One of the most productive prompts for Tvrdica asks students to argue whether Harpagon is ultimately a comic figure or a tragic one. The question has no single correct answer, because the play invites both readings. Harpagon is ridiculous in his obsessions, yet he ends the play lonely and still fixated on his casket. Students who take a position must weigh evidence on both sides, which makes this a strong test of argumentative writing.

Grading argumentative essays differs from grading analysis because the quality of the reasoning matters as much as the conclusion. A student who argues that Harpagon is purely comic should be able to explain away the moments that suggest sadness, such as his isolation from his children. Likewise, a student who calls him tragic must account for the clearly farcical scenes. Essays that engage with the strongest counterargument almost always outperform those that ignore it.

Make sure your rubric explicitly values counterargument and rebuttal, because many students skip them. A paragraph that acknowledges an opposing view and responds to it shows a more mature argument than one that only lists supporting points. You can award credit for the quality of the response, not just its presence. This signals that argument is about engaging with other positions, not winning by volume.

Evaluating the Quality of Reasoning

Look for the logical link between evidence and claim. A student might point to Harpagon's final scene, where he agrees to the marriages mainly because he will not have to pay, as proof that he remains comic. That reasoning works only if the student explains why the outcome undermines any sense of tragedy. When the connection is missing, the evidence feels disconnected from the argument.

• Takes a clear, defensible position in the thesis
• Uses evidence from several parts of the play
• Addresses at least one strong counterargument
• Explains the reasoning that links evidence to claim
• Defines key terms such as comic and tragic before using them

Typical Weaknesses

A common weakness is relying on assertion rather than demonstration. Students write that Harpagon is obviously comic because he is greedy, without showing how the play produces humor. Feedback should ask them to point to a specific moment and explain what makes it funny. This builds the habit of backing claims with textual evidence.

Another weakness is failing to define the terms of the debate. If a student never explains what they mean by tragic, the argument can drift into vague emotional language. A quick note asking for a working definition at the start of the essay can improve clarity dramatically. Students often find this simple fix transforms the whole piece.

Grading Disagreement Fairly

Teachers sometimes hold their own view on Harpagon and unconsciously reward essays that agree with it. To avoid this, grade the argument's construction and not its conclusion, and consider reading a few essays on the opposing side first to check your bias. If you find yourself awarding higher marks to one position, reread your rubric and reapply it. Fairness in argument grading depends on this kind of vigilance.

AI-assisted grading can help by applying the same criteria to every essay regardless of which side the writer takes, which reduces the risk of inadvertent bias. It can also flag essays with no counterargument or with unsupported claims for the teacher to review. These checks are especially useful with large class sets where fatigue can affect judgment. The teacher still decides how persuasive each essay ultimately is.