Project 4: Argument-Analysis Paper

Prof Peter Ruggiero

Berklee College of Music: LENG111: Introduction to College Writing

MCPHS University:

LIB111: Introduction to Academic Writing I

Berklee Students: Choose an issue within music (performance, engineering, therapy, business), dance, or theater (according to your program and specialty) and propose a solution to it.

Alternately, you may choose to analyze an album, a performance, a songwriter, a choreographer (this list is not exhaustive). In this case, you will need to identify and use an analytical tool. That is, you will have to define the parameters of analysis as part of the paper.

MCPHS Students: Choose an issue in healthcare that you believe needs to be addressed and propose a solution to it.

All Students: The above should be the same as all you have done for the annotated bibliography (project 3)

Using the annotated bibliography, and specifically the working thesis, outline your paper. Consider how much of an introduction you will need. If you are using an analytical tool, it will go in the introductory paragraph(s) (limit 2).

List out all your body paragraphs.

Note which source(s) you will use in each paragraph. The source(s) you use and the number of times you use each one depends on your argument coming from your thesis statement. The sources are evidence. Your argument is the star of the show.

Consider the “So what?” of your argument. What is it you want your reader(s) to take away from your work. Why is your argument important? How does it fit into the overall professional conversation about your topic? Alternatively, how does it fit it with the understanding of the work of the artist?

Chapter 4 of What It Takes, a copy of which is on the learning management system (Canvas or Blackboard), contains all you will need to help you further complete this task.

The paper must be in MLA format (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html) in a standard font (for example Times New Roman, Courier, etc), double-spaced, with proper in-text citation and Works Cited. The example papers in What It Takes are in MLA. You are responsible for the proper formatting of the paper as information about it is widely available for consultation. All of us are responsible for informing ourselves (yes, my colleagues and I as well) about and using proper citation form when working at the college/university level.

The paper is to be between 1,500 and 2,000 words in length exclusive of the Works Cited.

Please consult your learning management system (Canvas or Blackboard) for all relevant due dates.

The rough draft is worth 20% of the total Project 4 grade. The final copy is worth 80% thereof. Project 4 is worth 15% of your overall grade for the course.

Grading Criteria for Argument/Analysis/Synthesis

A/A-

An excellent paper: a paper at this level displays sophisticated, analytical thinking—the author is able to synthesize information from multiple sources, making use of it to develop and support her own original ideas on a topic and argue convincingly for them. The author has a clear and effective thesis statement, identifying the topic and her position on the issue. The introductory paragraph(s) give an overview of the topic, including background and definitions. The author demonstrates an understanding of her source materials and the complexity of the issue. The opposition point of view is treated fairly and thoroughly. The author’s argument is developed with an effective and convincing blend of reason and evidence (logos), authority and credibility (ethos), and, where appropriate, emotion (pathos). Each paragraph has a clear topic, relevant supporting evidence, and thorough explanation. Sources are grammatically and logically integrated into the argument. The author synthesizes her sources and does not merely summarize them. There are few to no errors of grammar, punctuation, or usage.

B+/B/B-

A good paper. Papers at this level demonstrate a high level of thoroughness, correctness, and competence, but lack the overall presentation, quality, and effective rhetorical strategy of A-range work. The author has a clear thesis and develops it carefully and with adequate thoroughness. The author understands the source material and issues, and is able to analyze and synthesize the sources, though in a more general, less nuanced way. The author’s use of reason, authority, and emotion is again competent and demonstrates sufficient self-control and fairness towards opponents, but is not strongly compelling or forceful. There may be areas in the paper where the logical connections between ideas are not clearly shown; some logical fallacies may appear which weaken the argument without undermining it completely. There are few to no errors of grammar, punctuation, or usage.

C+/C/C-

A satisfactory paper, one that is acceptable according to the minimum standards of the assignment. It has few mechanical errors and is reasonably well-developed and organized, with a clear thesis and organizational structure, but the information may be thin, vague, or common-place. Often the author has settled for generalities instead of providing strong specific evidence which would demonstrate the author’s knowledge, and thereby, establish his credibility. The author may be prone to logical fallacies, which weaken his appeal to reason and/or authority. The author may not thoroughly understand the source readings well enough to use them effectively. In using sources, the author may tend to summarize rather than analyze or synthesize; evidence from sources is useful but may not be smoothly or logically integrated into the argument. At the lower level of the C range, the number of errors in grammar and usage may be somewhat distracting and may detract from effectiveness or readability.

D/F

Unsatisfactory work. Papers in this range may relate to the assignment, but are marred by enough errors in syntax, mechanics, or grammar to be a serious distraction to the reader. The author fails to demonstrate an adequate level of reading comprehension and, as a result, cannot analyze, synthesize, or argue logically or effectively. The author may lack a clear thesis and purpose for writing, and does not show understanding and/or fair treatment of opposing viewpoints and complexities of the issue at hand. Use of sources is inconsistent and logical fallacies are frequent. The author may demonstrate a rudimentary treatment of the subject, unclear organization, awkward or ambiguous sentences, and little evidence of careful proofreading. Finally, the author may simply not have understood or adhered to the instructions for the assignment.