10 Points 8 Work Revision The Work I Provided Ne
Here is the requirement for the assignment.
Begin by asking what values might be in play? Who might be impacted by the issue? What alternative perspectives, interests, and duties might be involved?
Eventually, you will want to submit a summary of the topic that is both balanced and detailed. To be balanced your analysis will need to provide reasons that support conflicting responses to the issue (if good reasons could not be given for conflicting ethical evaluations and responses, then there would not really be an ethical issue). A balanced analysis will be one where your own position is not obvious, and a solution to the issue is not easy. An analysis will also be detailed if you follow this format:
In your first paragraph you will want to provide your reader with a summary of the current situation, evidence of social disagreement, and a fair presentation of the basic facts of the issue. This will involve a little research.
In the next two to four paragraphs you will want to alternate, presenting ethical arguments for competing evaluations and responses to the topic. Be sure to represent at least two competing positions and their arguments. Composing this portion of your assignment will involve (a) finding and/or generating arguments in support of contrary positions, and (b) critically evaluating those arguments so that you avoid including reasons and arguments that are false, fallacious, or distracting. Again, there will be a bit of research.
To encourage sound research, you will be asked to provide at least four citations in support of some of the claims of your analysis. To count, these citations should reference articles in main newspapers or magazines (such as New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Washington Times, Sacramento Bee, Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, The Davis Enterprise, Vanity Fair, BBC news, Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Forbes, The Economist, Time Magazine, Slate, Huffington Post); public television or radio broadcast (such as NPR, BBC); news television (such as Fox News, CNN); relevant laws; professional and governmental publications (such as CDC publications, National Association of School Psychologists publications ); peer-reviewed academic or professional journals (such as Journal of the American Medical Academy; Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics); books; quotes from stake-holders (main actors, politicians, organizations). Keep in mind that references to Wikipedia articles, articles without a byline, and articles shorter than two paragraphs do not count.
When Denise and I grade your work, we will be asking ourselves the following questions: (a) does the student address what is morally distinctive about the topic, (b) does the student touch upon all of the main values and conflicts, (c) does the student provide enough material on the various sides to sustain the moral conflict, and (c) does the student provide the necessary number of relevant citations?
Your final draft should be 1.5 pages in length, single-spaced.
Here is the grading rubric
1. Specific subject [law, event, practice, etc] of controversy (out of 10 points): 3
2. Evidence of controversy (out of 5 points): 3
3. Inclusion of the central and unique moral issue—the values uniquely in conflict (out of 10 points): 5
4. At least two opposing responses to the moral issue—and supporting reasons (out of 40 points): 30
5. Does not include false, fallacious, or distracting claims (out of 25 points): 20
6. Four citations (out of 10 points): 8
3 citations instead of 4
Most of the scoring above is due to writing mechanics and not adhering to the tasks set out by the writing prompt. The paper can be clarified and reworked to meet the tasks. I do suggest checking out the writing center for help with both sentence and paragraph level structure issues.
Total Score: 69