Few characters in Ba Jin's Family provoke stronger reactions from students than Jue Xin, the eldest brother who accepts the family's demands and counsels his younger siblings to avoid conflict. Students either sympathize with his exhaustion or condemn his passivity, and both positions can produce good argumentative essays if they are supported well. The grading challenge is separating essays that argue from essays that simply express strong feelings about a character.

A strong prompt asks students to evaluate Jue Xin's approach rather than simply describe it. Questions such as whether his philosophy of non-resistance protects the family or enables its harm can be defended from several angles. Good prompts also encourage students to consider what alternatives were realistic for him.

Many essays default to a hero or villain framing. The most useful feedback pushes writers beyond that binary by asking what pressures shaped Jue Xin's choices, such as his role as eldest grandson, the loss of his own romantic hopes, and the responsibilities he inherited early. Those details turn an opinion into an argument.

Scoring Claims and Reasoning

A defensible argumentative thesis takes a position and indicates the reasons for it. For example, a student might claim that Jue Xin's non-resistance ultimately strengthens the very system that harms him, because each act of compliance confirms the household's authority. The reasons that follow should be developed in separate paragraphs with distinct evidence.

• Takes a clear position on whether Jue Xin's approach is justified
• Supports the position with at least three distinct pieces of textual evidence
• Explains how his circumstances shape what he can reasonably do
• Addresses a serious counterargument, such as the view of his younger brothers
• Concludes by considering what the novel suggests about the cost of compliance

The Role of Counterargument

Counterargument is where many student essays fall short. They either ignore opposing views entirely or mention them in a single dismissive sentence. A stronger paper states the best opposing case fairly, then explains why the writer still holds a different view or how the position should be qualified.

Teachers can make this expectation concrete by asking for a paragraph that begins with an opposing claim. Rubrics should distinguish between a token counterargument and one that genuinely engages. Scores can reflect whether the student treats opposing views with respect and evidence.

Keeping Grading Fair When Opinions Are Strong

Because students feel strongly about Jue Xin, graders may find themselves reacting to the argument rather than the writing. A deliberate strategy is to score the essay against the rubric before forming an opinion about whether the conclusion is right. This reduces the chance that disagreement affects the grade.

Anonymous grading, where practical, further reduces bias. Many teachers find that scoring a few papers with names hidden shows them how much their impression of a student shapes their judgment. Consistent rubrics help anchor scores in the work itself.

Giving Feedback That Improves Argument Skills

The most effective comments on argumentative essays identify the exact point where reasoning breaks down. A note such as "you claim Jue Xin could have resisted, but your evidence shows what he risked; how does that affect your claim?" invites the student to revise their logic. Generic comments like "strengthen your argument" give no direction.

AI-assisted feedback can locate weak links in reasoning, such as claims without evidence or conclusions that do not follow from the analysis, and suggest targeted questions. The teacher reviews and adapts those questions to the student's voice. That workflow lets every writer receive specific feedback instead of only the strongest or weakest papers.