Few prompts get students talking like this one. Is Meursault guilty, and of what? The question splits a classroom fast, and it produces argumentative essays with real energy.

The trouble is that the question hides two others. Legal guilt asks whether he killed a man and what the law says about it, and moral guilt asks whether he deserves blame in a wider sense. Students who mix the two produce muddy essays.

Some students also argue that the trial itself is the crime. The prosecution spends a surprising amount of time on his behavior at his mother's funeral, and the verdict seems tied to his character. This reading can be very strong if the student supports it.

For grading, the key is to judge the quality of the argument, not the position. An essay that defends guilt and one that defends innocence can earn the same score. What matters is the reasoning.

Start With a Clear Definition of Guilt

A strong essay defines its terms. It says what it means by guilty and then tests that meaning against the book. Without that step, the essay tends to drift between legal, moral, and emotional readings.

• Defines guilt before arguing for or against it
• Distinguishes the shooting itself from the way the trial judges Meursault
• Presents at least one serious counterargument
• Responds to the counterargument with evidence, not dismissal
• Uses evidence from both the beach and the courtroom

Score the Counterargument Separately

Counterarguments are the row students most often skip. Give them their own line on the rubric so the standard is visible. A response like "Some readers say the jury was right to consider his lack of grief" followed by a real rebuttal deserves credit even if the student ends up disagreeing.

Watch for the straw man, where the counterargument is stated so weakly that it collapses on contact. Comments that ask the student to state the opposing view in its strongest form tend to improve the whole essay. It is a habit that pays off well beyond this novel.

Keep the Evidence Honest

Students sometimes bend the text to fit a position. They may leave out that Meursault fires four more shots after the first, or ignore how the prosecutor frames the funeral. Check that the evidence given is complete enough to be fair.

This is also a chance to talk about how narrators shape what readers know. Meursault tells the story, and his account is only one version. Essays that acknowledge that limit usually have more depth.

Make Feedback Fast and Even-Handed

Argumentative essays can trigger strong reactions from graders too. If you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with a student's conclusion, it is worth re-reading the essay against the rubric. A structured tool such as GraideMind applies the same criteria to every paper regardless of which side the student takes.

That kind of steady baseline makes it easier to defend your grades to students who feel you favored one reading. It also frees you to write the kind of comments only a teacher can, the ones that respond to a student's actual idea.