If you've committed yourself to tackling two arguments, then (a) make sure you're doing a really good job on at least one of them, and (b) know that you'll get some extra credit, but not double credit.
OK, here's the rubric. Please read carefully. Note that there are actually MORE points for doing a thorough job of using the worksheet to document your analysis than for the writeup.
Thanks! You all are rock stars.
| Worksheet: 60% | ||
| Does not need to be in complete sentences, but needs to be clear | ||
| Identify a piece of evidence | 6 | 3 points for naming it, 3 for a citation that lets me find it |
| Determine the claim that it's intending to support | 12 | 8 points for identifying it, 4 for noting whether its explicit or implicit (and, if explicit, giving a citation) |
| Identify (and, where necessary, reconstruct) the warrant | 24 | 20 points for reconstructing the chain of reasoning; 4 for noting whether each step in the chain is explicitly stated in the text or implied, and for citing those that are explicitly stated. |
| Identify the strongest counter-warrant you can | 18 | 14 points for identifying/constructing the strongest coutner-warrant you can think of; 4 points for noting whether it's explicit or implicit, and providing citations from the text where appropriate |
| Extra credit: Present example of a weak (or fanciful) counter-warrant | 4 | |
| Paper/Report: 40% | ||
| Walk me through the steps, make clear any connections that may not be obvious from looking at the worksheet. Note where you made choices, what alternatives you considered, and why you made the choices you did. The style need not be especially formal, but it must be clear, and the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation still apply. Papers with multiple serious grammar/punctuation/spelling errors may lose as much as 5 points. | ||
| How/why did you choose this piece of evidence as your starting point? | 1 | |
| How did you determine what conclusion this evidence was supposed to support? | 3 | |
| How did you reconstruct the chain of reasoning? | 12 | |
| What's the most compelling part of that chain? Does it have a weak link? | 4 | |
| Extra credit: If you looked at a weak/fanciful counter-warrant, note it, and explain what made it weak. | 4 | |
| How did you identify/construct the strong counter-warrant? | 8 | |
| What's the most compelling part of the counter-warrant? Does the chain have a weak link? | 4 | |
| What's the most fundamental difference in the assumptions behind the warrant and the counter-warrant? | 4 | |
| How do you personally respond to that difference? | 4 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment