This is a follow up essay from an essay that I wrote a few weeks ago (see attached), this time its supposed to use scholarly sources instead of popular ones. below are the requirements as posted in the course as well as the grading rubric. I’ve also attached the sample essay provided to the class by the professor.
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 7 and 8 in your textbook With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Updated ed.). The University of Arizona Global Campus.
In week one paper, Evaluating Arguments from Popular Sources, you examined arguments from non-scholarly sources. This week’s paper gives you a chance to investigate scholarly reasoning on your topic. Use the same topic you selected for the Week 1 assignment.
For this assignment, you will present and evaluate an argument from a scholarly source on your topic. You will also share other scholarly sources that you have found that will be relevant to your final paper. For an example of how to complete this paper, look at the Week Three Example Paper Download Week Three Example Paperand download it.
Begin by finding three scholarly articles that address your topic. Of the three, strive to find at least one with an opposing perspective. (It is okay if you cannot find one with an exactly opposing position. At least make the attempt; whether scholarly articles exist on both sides will be discussed within the paper.)
Note: In some cases, it may not be possible to find scholarly sources that address your specific topic (especially if your topic is a local issue). If that is the case, just find a scholarly source that addresses questions that are most relevant to your topic. As an example, if your topic is whether a road should be built through the wetlands in your county, you can find a source that addresses the importance of preserving wetlands generally.
The UAGC library features research tutorialsLinks to an external site., which offer videos on getting started, understanding the research process, vetting scholarly and popular resources, and reading scholarly articles.
In your paper include the following elements,
Introduction (approximately 100 words)
- Explain your topic and state the specific question you are addressing.
- Explain why this topic is important.
- Explain what you intend to accomplish in this paper.
Summary of Three Scholarly Articles (approximately 150 words each)
- List each reference in APA.
- After each reference, provide a summary of the article. You are not required to summarize all aspects of the paper; focus on how it attempts to answer the question you are addressing.
Presentation of an Argument from a Scholarly Source (approximately 150 words)
- Select one of the articles (one that presents a clear argument) and present the argument from the article in standard form (with the premises listed above the conclusion, as with the Week 1 assignment).
Note: Articles do not always state their arguments clearly. Part of your job is to determine the argument presented in the article, as you understand it.
Evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in this source (approximately 250 words)
In your evaluation of the argument, you may address questions such as the following:
- How well supported are the argument’s premises?
- How strongly do the argument’s premises support the truth of the conclusion?
- What (if any) missing premises would be needed to complete the argument (make it valid/strong)? Are these missing premises justified or merely assumptions?
- How might someone with a different point of view reply to this argument?
Discussion of Research on this Topic (approximately 200 words)
In your paper, discuss your answers to questions, such as the following:
- Was it hard to find scholarly sources on your topic?
- Which side of your question do most sources seem to fall on?
- If they are lopsided (more on one side than the other), why do you think that might be?
- What type of further research would help you to discover which answer to your research question is most supported by the evidence?
Evaluation of Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources (approximately 150 words)
- Evaluate the difference in the quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises in scholarly sources contrasted with non-scholarly sources (e.g., between the scholarly sources you used for this paper and the popular sources you used for your Week 1 paper).
- If you need support, review the Scholarly and Popular ResourcesLinks to an external site. video.
Conclusion (approximately 100 words)
- Reflect on how this activity might influence how you conduct research in the future
The Scholarly Arguments on the Topic paper
- must be four to six double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA StyleLinks to an external site. as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA Formatting for Microsoft WordLinks to an external site. resource.
- must include a separate title page with the following in title case:
- title of paper in bold font
- Space should appear between the title and the rest of the information on the title page.
- student’s name
- name of institution (The University of Arizona Global Campus)
- course name and number
- instructor’s name
- due date
- title of paper in bold font
- must utilize academic voice. See the Academic VoiceLinks to an external site. resource for additional guidance.
- must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph.
- must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text.
- The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible SourcesLinks to an external site. table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source.
- To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view Quick and Easy Library ResearchLinks to an external site. tutorial, which introduces the University of Arizona Global Campus Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.
- must document any information used from sources in APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA: Citing Within Your PaperLinks to an external site. guide.
- must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center.
- See the APA: Formatting Your References ListLinks to an external site. resource in the Writing Center for specifications.
Introduction
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly completes all the elements in the Introduction section.
Proficient – Completes the elements in the Introduction section. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Partially completes the elements in the Introduction section. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the elements in the Introduction section; however, significant details are missing and/or unclear.
Non-Performance – The Introduction section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Summary of Three Scholarly Articles
Distinguished – Accurately lists three references and provides a comprehensive and clear summary for each.
Proficient – Lists three references and provides a summary for each. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Lists at least two references and provides limited summary for each. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to list at least one reference and provide a summary; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The list of three references and summary for each are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.
Presentation of an Argument in Standard Form from a Scholarly Source
Distinguished – Presents a thorough, clear, and accurate argument in standard form from a scholarly source.
Proficient – Presents an argument in standard form from a scholarly source. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Presents a limited argument from a scholarly source. Relevant details are missing, unclear, inaccurate, and/or not in standard form.
Below Expectations – Attempts to present an argument in standard form from a scholarly source in standard form; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The presentation of an argument in standard form from a scholarly source in standard form is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Reasoning
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the argument.
Proficient – Evaluates the argument. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the argument. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the argument; however, significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the argument is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Discussion of Research on this Topic
Distinguished – Comprehensively discusses the research on the topic.
Proficient – Discusses the research on the topic. The discussion is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Minimally discusses the research on the topic. The discussion is underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to discuss the research on the topic; however, the discussion is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance – The discussion of the research on the topic is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Evaluation of Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly evaluates the difference in quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources.
Proficient – Evaluates the difference in quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the difference in quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the difference in quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources; however, significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the difference in quality of reasoning or in the degree of support for premises between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Conclusion
Distinguished – Comprehensively and clearly completes the element in the Conclusion section.
Proficient – Completes the element in the Conclusion section. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Partially completes the element in the Conclusion section. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the element in the Conclusion section; however, significant details are missing and unclear.
Non-Performance – The Conclusion section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: APA Formatting
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.