Argumentative essays about literature ask students to take a stand on a character's choices, and I Shall Wear Midnight supplies plenty of material. Tiffany often acts under pressure, with imperfect information and with people watching her closely. Students can reasonably disagree about whether she makes the right calls. That openness makes the novel a strong text for teaching argument, and it also makes grading more nuanced than checking for a correct answer.

The first principle is to grade the quality of the argument, not the position. A student who thinks Tiffany is too willing to carry every burden alone and a student who admires her for it can both earn top marks if they support their view well. Telling students this up front reduces the urge to guess what the teacher wants. It also encourages more honest, thoughtful writing.

Next, define what counts as a justification. Students should be taught to judge actions against criteria, such as the available alternatives, the consequences for others, and the character's own stated values. Without a shared standard, essays often rely on vague claims about right and wrong. Introducing this framework before drafting improves both the writing and the grading.

The anatomy of a strong argument

A strong argumentative essay has a clear claim, reasons that support it, evidence from the text, and an honest response to a counterargument. The counterargument is often the dividing line between average and excellent work. A student who admits that critics might see Tiffany's choice as reckless, and then explains why that criticism fails, demonstrates real mastery.

• Claim takes a clear side on whether Tiffany's choices are justified
• Reasons are distinct and supported by specific scenes
• Criteria for judging the choices are stated or clearly implied
• A counterargument is presented fairly and answered
• Conclusion explains why the question matters for understanding the novel

Scoring counterarguments fairly

Many students mention a counterargument in a single sentence and then dismiss it, which technically includes the element but does not do the work. Distinguish between token counterarguments and developed ones in your rubric. A developed counterargument names the opposing view, gives its best reason, and then explains why the writer still disagrees.

Feedback on counterarguments can be specific and brief. Ask students to imagine the smartest classmate who disagrees and write what that person would say. This reframing often produces stronger paragraphs than abstract advice to be more balanced. It also teaches a skill that applies to persuasive writing in every subject.

Avoiding bias in subjective topics

Teachers have personal opinions about characters, and those opinions can creep into grading. To guard against this, score each essay against the rubric before forming a reaction to the position, and reread any paper that provokes a strong feeling. Consistent anchors help keep scoring steady. Asking a colleague to double-score a few papers can also reveal unconscious patterns.

Rubric-based tools like GraideMind can provide a consistent baseline that does not shift with mood or fatigue, which is useful when the topic invites subjective reactions. The teacher still makes the final decision, but the first read focuses on argument structure rather than agreement. This separation helps protect students who take less popular positions. It supports a classroom culture where reasoning matters more than conformity.

Helping students revise their arguments

Argumentative essays benefit enormously from revision, since students often discover stronger reasoning only after receiving feedback. Offer a structured revision where students must add or strengthen one counterargument and clarify their criteria for judging Tiffany. This targeted task focuses effort where growth is most likely.

Encourage students to read their essay aloud to a partner and listen for places where the argument jumps or relies on unproven assumptions. Spoken reasoning exposes gaps that silent reading often misses. Partners can mark spots where they felt unconvinced, giving the writer a clear revision map. This peer step adds value without adding to your grading time.