baberrrrr

     

Submission Three

Generally, submission one introduced and contextualized the problem. Submission two investigated the stakeholders for your topic (their arguments and their values) and included your own critical analysis (strengths and weaknesses) of those arguments. Submission three focuses on your solution: Building on the research outlined in sections one or two, this section will explain your reasoned, educated perspective on your controversy. You will explain and defend that perspective clearly.

Review Handbook p. 28, pp. 29-33, and pp. 65-76.

Submission three will:

a. include your final revision of submission one (the one you submitted with submission two) followed by a substantial revision of your submission two. The better your submission two revision is, the more you have to work with for section three.

b. identify your position/solution: clearly state which solution (which policy, proposed policy, variation on a policy or policies, or REJECTION of a policy) you think is best. Remember NOT to use first person in formal academic work, though.

c. clearly explain the arguments and evidence that support your position. Do reiterate the strengths of your chosen argument, but don’t oversimplify here: since ideally there were strengths and weaknesses on all sides, clearly explain why your chosen position is the best DESPITE the other side’s strengths and your chosen side’s weaknesses. You need to develop at least two arguments in this section (review Handbook p. 67).

d. include a clear, thorough counterargument. For at least one whole paragraph, outline the strongest argument against your perspective AS IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED IT. Use the language and reasoning that your best opponents would use. Then, AFTER you have fully developed your counterargument, rebut.

NOTE: your rebuttal should NOT be longer than (or even as long as) your counterargument.

e. justify your position using Ruggiero’s moral reasoning model (obligations, values, and consequences). Also, be sure to discuss at least one intrinsic value that you believe your course of action will further.

f. describe the two normative principles (the handbook also refers to these as foundational principles) that best supports your moral reasoning and proposal (review Handbook pp. 71 and 111-115).

g. include a well-crafted conclusion. Restate your thesis, revisit your main points, and end gracefully.

h. adhere to MLA style.

i. be 15-16 pages long, NOT including your Works Cited page.

AMERICAN DILEMMAS:

3

RD SUBMISSION EVALUATION FORM

STUDENT:

Score

CONTENT COMPONENTS

SUB. COMPONENT RANGE DESCRIPTION SCORE

INTRODUCTION and SOCIAL PROBLEMS

5

4

.5

1

4

3.5

3-0

Excellent

Very Good

Good Average Poor

HISTORY and CURRENT POLICIES

(Public policy alternatives)

1

THE CONTROVERSIAL SOCIAL ISSUE

(Stakeholders, arguments and supporting

2

evidence for each position)

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

5

4.5

4
3.5
3-0

10

9

8

7

6-0

10
9

Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor

Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor
Excellent
Very Good

2 (Strengths and weaknesses for each side’s case) 8

7
6-0

Good Average Poor

MORAL REASONING ANALYSIS

(Values for each position)

2

YOUR CONCLUSION/SOLUTION

(Identify your position; discuss your arguments

3 supporting your position)

MORAL REASONING FOR YOUR POSITION

3 (Obligations, Values, Consequences and two

Normative Principles)

WORKS CITED

(Quality and Range of Sources)

3

10
9
8
7
6-0

15

13.5

12

10.5

9-0

10
9
8
7
6-0
5
4.5
4
3.5
3-0

Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor
Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor

Total Score for Content (of a possible 70 points):

Total Score for Form (from reverse side):

Grade for 3rd Submission :

COMMENTS:

FORM COMPONENTS

ORGANIZATION

7.5-6.5 EXCELLENT ORGANIZATION: Highly fluent and coherent throughout paper. Clear, forward-moving line of reasoning. All parts of paper tightly cohesive and effectively arranged. Effective use of paragraphing throughout paper.

6.5-5.5 GOOD ORGANIZATION: On the whole, highly fluent and coherent. Purpose/main idea clear to reader. A few minor problems with paragraphing/logic or sequencing/cohesion

between parts of the paper.

5.5-4.5 FAIR ORGANIZATION: Generally fluent and coherent. Purpose/main idea clear to reader. Several minor problems with paragraphing/logic or sequencing/cohesion

between parts of the paper.

4.5 POOR ORGANIZATION: Problems with focus, coherence and/or fluency. Purpose/main idea sometimes obscured by problems with fluency, or by lapses in logic or sequencing/lack of cohesion between parts of paper.

MLA FORM

7.5-6.5 EXCELLENT FORM: Excellent MLA form throughout paper. Virtually error free.

6.5-5.5 GOOD FORM: Good control of MLA form with the

occasional errors probably a result of careless proofreading.

5.5-4.5 FAIR FORM: Fair control of MLA form, but errors evident throughout paper.

4.5 POOR FORM: Problems with MLA form are severe enough to indicate student lacks an understanding of, or has an inability to apply MLA.

GRAMMAR, SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION

7.5-6.5 EXCELLENT CONTROL: Excellent control of grammatical conventions, spelling, and punctuation throughout paper. Virtually error free.

6.5-5.5 GOOD CONTROL: Very good control of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, with the

occasional errors probably a result of careless proofreading.

5.5-4.5 FAIR CONTROL: Good general control of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but errors evident throughout paper.

4.5 POOR CONTROL: Problems with grammar, spelling, and punctuation are severe enough

to indicate student lacks good general control of one or more of them.

STYLE AND TONE—Sentence variety, choice of words and phrasing (syntax), and writer’s voice

7.5-6.5 EXCELLENT STYLE/TONE: Throughout paper, excellent control of style and tone;

appropriate for audience

6.5-5.5 GOOD STYLE/TONE: With a few exceptions, stylistic choices and tone excellent.

5.5-4.5 FAIR STYLE/TONE: Generally consistent, appropriate style and tone. Several problems with sentence variety/inappropriate word choices/clichés/redundant language, or minor

problems with tone.

4.5 POOR STYLE/TONE: Paper marred by inappropriate tone in parts of paper or consistent problems with word choice/redundant language/sentence variety.

Total score for form (of a possible 30 points):

COMMENTS:

Adapted from “Essay Evaluation Form,” copyright July 1991 by John A. Perron, Anne Crane, Anna Skinner. Austin, Texas; Further adapted

Feb. 2005, May 2007, and April 2011 for the SEU Capstone Course 2011 St. Edward’s University, Austin, Texas.