Wholly inadequate grasp of the subject matter. Inadequate awareness of the main issues. The argument is incoherent and/or irrelevant, to the point that comprehension is hindered. Essential information is missing and /or inaccurate. Very poor or no structure. No illustration. Falls short of the length required. Inappropriate register.
	25 (12.5)	A wholly inadequate piece of writing Little evidence of grammatical/lexical competence. Comprehension is near impossible. Or not enough language to assess.	25 (12.5)	Wholly inadequate grasp of the subject matter. A total inability to write to the conventions of the task set.
Low Fail	12 (6)		12 (6)
Zero	0		0	Work of no merit OR Absent OR Work not submitted OR Penalty in some misconduct cases