# data[].attributes.body
Thesis statement is missing or does not take a clear position on the atomic bombs. Shows minimal understanding of the historical context or fails to address the prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
Thesis statement is present but vague or unclear. The position on atomic bombs' justification is not fully developed. Shows limited understanding of historical context.

# data[].attributes.body
Thesis statement takes a position on the atomic bombs' justification but could be more specific. The claim addresses the prompt and shows general understanding of the historical context.

# data[].attributes.body
Thesis statement is clear, specific, and takes a strong position on whether the atomic bombs were justified. The claim thoroughly addresses the prompt and shows deep understanding of the historical context.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides little or no relevant evidence to support the claim. Evidence may be inaccurate or missing citations. Historical facts are minimal or incorrect.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides 1-2 pieces of evidence that somewhat support the claim. Evidence may be general or lack specific historical details. Citations may be incomplete.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides 2-3 pieces of relevant historical evidence that support the claim. Most evidence is accurate and properly cited, though some details could be more specific.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides 3+ strong, relevant historical facts/evidence that clearly support the claim. Evidence may include casualty estimates, alternatives considered, or Japanese surrender terms. All evidence is accurately cited.

# data[].attributes.body
Failed to address opposing viewpoint(s) or does so dismissively. No explanation of why chosen position is stronger. May show bias or lack of objectivity.

# data[].attributes.body
Mentions opposing viewpoint(s) but does not fully address them. Limited explanation of why chosen position is stronger. May dismiss counterargument without proper evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Addresses opposing viewpoint(s) and attempts to explain why chosen position is stronger. Could provide more specific historical evidence to refute counterargument.

# data[].attributes.body
Thoroughly addresses opposing viewpoint(s) with respect and fairness. Effectively explains why the chosen position is stronger than the counterargument using specific historical evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Weak or missing conclusion. Does not effectively restate thesis or arguments. No reflection on broader implications. May end suddenly or introduce new ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Basic conclusion that partially restates thesis and arguments. Limited reflection on broader implications. May feel abrupt or underdeveloped.

# data[].attributes.body
Clear conclusion that restates the thesis and main arguments. Makes some connection to broader implications but could be more developed. Provides closure to the essay.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong conclusion that effectively reinforces the thesis and main arguments. Thoughtfully reflects on the broader implications of atomic warfare and its impact on history. Leaves reader with meaningful final thoughts.