USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Guidelines for writing your Op-Ed (or opinion piece). These are standards that will be used to evaluate it.
EXAMPLES OF TWO WINNING OP-EDS WRITTEN BY STUDENTS
Taking a Position:
Does the opinion piece take a position that is clearly expressed? The position may be a recommendation for action or it may be to alert readers to a problem. The author should make a single point well. You, as the reader, should be able to explain the author’s message in a sentence or two. If a student fails to address the specified topic– that is, deals with another topic entirely — you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.
6-7: The opinion piece has an original, well-argued position. The piece draws the reader into looking at the topic in a new way or with new insight. The reader can readily summarize what the author is saying and why.
4-5: The opinion piece takes a thoughtful position. But the supporting data appear a bit muddled. Readers are left with questions: Why did the author take this position? Why take this position rather than an alternative one?
2-3: The piece leaves readers confused as to what point the author is trying to make. The reader cannot readily summarize the author’s key point or the data supporting the position seem not to really support it.
1: The paper lacks an identifiable point. Readers are left confused as to what point the author is making and why.
Persuasive: Does the piece persuade the reader? A good piece argues effectively for a particular position. Even though the reader may not ultimately agree with the author, the reader comes away from the piece willing to seriously consider the author’s perspective.
If a student fails to address the specified topic– that is, deals with another topic entirely — you should evaluate his or her Op-Ed with a 1-3 score for this criterion.
6-7: A reader comes away from reading the piece feeling the author has effectively argued for a certain position. The author uses concrete examples that resonate with readers.
4-5: The opinion piece highlights an important topic. But it does not really convince readers as to the value of the author’s position.
2-3: The opinion piece seems mostly a personal venting. The author is not reaching out to readers or trying to connect with them in a meaningful way.
1: The piece is unconvincing. An unbiased reader, reading this piece, would not find the piece very persuasive.
Hook and Structure: Does the opinion piece engage the reader right at the beginning? Is there evidence of thoughtful organization? Does the author summarize the main point at the end?
6-7: The main point is effectively stated in the first few sentences. These first few sentences capture the reader’s attention and draw the reader into reading further. The author effectively summarizes the piece’s argument in a strong final paragraph.
4-5: Readers are not immediately drawn into the argument. But they are not put off by it either. They find the piece reasonable but a little slow moving. It does not hold the reader’s attention. The final paragraph does not offer a powerful restatement of the author’s position.
2-3: The piece makes a basic point. But it does not catch your attention. It does not draw you in at the beginning nor does it summarize its message at the end.
1: The author never draws the reader into the opinion piece. It is not clear what the author is saying nor why it is important.
Writing and Clarity: Is the piece readily understandable by non-academic readers? General readers should find the piece easy and interesting to read. There should be few grammatical and spelling errors.
6-7: The writing is clear. The author’s own voice and perspective come through in a convincing way. You can identify with the author and the position she or he takes. There are no grammatical mistakes that distract from the author’s argument.
4-5: The writing is reasonable. The sentences and paragraphs are a bit too long or the passive voice is emphasized. There is a bit too much jargon.
2-3: The author tends to go on too long. It is not really clear what point she or he is making. The author has long sentences and paragraphs.
1: A reader is left confused as to what point the author is trying to make.
Tone: Is the opinion piece polite and respectful? The focus is on persuading the reader rather than voicing indignation or condemnation.
6-7: The opinion piece is polite and respectful in tone. Rather than dismissing the other side, it acknowledges its value while disagreeing with it. It comes across as written by a thoughtful professional versed in the subject being discussed.
4-5: There is generally a polite tone. But the author does not acknowledge that reasonable people might disagree regarding the point being made. The author asserts there is one reasonable position and she or he is presenting it.
2-3: The piece comes across as quite opinionated. It appears the author is “venting” about something that bothers her or him.
1: The piece is similar to a political “attack” ad. The author is pouring at rage with little concern for who is reading the piece.
EXAMPLES OF TWO WINNING OP-EDS WRITTEN BY STUDENTS
The idea of a soul is a complex one. First of all, because there is not one definition that people can consensually
agree on. Secondly, because what exactly a soul entails or what its purpose it has is controversial. And lastly,
because no one can say for sure who has a soul: humans? Animals? Trees? It could be thought that to have a
soul is to have duality of the body and mind, or to have an after life, or maybe to have the capacity for sympathy.
Personally I believe it is to have the capacity for sympathy because to have empathy or sympathy is to relate to
others, which is ultimately the basis of our mortality. In the case of ethical medicinal practices, the role of a soul
and the ability to empathize and relate to others is key.
The amount of limitations that should be put medical research for humans is ultimately a question of ethics. If
the above definition of a soul can be at least somewhat agreed on, then it can also be said that humans must
have a soul and must have the ability to relate to others. So in conducting medical research on humans, most
would think that the conductor would use his empathy and overall knowledge of human mortality to make a
decision of what is ethically right.
However it is not that simple. Just as human relations are a large part in our mortality, so are individual opinions
and diversity of opinion. In anthropological terms, diversity of opinion can be seen as a manifestation of culture.
Culture categorizes us into groups based on many different aspects, including environment, religion, language,
etc., and ultimately shapes our views and beliefs on virtually everything. In this respect I think the topic of
beneficence cannot simply be reduced to ethics but more narrowly, to a respect and acceptance for all cultures.
This concept is clearly demonstrate in the Yanomami case study because the researchers’ idea of what is
ethical (based on their western culture) is very different from that of the Yanomami tribe. The researchers’
intentions were all good, in fact they both wanted to use their research to benefit the Yanomami themselves, but
there is a large cultural gap which they ignored; therefore counteracting their good intentions and offending the
very people they were trying to help.
Regretfully these sort of cultural and ethical boundaries are often overlooked. So while one might think its
common sense to make the people you are researching your first ethical priority, the vast cultural differences
don’t make this such a black and white situation, thus making a demand for such review boards. The main
principled argument that most people would agree with is that no research should be done on humans without
the subjects consent, regardless of its potential revolutionary benefits. On a similar note, it should also be in the
interest of the boards to measure the amount of risk involved with the research to its potential benefits and make
sure they are consistent with each other.
All in all, I think it is in the researchers best interest to make their subject their strongest ethical tie and therefore
would put my trust in them to make certain decisions with a heightened sensitivity to cultural differences in the
gray areas of medical research. But boards should still have knowledge of research being conducted as well as
they should under no circumstances allow research without the subjects clear consent.
Letter A, Page 1
