Rogerian Essay

Please pay attention to attached instructions carefully.

Based on the answers you provided for part 1, this was the feedback for the essay. Can you please revise the paper to fix the discrepancies? 

1. Model Short Answer:  H.R. 1234, “Require Marshmallows in All Hot Chocolate,” should be passed into law, because the creamy fluff of half-melted marshmallows makes hot chocolate measurably better.      

Comment: The topic and your stance are clear. Do figure out how to edit out the first person voice (“I”) since the assignment asks you to only use third person. 

2. Model Short Answer:  An example of an MLA in-text citation and work cited entry for a journal article from an online database:  “Quotation goes here” (Smith 23).  Smith, Bob. “Article Investigating Stuff in Ancient Uruguay.” Journal of Stuff, vol. 34, no. 2, 15 June 2000, pp. 35-48. Database Title, doi: ###.##/xx.##      

Comment: Your in-text citations are basically correct, but note that the page number parenthetical citation should go after the paraphrased information.

3. Comment: The parts of the argument that you have here look good. You’re missing one big piece for a Rogerian argument, though: the common ground. What is the ideal/concern that both sides see as important, and that you could use to bring them together?

Part 1: Quiz

1. Post your 1-sentence thesis statement for this topic.

Remember, your thesis statement:

· should give a clear stance for one side in the debate on the topic you’ve chosen

· should be a declarative statement, NOT a question

· if you’re working with a bill you found on

GovTrack

or with a bill from a state legislature, make sure it directly mentions the bill that you’re going to discuss, preferably by H.R. or S. number and title.

2. Give a model in-text citation and work cited entry for 1 peer-reviewed source that you plan to use in this essay.

· You must include either a short quotation and/or paraphrase with the in-text citation.

· Both the in-text citation and works cited entry should be in MLA format.

To earn full credit, the source must be peer-reviewed and correctly cited (though a hanging indent is not necessary).

3. Give a working outline for your essay. Remember, your essay should be divided into an introduction, body (consisting of multiple body paragraphs), and conclusion, and in the body paragraphs, must also include the following elements:

· explanation of your stance on the bill and reasons for it

· explanation of the opposition stance on the bill (or some of its provisions) and reasons

· a discussion of the common ground that the two sides share.

Your outline may be a topic or sentence outline but must be somewhat concrete, containing brief descriptions of supporting points/evidence.

Part 2: Instructions: Rogerian Essay

· The main body of essay should be between 900 and 1000 words, excluding the required

 

annotated bibliography.

· The essay needs to be in MLA format.

· It should include an Annotated Bibliography instead of a works cited list (see the end of this assignment for an example of an Annotated Bibliography)

· You must use at least 5 sources, and at least 3 must be from peer reviewed sources

· see this video and Ch. 2 of the textbook for more information on what it means for a source to be peer reviewed:

.

· the best way to find peer reviewed sources is to use the databases available through the APUS Library; when you open the Library’s main page, click on the “Advanced Search” link at the bottom of the “Articles and Databases” box. On the next page that comes up, make sure to check the “Peer reviewed publications” box before running your search.

Choosing a Topic: You must use the topic you proposed on the Week 6 quiz Part 1 of these instructions), which must have a specific point of debate, clear public-realm stakes, and a narrow scope. A quick way to accomplish this is to choose a topic from the current bills making their way through the US Congress (see GovTrack.us for the

US Congress Bills Tracker

) or a state legislature.

Note: Consider your audience as laymen in the field with only general knowledge of your topic. 

Organize your essay into the expected sections for an academic essay (introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion), and make sure to also include all the elements of Rogerian form (your claim and support, an unbiased discussion of the opposition’s claim and support, and a clear discussion of the common ground idea/concern that could bring the two sides together, and help the opposing side see why your stance also serves their concerns).
After you have written your essay, please make sure to revise the content of your essay. Lastly, be sure to edit your essay by checking grammar, format, and smaller technical details. Please make sure your essay is written in third person.
The Annotated Bibliography
An annotated Bibliography (AB) is due with your Rogerian essay. Using the MLA guide, list each source as it will appear on the Works Cited page of your essay. Summarize each source in two or three grammatically-correct sentences, and also state how the source contributed to your project. These short summaries are the “annotations.”

 

The following is a sample of an “annotated bibliography.”

Annotated Bibliography
Clark, Irene L. The Genre of Argument. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998. Print.
Clark’s textbook identifies the major steps to developing a well-researched and well-written argumentative essay. Professional essays are included in the text as models.

Ward, Russ. Logical Argument in the Research Paper. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997. Print.
Augmenting the steps to writing an argumentative research paper is information about proper documentation. The Toulmin System, an important aspect of a well-planned paper, should be studied carefully.

Campbell

Rogerian Essay using MLA

H.R. 3219: Department Of of Defense Appropriations Act, 20082018 Comment by Author: You have the wrong year for this act -as per below and in your paper.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h435

The issue on whether to place a cap on military spending has been the subject to of debate in the United States since the era the commencement of enactments of Defense Authorizations Act In in 1961. The idea arose following the urge of the political class to formulate guidelines that monitor state appropriation of military expenses. The law restricted restricts state spending, but it only mandates strict adherence on a specific time frame and, as such, has created a dynamism that has necessitated the formulation of H.R. 3219 that seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the legislation. The H.R. 3219 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 is a continuation of the bill of HR. 3304 of 2014 that seeks sought to dictate the caps on the expenditure in line with the laws of the country. The expectation following the vote is that the nation will not witness the escalation of costs of government military undertakings after the budgeting process. The legislatures forwarding the bill to Congress, argue that it will define the spending limits for the military in each financial year. Given that some politicians opposed the law, the exploration of the pros and cons of the decision is necessary for objectivity in legislation formulation. However, an investigation of the prevailing dynamics implies that politicians ought to support the enactments of the bill H.R. 3219 since it will streamline the process of budgeting, thus enhancing accountability in the state’s appropriation of military spending. Comment by Author: it would either be plural in “states’ appropriation” -meaning all of the sates or in “a” or “the” state’s appropriation -as a singular construct.

The primary basis for the support of the bill is that it reinforces the act formulated in the defense Defense appropriation Appropriation act Act of 2014 that sought to helps address budgeting decisions that exposes the United States to financial challenges. According to the bill up for debate, the state was misappropriating the resources of the country in under the disguise of allocating funds for the military. The public accounts committee at the time, could not account for the funds because the existing framework granted the decision makers autonomy in their proposals (Breul 26). They influenced the two-step process of budgeting of authorization and appropriation in setting asides funds that, at times, failed to serve the intended objective. After the enactments of the defense Defense appropriation Appropriation Aact 2014, the budgeting team began to approach the task with cautions. However, the officials still exploited the loopholes in the legislation in the a decision that resulted in the waste of public resources. Those in charge of budgeting could easily manipulate the process to their advantage, but, as things stand, the redress of the issue is necessary because of the financial difficulties confronting the government. The state cannot proceed with the traditional methods of budgeting in the contemporary times that demands caution in the appropriation of public resources. Comment by Author: If this is an actual bill it should be capitalized also. Comment by Author: You either only need “that sought to address” OR “that helps to address” – but not both Comment by Author: Your word use is incorrect – you mean under the GUISE -which is a noun meaning:“an external form, appearance, or manner of presentation, typically concealing the true nature of something.”A disguise is a noun meaning a costume that one wears – relates to a person. Comment by Author: You vaguely refer to the financial difficulties without really advising WHAT those difficulties are. Should you be more concise / specific with where the budget has been over-allocated? What other areas are they spending on or where is there financial concern within the government spending?

The subsequent reason for supporting the H.R. 3219 is that the budgeting team does not engage in consultation with the public before deciding on the appropriation of the funds. For that reason, there is the urge urgency to introduce a legislative framework that governs the undertakings of the decision makers representing the military, and the legislation that serves such interest is the H.R. 3219 bill. According to Bush (3), the enactment of the bill will would ensure that the public is aware of the cap even if the legislation restricts communication of some critical aspects of military decision. Crespin and David (977) believe that granting the political class powers to influence most undertakings regarding budgeting is responsible for the economic challenges facing the United States. It is on this premise that the politicians ought to formulate a law that empowers the budgeting team opposing an idea, and to hold the state accountable for undertakings protected by the constitution. The legislative act of 2014 barred the government form from budgeting without notifying the public about the details of state appropriation on military undertakings. Comment by Author: Who promotes this urge? Is it rather an “urgency”? I think if overspending is a concern in any matter with govt spending then there would be some form of URGENCY in proposing and supporting legislation that guides the spending. Otherwise, please explain WHO has an urge and where the urge is coming from. Comment by Author: Should this be in past tense considering Bush is not the current president and it should say “would” ensure” Comment by Author: Corrections to typos and spelling errors here.

Another reason for supporting the bill is that it categorizes the defense appropriation into classes namely Defense, Legislative Branch, Military Construction/Veterans Affairs, and Energy and Water. The process encourages the visualization of the spending separately, and not holistically, as in the case of the original acts. The original law promotes accountability but serves for only a specified budget year. The proposed bill bill–on its part part–can serve beyond the period of the initial budget year. Furthermore, one can easily visualize the records such as the case of division Division A categorized as defense providing an amount ranging to the tune of $658.1 billion for defense annually. As a result, the allocation of funds for emergencies in times of hurricanes is easily traceable in the present. Additionally, the bill encourages the use of a language comprehensible to the public in communicating about critical government appropriation plans. For instance, in the deployment of the forces in the war in Afghanistan, the existence of the bill could have enabled the public to visualize the amount channeled to the war, but such was not the case because of the opaqueness of the legislative framework that guided the process. Comment by Author: It seems too vague to just say “beyond the period” -you could be more definite and say beyond the initial budget year or even advise how much longer of a period it can remain in existence/in effect. Comment by Author: This is not clear what “the case of Division A” is all about? And if it is a category you may need to capitalize the whole term, as I’ve done Comment by Author: Where did the topic of hurricanes come from? Is this what Division A refers to?

The opponents of the H.R. 3219 bill argue that it will curtail the liberties of the state in implementing decisions regarding the safety of the citizens. The presumption is that adversaries might infiltrate the system and undertake a decision with the aim of jeopardizing the state. The politicians opposing the bill also argue that the existing framework has put in place sufficient checks and balances that ensures that the military utilizes funds in accordance with the agenda of advancing the interests of America. Although the quantification of the claim is not easy, the conduct of the budgeting team over the years suggests that some officials desire to advance the interests of the public by exploiting the liberties granted by the legislative stipulations. Additionally, the process of the ratification of the bill will pave the way for amendments to legislation that serves the interests of the Americans (Harrison 2). As a result, the country might grapple with confusion in the interpretation of the legislations. The view of the opponents of the H.R. 3219 bill, therefore, is that it ought to be revoked. Comment by Author: I think this section is all pretty good and sets out the opposition viewpoint of what should / should not be done in respect to setting out budget control within the public’s eye.

Despite the contention on the implication of the legislative proposals that was introduced 01/25/2018, the ideas behind the suggestions are worthwhile exploring. The legislative framework presents the opportunity to explore the political decision that affects economic affairs of the nations. The prevailing dynamics imply that the mode of budgeting for military undertakings will costs taxpayers vast amounts of resources; thus, the need for the recognition of the risks of in applying the law to in its original content. The legislatures instead, should formulate a guideline that addresses the this concern, and the H.R. 3219 offers such a solution. Comment by Author: I think you could remind the reader at this point what the law “in its original content” was proposing to do

The United States’ lawmaking institutions have formulated laws on the defense appropriation, and such have guided the country in budgeting. However, the prevailing dynamics suggest the need for the modification of the laws outlining the spending. Although such is posing controversy due to opposing opposition from some legislators, the formulation of H.R. 3219 that seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the legislation, is dire. The tabling of H.R. 3219 bill is the beginning of the step. According to the proponents, the H.R. 3219 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 which is a continuation of the original bill of 1961 that sought to dictate the caps on the expenditure in line with the laws of the country, will promote accountability in budgeting. The premise for the claim is that it reinforces existing laws in addition to categorizing state expenses. Furthermore, the bill will streamline the process of budgeting by suggesting caps, thus enhancing accountability in state spending on military undertakings. Comment by Author: The formulation is dire? The need for greater clarity in budget spending is DIRE, and the need to formulate some legislation is dire but the formulation itself is not dire?? Comment by Author: You are repeating the pros of the bill, is this your compromise between the two sides of the argument? If some would still argue that streamlining the budget can still create handicaps in the defense ability and may affect citizens’ safety, how is that a middle ground ?

Annotation Comment by Author: Is this the right heading here? Should it not be “Annotated Bibliography” instead of just “annotation”?https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/13/ is a sample paper for further / future reference.

Bush, George W. “Statement on Signing the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006.” (2012).

The text explores the role of state organs in initiating undertakings that strive to address emergencies and concerns related to national security. The reading highlights the role of budgeting on wellness of the public and such makes it a reliable source for undertaking the implication of Defense Appropriation Act. Comment by Author: Is this really the wording you want here? State “organs”?? do you mean state bodies? State organizations?? It seems an odd word choice.

Crespin, Michael H., and David W. Rohde. “Dimensions, issues, and bills: Appropriations voting on the House floor.” The Journal of Politics 72.4 (2010): 976-989.

The text covers the role of legislature in formulating decisions that affects state budgeting. It relates acts of accountability to existence of sound legislation. The narration makes it a critical resource for exploring defense spending on national safety.

Harrison, Todd. Analysis of the FY 2011 Defense Budget. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010.

The text focuses on the expenses of the state in the year 2011 with the intent of shedding light to the needs for holdings ate the state accountable. The explanation relates to the concept of placing a cap on defense presenting as suggested in the bill on military spending. Comment by Author: This wording sounds odd?? On “defense presenting?” PLEASE REVIEW WHAT YOU ARE INTENDING TO SAY HERE.

Breul, Jonathan D. “Three Bush administration management reform initiatives: The president’s management agenda, freedom to manage legislative proposals, and the program assessment rating tool.” Public Administration Review 67.1 (2007): 21-26.

The text examines the mode of operation during pPresidents bush Bush’s tenure. It explores the interest in military undertaking as a concern that affected budgeting. The highlights make it an essential source in analyzing the implication of bills related to state budgeting. Comment by Author: Fixes in grammatical errors were made in your annotated notes.

Congress.Gov. H.R.2810 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. H.R.2810 — 115th Congress (2017-2018). Library of congress. 2018

The text covers the political undertakings before budgeting in congress. It outlines the decisions that influences the outcome of policy implementation in the US. The accounts are of significance in analyzing bills targeting budgeting activities as in the case of H.R. 321