Argue your viewpoint in a current (within the past two years) controversy concerning American identity in a rigorously researched 4-6 page (1300-2000 words) essay. Choose one of the three course threads to focus on: gender, race or ethnicity. You could also choose a controversy in which these topics intersect with each other or with other aspects of American identity. As a persuasive piece, the essay should advocate that the audience do, think or believe something. Think about the examples of argument you have seen during the course: what do they ask, demand or beg of audiences? How do they use the major appeals like ethos, logos, pathos and kairos to build a persuasive case? How are they organized? Why should people care about this right now? Model those rhetorical techniques in your own work, adapting and abstracting them to your own argumentative purpose.
Research Requirement
Your argument’s major claim and supporting ideas must be supported with a carefully considered balance of rhetorical appeals and evidence gleaned from research. Evidence, after all, functions as an appeal. You may use the research you did for your annotated bibliography assignment to support your claims. Do not drop those summaries into the persuasive essay. They weren’t designed for your audience. If you find your argument needs more or different support, you may also include new sources. Remember that you are making an argument expressing your viewpoint by using evidence and refuting counterpoints, not merely summarizing.
Choose a target audience and an organizational strategy
Choose an educated audience that does not agree with you on the topic at hand. That means they should be undecided or hostile. For example, if arguing that social security benefits should be suspended for all women over the age of 65, you might choose a target audience like the Democratic National Convention where that position would be recieved with hostility. We encourage you to think about local venues where your argument could have real world impact such as a community association or the leadership of an institution you have a stake in. For example, if arguing that gender-neutral bathrooms should be featured in your school then possible audiences could include the local School Board or the local Parent Teacher Association.
Think carefully about all the available means of persuasion. What specific arguments and evidence will be most convincing to this audience? Will you need to refute ideas commonly held by the group? What emotional and ethical appeals will be effective in persuading your audience to consider (and hopefully accept) your claim? Are you part of this group, or an outsider? How can you organize your claims to lead the reader through a flowing logical sequence? When choosing where to put your thesis statement, sometimes when writing to a potentially hostile audience it is appropriate to withhold the claim until after the presentation of evidence to build support.
Mandatory Minimum Requirements Checklist
Imagine this is an article that could be published in an existing journal, magazine, newspaper, or on a website. Between the MLA heading and the essay title, briefly and specifically, describe the audience and the venue. Here is an example:
Example: “Daily Texan student, faculty, staff and alumni readers are generally aware of UT’s top-six-percent rule automatic admissions rule. Many of these Daily Texan readers may have benefited from it when it was the top-seven-percent or top-ten-percent rule, so they probably will be hostile to my proposal to abolish it entirely.”
State a compelling thesis. Usually, such claims occur at the beginning of an academic essay. However, when writing to a potentially hostile audience sometimes it is appropriate to withhold the claim until after the presentation of evidence. The support for this thesis should come from your research.
You are required to use a minimum of fivesources for this assignment. Carefully evaluate each source for its relevance and credibility–you aren’t looking to pad the essay, but rather to support your claims.
Include a Works Cited list.
Include a descriptive title for your essay.
Length: 4-6 pages in length (1300-2000 words), typed, double-spaced (length not including Works Cited page)
MLA guidelines for format, headings, quotes, and citations.
Proofread carefully.
Essay must be on topic and answer the prompt.
Notice that the word evidence was used six times above. Six times. In bold print. That must mean it’s important. Here it is again: EVIDENCE.
As always, please see the syllabus plagiarism policy for how grading is impacted if plagiarism is found in an essay.
Academic Integrity Reminder
All work in the RHE309k course must meet UT standards for Academic Integrity. In this course, MLA style is a mandatory minimum requirement for documentation of sources, quotations and paraphrases. All final uploads should be the original work of the student submitting. See the syllabus for mandatory minimum requirements and consequences for assignment grades. Read more about UT’s definitions of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and collusion here (Links to an external site.).
CANVAS UPLOAD VERIFICATION REMINDER
Verify all submissions before the deadline. It is your responsibility. Human error in uploading the wrong attachment is not a technology issue. The availability window between 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm is for fixing any tech issues. Be sure to use it wisely–we do not accept work after that window closes without a verified extension request.
Recall that you have a Canvas Guides and Tips page and links to Guides in the Welcome module for this course which includes a screencast with info on verifying your submission (2:08:00), and uploading the right thing to the right place is very important for getting your work properly evaluated: Click here to review Submitting and VERIFYING Submissions.
Rubric
Researched Persuasive Argument Spring 2020
Researched Persuasive Argument Spring 2020
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA1-Audience Identificationview longer description
threshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsGOOD–CLEARLY IDENTIFIES A SPECIFIC HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED STAKEHOLDER IN THE AREA OF THEIR DEBATE AND A VENUE THROUGH WHICH TO REACH THEM IN THE HEADER TO THE ESSAY.
4.0 ptsAVERAGE–IDENTIFIES A HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED STAKEHOLDER GROUP IN THE HEADER BUT THE SENSE OF VENUE THROUGH WHICH TO REACH THEM IS VAGUE.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING–IDENTIFIES A RECOGNIZABLE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC OF POTENTIALLY HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED PEOPLE BUT NOT AN ACTUAL STAKE HOLDING GROUP. VENUE IS VAGUE OR MISSING.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT–MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIES AN AUDIENCE THAT AGREES WITH THEM.
1.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–FAILS TO INCLUDE AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AN AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–FAILS TO INCLUDE AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AN AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA2-Urgency/Kairos/Importanceview longer description
threshold: 8.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES URGENCY EARLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE. ASSERTS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOPIC TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE NOW.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES IMPORTANCE AND URGENCY OF THE TOPIC TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE NOW.
8.0 ptsGOOD–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES THIS EARLY. THE EMPATHY WITH THE AUDIENCE MIGHT BE A BIT LIMITED.
7.0 ptsAVERAGE–THE ESSAY GETS AROUND TO ESTABLISHING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOPIC.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING–THE ESSAY IS VAGUE ABOUT URGENCY BUT IT CAN BE INFERRED BY A REASONABLY WELL- EDUCATED READER.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT–URGENCY/IMPORTANCE/EXIGENCY IS ATTEMPTED BUT SERIOUSLY FLAWED BY FACTUAL ERRORS.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–No attempt to assert the importance, urgency or impetus for the topic is made.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA3-Logos/Logicthreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY UTILIZES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE RHETORICAL FIGURES SUCH AS ENTHYMEMES, COMPARISONS, METAPHORS, CONCESSION, REFUTATION, REBUTTAL OR OTHER LOGICAL STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. INCORPORATES CAREFULLY SELECTED RESEARCH INTO SOME LOGICAL STRUCTURES. AN ESSAY WIDE LOGIC STRUCTURE IS EVIDENT.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY UTILIZES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE RHETORICAL FIGURES SUCH AS ENTHYMEMES, COMPARISONS, METAPHORS, OR OTHER LOGICAL STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. INCORPORATES SELECTED RESEARCH INTO SOME LOGICAL STRUCTURES.
13.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. THERE MAY BE MOMENTS WHEN THE CONNECTION TO THE COMMONLY HELD VALUES OF THE AUDIENCE IS BRIEFLY LOST, BUT IT QUICKLY RETURNS.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. THERE MAY BE MOMENTS WHEN THE CONNECTION TO THE COMMONLY HELD VALUES OF THE AUDIENCE IS LOST, BUT IT RETURNS.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES BUT THEY DO NOT LINE UP WITH THE TARGET AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER. INSTEAD THEY SEEM WELL-SUITED TO AN ACADEMIC AUDIENCE.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY EMPLOYS RHETORICAL LOGICAL STRUCTURES BUT THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZABLY TAILORED TO ANY TARGET AUDIENCE.
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: THE ESSAY CONTAINS MAJOR LOGIC FLAWS (FALLACIES) THAT INTERFERE WITH THE MAIN CLAIM SUCH AS AN UNRECOVERABLE FALL DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE, LEANING ON A STRAW MAN, ETC.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: NO ATTEMPT TO REASON LOGICALLY WITH THE AUDIENCE.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA4-Pathos/Emotional Appealsthreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY USES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE PATHOS APPEALS. THESE PATHOS APPEALS COULD BE INTEGRATED THROUGH EFFECTIVE QUOTE SELECTION AS WELL AS IN THEIR OWN PROSE. EMOTION CONTRIBUTES TO THE URGENCY OF THE MAIN CLAIM. EVIDENCE OF A PAPER WIDE STRATEGY.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY USES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE PATHOS APPEALS. THESE PATHOS APPEALS COULD BE INTEGRATED THROUGH EFFECTIVE QUOTE SELECTION AS WELL AS IN THEIR OWN PROSE. EMOTION CONTRIBUTES TO THE URGENCY OF THE MAIN CLAIM.
13.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY USES PATHOS APPEALS BUT MIGHT BRIEFLY OVER OR UNDER APPEAL TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY USES PATHOS APPEALS BUT MIGHT OCCASIONALLY OVER OR UNDER APPEAL TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAYS USES EMOTIONAL APPEALS BUT THEY DO NOT SEEM TO LINE UP WELL WITH THE TARGET AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, THEY DO FALL INTO A REASONABLE EMOTIONAL RANGE FOR ACADEMIC AUDIENCES.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY DEMONSTRATES PATHOS BUT IT DOESN’T SEEM TO TARGET THE AUDIENCE IDENTIFIED NOR AN ACADEMIC AUDIENCE.
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: THE ESSAY DEMONSTRATES AWARENESS OF APPEALS TO PATHOS, BUT SEVERAL ARE INAPPROPRIATE OR UNFAIR APPEALS SUCH AS BULLYING THE AUDIENCE OR PATHETIC FALLACIES THAT DAMAGE SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY DOES NOT ATTEMPT EMOTIONAL APPEALS
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA5-Ethos/Decorum/Personathreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY ATTEMPTS TO USE THE WRITER’S PERSONA TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM. THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH POSITIONALITY, THROUGH PROFESSIONALISM, BY ESTABLISHING IN/OUT GROUP MEMBERSHIP, ETC. SHOWS AWARENESS OF THE VENUE AND RHETORICAL SITUATION THROUGH IMITATION OF FORMAL GENRE ELEMENTS LIKE ADAPTING THE ESSAY TO LETTER FORM, ETC.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY ATTEMPTS TO USE THE WRITER’S PERSONA TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM. THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH POSITIONALITY, THROUGH PROFESSIONALISM, BY ESTABLISHING IN/OUT GROUP MEMBERSHIP, ETC. IT COULD ALSO BE THROUGH IMITATION OF FORMAL GENRE ELEMENTS LIKE ADAPTING THE ESSAY TO LETTER FORM, ETC.
13.0 ptsGOOD: MOST OF THE APPEALS TO ETHOS IN THE ESSAY MAKE ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE BUT MAY OCCASIONALLY FALL OUT OF VOICE, OR MAKE THE OCCASIONAL ERROR IN DECORUM.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY MAKES ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE BUT INCONSISTENTLY. MAKES THE OCCASIONAL ERROR IN DECORUM, BUT DOESN’T ALIENATE THE AUDIENCE.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAY DOES NOT MAKE ATTEMPTS TO TAILOR APPEALS TO ETHOS TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, IT CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO FOLLOW CONVENTIONS OF DECORUM FOR ACADEMIC PROSE.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE PAPER INCLUDES AUTHENTIC APPEALS TO ETHOS OR AN ATTEMPT AT DECORUM BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE TAILORED TO THE IDENTIFIED AUDIENCE OR AN ACADEMIC
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: MAKES ATTEMPTS AT A PERSONA OR ETHOS BUT THE PERSONA IS FALSE UNDERMINING THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THEIR CLAIMS (EXAMPLES: PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, CLAIMING TO BE A DOCTOR OR CONGRESS PERSON WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL, ETC.).
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: APPEALS TO ETHOS OR DECORUM NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THE ESSAY.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA6-Arrangementthreshold: 7.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY CONSISTENTLY TAILORS ITS ARRANGEMENT STRATEGY TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. WELL ORGANIZED AND EASY TO FOLLOW. MAY IMITATE ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURES POPULAR IN TARGET VENUE.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY TAILORS ITS ARRANGEMENT STRATEGY TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. ORGANIZED AND EASY TO FOLLOW. MAY IMITATE ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURES POPULAR IN TARGET VENUE.
8.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO STRATEGIZE FOR THE AUDIENCE, BUT MAY HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES. MIGHT MAKE AN UNEVEN ATTEMPT TO IMITATE GENRE CONVENTIONS OF A TARGET PUBLICATION.
7.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO STRATEGIZE FOR THE AUDIENCE, BUT MAY HAVE SOME CLUNKY MOMENTS OR INCONSISTENCIES. MIGHT MAKE A CLUNKY ATTEMPT TO IMITATE GENRE CONVENTIONS OF A TARGET PUBLICATION.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT TAILOR TO THE AUDIENCE, BUT IS PRAGMATICALLY ORGANIZED ON BASIC ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: ORGANIZED INTO PARAGRAPHS. NO PAPERWIDE STRATEGY IS DISCERNIBLE.
0.0 ptsNO PARAGRAPHS.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA7-Style and Mechanicsthreshold: 7.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: ELOQUENT.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD: STYLISH.
8.0 ptsGOOD: SMOOTH, GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT INTERFACE WITH THE READER.
7.0 ptsAVERAGE: COMMUNICATES EFFECTIVELY.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: GRAMMAR INTERFERES WITH MEANING OCCASIONALLY, BUT CLAIMS EMERGE.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF MECHANICS FREQUENTLY MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE CLAIMS BEING MADE.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: INCOMPREHENSIBLE. FRAGMENTED NOTES.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA9-Works Cited and Parenthetical Notationsthreshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsPROFICIENT: DEMONSTRATES PROFICIENCY IN MLA FORMATTING. IN-TEXT CITATIONS EASILY MAP BACK TO THE WORKS CITED LIST. MAY CONTAIN MINOR COPYEDITING ERRORS.
4.0 ptsCOMPETENT: DEMONSTRATES COMPETENCY IN THE USE OF MLA STYLE TO ATTRIBUTE OUTSIDE SOURCES. MAY INCLUDE THE OCCASIONAL LAPSE IN PRECISION OVER HOW TO CITE ADVANCED OR UNUSUAL TYPES OF SOURCES. OCCASIONAL ERRORS IN FORMAT OR PUNCTUATION PATTERNS ALLOWED.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: RECOGNIZABLE ATTEMPT AT MLA STYLE TO DOCUMENT SOURCE MATERIAL. MAY INCLUDE ERRORS IN CONTENT OR FORMAT BUT GENERALLY ACCOMPLISHES THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF A CITATION SYSTEM TO MAKE OUTSIDE SOURCES ACCESSIBLE TO THE READER.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: GESTURES TOWARDS A WORKS CITED LIST AND IN TEXT ATTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE NOT YET AT THE MINIMUM PASSING LEVEL.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: NO WORKS CITED INCLUDED OR NO PARENTHETICALS INCLUDED.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA10-Quotations and Paraphrases–Curation of Researchthreshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsPROFICIENT: A VARIETY OF QUOTATIONS AND PARAPHRASES ARE SMOOTHLY FRAMED WITH CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS. WELL-CHOSEN VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION CONSISTENTLY CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE VOICES OF OTHERS.
4.0 ptsCOMPETENT: QUOTATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES ARE COMPETENTLY EMPLOYED, YET THE WRITER OVERLY RELIES ON A PARTICULAR TYPE. WRITER USUALLY INCLUDES CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS. VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION ARE OFTEN CHOSEN TO INDICATE WHO IS SPEAKING AND HOW THEY ARE SPEAKING.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: QUOTATIONS AND PARAPHRASES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE STUDENT WRITER’S THOUGHTS AND THE THOUGHTS OF OTHERS. CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS EMPLOYED AT LEAST HALF THE TIME. WRITER MAY BE INCONSISTENT IN CONTROL OVER PUNCTUATION AND VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: ESSAY INCLUDES ATTEMPTS AT QUOTING OR PARAPHRASING SUCH THAT IT IS CLEAR WHO IS SPEAKING AT LEAST HALF THE TIME.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: IT IS UNCLEAR WHO IS SPEAKING MORE THAN HALF THE TIME.
Argue your viewpoint in a current (within the past two years) controversy concerning American identity in a rigorously researched 4-6 page (1300-2000 words) essay. Choose one of the three course threads to focus on: gender, race or ethnicity. You could also choose a controversy in which these topics intersect with each other or with other aspects of American identity. As a persuasive piece, the essay should advocate that the audience do, think or believe something. Think about the examples of argument you have seen during the course: what do they ask, demand or beg of audiences? How do they use the major appeals like ethos, logos, pathos and kairos to build a persuasive case? How are they organized? Why should people care about this right now? Model those rhetorical techniques in your own work, adapting and abstracting them to your own argumentative purpose.
Research Requirement
Your argument’s major claim and supporting ideas must be supported with a carefully considered balance of rhetorical appeals and evidence gleaned from research. Evidence, after all, functions as an appeal. You may use the research you did for your annotated bibliography assignment to support your claims. Do not drop those summaries into the persuasive essay. They weren’t designed for your audience. If you find your argument needs more or different support, you may also include new sources. Remember that you are making an argument expressing your viewpoint by using evidence and refuting counterpoints, not merely summarizing.
Choose a target audience and an organizational strategy
Choose an educated audience that does not agree with you on the topic at hand. That means they should be undecided or hostile. For example, if arguing that social security benefits should be suspended for all women over the age of 65, you might choose a target audience like the Democratic National Convention where that position would be recieved with hostility. We encourage you to think about local venues where your argument could have real world impact such as a community association or the leadership of an institution you have a stake in. For example, if arguing that gender-neutral bathrooms should be featured in your school then possible audiences could include the local School Board or the local Parent Teacher Association.
Think carefully about all the available means of persuasion. What specific arguments and evidence will be most convincing to this audience? Will you need to refute ideas commonly held by the group? What emotional and ethical appeals will be effective in persuading your audience to consider (and hopefully accept) your claim? Are you part of this group, or an outsider? How can you organize your claims to lead the reader through a flowing logical sequence? When choosing where to put your thesis statement, sometimes when writing to a potentially hostile audience it is appropriate to withhold the claim until after the presentation of evidence to build support.
Mandatory Minimum Requirements Checklist
Imagine this is an article that could be published in an existing journal, magazine, newspaper, or on a website. Between the MLA heading and the essay title, briefly and specifically, describe the audience and the venue. Here is an example:
Example: “Daily Texan student, faculty, staff and alumni readers are generally aware of UT’s top-six-percent rule automatic admissions rule. Many of these Daily Texan readers may have benefited from it when it was the top-seven-percent or top-ten-percent rule, so they probably will be hostile to my proposal to abolish it entirely.”
State a compelling thesis. Usually, such claims occur at the beginning of an academic essay. However, when writing to a potentially hostile audience sometimes it is appropriate to withhold the claim until after the presentation of evidence. The support for this thesis should come from your research.
You are required to use a minimum of fivesources for this assignment. Carefully evaluate each source for its relevance and credibility–you aren’t looking to pad the essay, but rather to support your claims.
Include a Works Cited list.
Include a descriptive title for your essay.
Length: 4-6 pages in length (1300-2000 words), typed, double-spaced (length not including Works Cited page)
MLA guidelines for format, headings, quotes, and citations.
Proofread carefully.
Essay must be on topic and answer the prompt.
Notice that the word evidence was used six times above. Six times. In bold print. That must mean it’s important. Here it is again: EVIDENCE.
As always, please see the syllabus plagiarism policy for how grading is impacted if plagiarism is found in an essay.
Academic Integrity Reminder
All work in the RHE309k course must meet UT standards for Academic Integrity. In this course, MLA style is a mandatory minimum requirement for documentation of sources, quotations and paraphrases. All final uploads should be the original work of the student submitting. See the syllabus for mandatory minimum requirements and consequences for assignment grades. Read more about UT’s definitions of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and collusion here (Links to an external site.).
CANVAS UPLOAD VERIFICATION REMINDER
Verify all submissions before the deadline. It is your responsibility. Human error in uploading the wrong attachment is not a technology issue. The availability window between 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm is for fixing any tech issues. Be sure to use it wisely–we do not accept work after that window closes without a verified extension request.
Recall that you have a Canvas Guides and Tips page and links to Guides in the Welcome module for this course which includes a screencast with info on verifying your submission (2:08:00), and uploading the right thing to the right place is very important for getting your work properly evaluated: Click here to review Submitting and VERIFYING Submissions.
Rubric
Researched Persuasive Argument Spring 2020
Researched Persuasive Argument Spring 2020
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA1-Audience Identificationview longer description
threshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsGOOD–CLEARLY IDENTIFIES A SPECIFIC HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED STAKEHOLDER IN THE AREA OF THEIR DEBATE AND A VENUE THROUGH WHICH TO REACH THEM IN THE HEADER TO THE ESSAY.
4.0 ptsAVERAGE–IDENTIFIES A HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED STAKEHOLDER GROUP IN THE HEADER BUT THE SENSE OF VENUE THROUGH WHICH TO REACH THEM IS VAGUE.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING–IDENTIFIES A RECOGNIZABLE TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC OF POTENTIALLY HOSTILE OR UNDECIDED PEOPLE BUT NOT AN ACTUAL STAKE HOLDING GROUP. VENUE IS VAGUE OR MISSING.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT–MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIES AN AUDIENCE THAT AGREES WITH THEM.
1.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–FAILS TO INCLUDE AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AN AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–FAILS TO INCLUDE AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AN AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA2-Urgency/Kairos/Importanceview longer description
threshold: 8.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES URGENCY EARLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE. ASSERTS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOPIC TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE NOW.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES IMPORTANCE AND URGENCY OF THE TOPIC TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE NOW.
8.0 ptsGOOD–THE ESSAY ESTABLISHES THIS EARLY. THE EMPATHY WITH THE AUDIENCE MIGHT BE A BIT LIMITED.
7.0 ptsAVERAGE–THE ESSAY GETS AROUND TO ESTABLISHING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOPIC.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING–THE ESSAY IS VAGUE ABOUT URGENCY BUT IT CAN BE INFERRED BY A REASONABLY WELL- EDUCATED READER.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT–URGENCY/IMPORTANCE/EXIGENCY IS ATTEMPTED BUT SERIOUSLY FLAWED BY FACTUAL ERRORS.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS–No attempt to assert the importance, urgency or impetus for the topic is made.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA3-Logos/Logicthreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY UTILIZES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE RHETORICAL FIGURES SUCH AS ENTHYMEMES, COMPARISONS, METAPHORS, CONCESSION, REFUTATION, REBUTTAL OR OTHER LOGICAL STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. INCORPORATES CAREFULLY SELECTED RESEARCH INTO SOME LOGICAL STRUCTURES. AN ESSAY WIDE LOGIC STRUCTURE IS EVIDENT.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY UTILIZES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE RHETORICAL FIGURES SUCH AS ENTHYMEMES, COMPARISONS, METAPHORS, OR OTHER LOGICAL STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. INCORPORATES SELECTED RESEARCH INTO SOME LOGICAL STRUCTURES.
13.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. THERE MAY BE MOMENTS WHEN THE CONNECTION TO THE COMMONLY HELD VALUES OF THE AUDIENCE IS BRIEFLY LOST, BUT IT QUICKLY RETURNS.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES TO CLEARLY BUILD TO THE MAIN CLAIM. THERE MAY BE MOMENTS WHEN THE CONNECTION TO THE COMMONLY HELD VALUES OF THE AUDIENCE IS LOST, BUT IT RETURNS.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAY USES RHETORICAL LOGIC STRUCTURES BUT THEY DO NOT LINE UP WITH THE TARGET AUDIENCE IN THE HEADER. INSTEAD THEY SEEM WELL-SUITED TO AN ACADEMIC AUDIENCE.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY EMPLOYS RHETORICAL LOGICAL STRUCTURES BUT THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZABLY TAILORED TO ANY TARGET AUDIENCE.
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: THE ESSAY CONTAINS MAJOR LOGIC FLAWS (FALLACIES) THAT INTERFERE WITH THE MAIN CLAIM SUCH AS AN UNRECOVERABLE FALL DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE, LEANING ON A STRAW MAN, ETC.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: NO ATTEMPT TO REASON LOGICALLY WITH THE AUDIENCE.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA4-Pathos/Emotional Appealsthreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY USES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE PATHOS APPEALS. THESE PATHOS APPEALS COULD BE INTEGRATED THROUGH EFFECTIVE QUOTE SELECTION AS WELL AS IN THEIR OWN PROSE. EMOTION CONTRIBUTES TO THE URGENCY OF THE MAIN CLAIM. EVIDENCE OF A PAPER WIDE STRATEGY.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY USES AUDIENCE APPROPRIATE PATHOS APPEALS. THESE PATHOS APPEALS COULD BE INTEGRATED THROUGH EFFECTIVE QUOTE SELECTION AS WELL AS IN THEIR OWN PROSE. EMOTION CONTRIBUTES TO THE URGENCY OF THE MAIN CLAIM.
13.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY USES PATHOS APPEALS BUT MIGHT BRIEFLY OVER OR UNDER APPEAL TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY USES PATHOS APPEALS BUT MIGHT OCCASIONALLY OVER OR UNDER APPEAL TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAYS USES EMOTIONAL APPEALS BUT THEY DO NOT SEEM TO LINE UP WELL WITH THE TARGET AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, THEY DO FALL INTO A REASONABLE EMOTIONAL RANGE FOR ACADEMIC AUDIENCES.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY DEMONSTRATES PATHOS BUT IT DOESN’T SEEM TO TARGET THE AUDIENCE IDENTIFIED NOR AN ACADEMIC AUDIENCE.
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: THE ESSAY DEMONSTRATES AWARENESS OF APPEALS TO PATHOS, BUT SEVERAL ARE INAPPROPRIATE OR UNFAIR APPEALS SUCH AS BULLYING THE AUDIENCE OR PATHETIC FALLACIES THAT DAMAGE SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY DOES NOT ATTEMPT EMOTIONAL APPEALS
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA5-Ethos/Decorum/Personathreshold: 11.0 pts
15.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY ATTEMPTS TO USE THE WRITER’S PERSONA TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM. THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH POSITIONALITY, THROUGH PROFESSIONALISM, BY ESTABLISHING IN/OUT GROUP MEMBERSHIP, ETC. SHOWS AWARENESS OF THE VENUE AND RHETORICAL SITUATION THROUGH IMITATION OF FORMAL GENRE ELEMENTS LIKE ADAPTING THE ESSAY TO LETTER FORM, ETC.
14.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY ATTEMPTS TO USE THE WRITER’S PERSONA TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MAIN CLAIM. THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH POSITIONALITY, THROUGH PROFESSIONALISM, BY ESTABLISHING IN/OUT GROUP MEMBERSHIP, ETC. IT COULD ALSO BE THROUGH IMITATION OF FORMAL GENRE ELEMENTS LIKE ADAPTING THE ESSAY TO LETTER FORM, ETC.
13.0 ptsGOOD: MOST OF THE APPEALS TO ETHOS IN THE ESSAY MAKE ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE BUT MAY OCCASIONALLY FALL OUT OF VOICE, OR MAKE THE OCCASIONAL ERROR IN DECORUM.
12.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY MAKES ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE AUDIENCE BUT INCONSISTENTLY. MAKES THE OCCASIONAL ERROR IN DECORUM, BUT DOESN’T ALIENATE THE AUDIENCE.
11.0 ptsAVERAGE: THE ESSAY DOES NOT MAKE ATTEMPTS TO TAILOR APPEALS TO ETHOS TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, IT CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO FOLLOW CONVENTIONS OF DECORUM FOR ACADEMIC PROSE.
10.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE PAPER INCLUDES AUTHENTIC APPEALS TO ETHOS OR AN ATTEMPT AT DECORUM BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE TAILORED TO THE IDENTIFIED AUDIENCE OR AN ACADEMIC
9.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: MAKES ATTEMPTS AT A PERSONA OR ETHOS BUT THE PERSONA IS FALSE UNDERMINING THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THEIR CLAIMS (EXAMPLES: PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE, CLAIMING TO BE A DOCTOR OR CONGRESS PERSON WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL, ETC.).
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: APPEALS TO ETHOS OR DECORUM NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THE ESSAY.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA6-Arrangementthreshold: 7.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: THE ESSAY CONSISTENTLY TAILORS ITS ARRANGEMENT STRATEGY TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. WELL ORGANIZED AND EASY TO FOLLOW. MAY IMITATE ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURES POPULAR IN TARGET VENUE.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD: THE ESSAY TAILORS ITS ARRANGEMENT STRATEGY TO THE TARGET AUDIENCE. ORGANIZED AND EASY TO FOLLOW. MAY IMITATE ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURES POPULAR IN TARGET VENUE.
8.0 ptsGOOD: THE ESSAY CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO STRATEGIZE FOR THE AUDIENCE, BUT MAY HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES. MIGHT MAKE AN UNEVEN ATTEMPT TO IMITATE GENRE CONVENTIONS OF A TARGET PUBLICATION.
7.0 ptsFAIR: THE ESSAY CLEARLY ATTEMPTS TO STRATEGIZE FOR THE AUDIENCE, BUT MAY HAVE SOME CLUNKY MOMENTS OR INCONSISTENCIES. MIGHT MAKE A CLUNKY ATTEMPT TO IMITATE GENRE CONVENTIONS OF A TARGET PUBLICATION.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: THE ESSAY ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT TAILOR TO THE AUDIENCE, BUT IS PRAGMATICALLY ORGANIZED ON BASIC ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: ORGANIZED INTO PARAGRAPHS. NO PAPERWIDE STRATEGY IS DISCERNIBLE.
0.0 ptsNO PARAGRAPHS.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA7-Style and Mechanicsthreshold: 7.0 pts
10.0 ptsEXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: ELOQUENT.
9.0 ptsVERY GOOD: STYLISH.
8.0 ptsGOOD: SMOOTH, GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT INTERFACE WITH THE READER.
7.0 ptsAVERAGE: COMMUNICATES EFFECTIVELY.
6.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: GRAMMAR INTERFERES WITH MEANING OCCASIONALLY, BUT CLAIMS EMERGE.
5.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF MECHANICS FREQUENTLY MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE CLAIMS BEING MADE.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: INCOMPREHENSIBLE. FRAGMENTED NOTES.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA9-Works Cited and Parenthetical Notationsthreshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsPROFICIENT: DEMONSTRATES PROFICIENCY IN MLA FORMATTING. IN-TEXT CITATIONS EASILY MAP BACK TO THE WORKS CITED LIST. MAY CONTAIN MINOR COPYEDITING ERRORS.
4.0 ptsCOMPETENT: DEMONSTRATES COMPETENCY IN THE USE OF MLA STYLE TO ATTRIBUTE OUTSIDE SOURCES. MAY INCLUDE THE OCCASIONAL LAPSE IN PRECISION OVER HOW TO CITE ADVANCED OR UNUSUAL TYPES OF SOURCES. OCCASIONAL ERRORS IN FORMAT OR PUNCTUATION PATTERNS ALLOWED.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: RECOGNIZABLE ATTEMPT AT MLA STYLE TO DOCUMENT SOURCE MATERIAL. MAY INCLUDE ERRORS IN CONTENT OR FORMAT BUT GENERALLY ACCOMPLISHES THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF A CITATION SYSTEM TO MAKE OUTSIDE SOURCES ACCESSIBLE TO THE READER.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: GESTURES TOWARDS A WORKS CITED LIST AND IN TEXT ATTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE NOT YET AT THE MINIMUM PASSING LEVEL.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: NO WORKS CITED INCLUDED OR NO PARENTHETICALS INCLUDED.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRPA10-Quotations and Paraphrases–Curation of Researchthreshold: 4.0 pts
5.0 ptsPROFICIENT: A VARIETY OF QUOTATIONS AND PARAPHRASES ARE SMOOTHLY FRAMED WITH CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS. WELL-CHOSEN VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION CONSISTENTLY CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE VOICES OF OTHERS.
4.0 ptsCOMPETENT: QUOTATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES ARE COMPETENTLY EMPLOYED, YET THE WRITER OVERLY RELIES ON A PARTICULAR TYPE. WRITER USUALLY INCLUDES CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS. VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION ARE OFTEN CHOSEN TO INDICATE WHO IS SPEAKING AND HOW THEY ARE SPEAKING.
3.0 ptsMINIMUM PASSING: QUOTATIONS AND PARAPHRASES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE STUDENT WRITER’S THOUGHTS AND THE THOUGHTS OF OTHERS. CONTEXT AND/OR ANALYSIS EMPLOYED AT LEAST HALF THE TIME. WRITER MAY BE INCONSISTENT IN CONTROL OVER PUNCTUATION AND VERBS OF ATTRIBUTION.
2.0 ptsPARTIAL CREDIT: ESSAY INCLUDES ATTEMPTS AT QUOTING OR PARAPHRASING SUCH THAT IT IS CLEAR WHO IS SPEAKING AT LEAST HALF THE TIME.
0.0 ptsDOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS: IT IS UNCLEAR WHO IS SPEAKING MORE THAN HALF THE TIME.
