Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Argument Through the Reason of Persons Enthymeme
Writing Essay
Essay Cycles
All of the contractual labor for this class fits into two essay cycles. For each, you will craft a thoughtful persuasive essay concerning food justice using our course readings. You will then have the opportunity to revise these essays based on peer and instructor feedback. In all of the essays you will produce for this class, you should:
Introduce your essay with a paragraph that hooks your reader, establishes the context for your argument, and states your enthymeme.
Develop and organize your argument through the reason of your enthymeme.
This line of reasoning will include
an inquiry into the reason informed by specific evidence
a major counterargument, followed by a rebuttal, and
an earned conclusion.
Credit the ideas of others by including parenthetical citations, and a Works Cited page that lists the sources you cite in your essay. Adhere to the conventions of MLA documentation.
Polish your writing. Aim to write formal academic prose while remaining hospitable to your readers. Adhere to the grammatical requirements of Standard Edited American English, MLA documentation style, and formatting guidelines stated on our class Canvas Page.
Logical Development Requirements
In order to earn an “On Time” grade for this assignment, the essay must:
Respond to a significant question at issue of your choosing that is related to and/or contextualized within the conversations we’ve had thus far this term regarding food justice;
Effectively incorporate at least two (2) of the assigned readings into the “conversation” through the use of direct quotes, paraphrase, and summary
Make an original argument about some problem, disagreement, or gap in knowledge that’s based in the conversations we’ve developed on the weekly discussion boards
To clarify: When I say I want you to write an original argument, I mean that I want you to focus on developing your ideas and your own line of reasoning instead of simply summarizing one of the source’s arguments back at me.
Additionally, you and your peers may use similar questions at issue or make similar claims, but the way you argue the point will be different from theirs. In other words, it is just fine to use the same Q@I as your peers and to make a similar argument. The originality will come through in the way you write the argument.
Include a properly formatted and underlined enthymeme (includes a claim, a reason, and a shared term) that identifies the argument you’re developing
Develop the line of reasoning clearly and logically by providing evidence, analysis, and explanation to support the reason and, if need be, the warrant of your essay.
For our purposes, evidence includes:
Quotes or paraphrases from the assigned readings
Personal anecdotes or observations
Logical reasoning
Analysis of evidence and explanation of your reasoning
Include a strong, thoughtful, and ethical engagement with at least one reasonable counterargument, and then carefully rebut that counterargument.
Earn the claim/conclusion of the argument by clearly explaining and supporting the logic of your premises (the reason and the warrant) and their connection to the claim
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Argument Through the Reason of Persons Enthymeme |
Argument Through the Reason of Persons Enthymeme