The introduction provides context for the report. It includes adequate background information, explains the purpose, focus, and scope of the report’s argument, and discusses the main contention in the paper, as well as previews the research.The thesis statement clearly indicates the report’s focus (Classical or Rogerian approach) and previews the arguments which will form the main sections of the paper. There is a hook to engage the reader from the beginning of the paper.
|
More detail is required when introducing background information. Some further explanation of the purpose of the report, its focus and limitations, and description of its major sections, may be needed.
The thesis statement is fairly clear but may not relate fully to the major argumentative assertions of the paper, and may only contain some main ideas. There is not a hook in the introduction, making the beginning of the paper less compelling than it could be.
|
Some background information is present but is insufficient.
The thesis statement is absent, unfocused or unclear. Therefore, the paper does not begin with a clear argument. It also does not preview the principal arguments which will follow the introduction.
|
This paper’s arguments exceed expectations. The argumentative research paper is a minimum of 1200 words, and includes clearly argued sections, in either the Rogerian or the Classical style. There is ample use of evidence, and the evidence is explicated to show its relevance, and connection to the thesis. There is consistent use of appeals to support the evidence. All of the features of Classical or Rogerian argument are present. The style is academic, and the paper is highly persuasive.
|
This research paper is a strong effort with either Classical or Rogerian argument. The body of the paper meets the requirement for word count. Arguments are compelling, but they would benefit from a more rigorous approach to using both evidence and appeals to make the paper’s assertions more compelling. There are research citations in text, but the paper would benefit from the inclusion of more. Rebuttals and/or concessions need work. Documentation of sources is satisfactory.
|
This is a satisfactory effort, but the argumentative paper would benefit from more rigour in research, and stronger arguments, alongside more forceful appeals to logic, emotion, or ethics. The paper meets the word count, but there is insufficient evidence of a strong attempt with the research process, which the student needs to review for future writing projects. Style flows satisfactorily, but there are numerous errors, which suggest that this paper has not be edited and revised sufficiently. Please review the writing process for a paper of this kind.
|
There are frequent and major errors in the preparation of this paper. The arguments presented in it do not reflect the focus suggested by the thesis, and there is a weak attempt to write in either the Rogerian or the Classical mode. The student should review both of these models of argumentation to be successful in future. Research sources do not fully support the paper’s assertions, and there is little evidence the student has considered counter-arguments or alternate viewpoints.
|
Paragraph structure and organization are weak.
Ideas are not fully developed, and there is poor research to support the assertions that the paper is trying to make. There are limited or no appeals in the argument, further weakening it. The student must review the models of argument presented in this course. The paper is also difficult to read, as there are frequent errors in style, sentence structure, or grammar. Editing and tutoring are recommended.
|
Paragraph structure and organization are lacking. This is an unsuccessful assessment opportunity, as the student does not seem to have demonstrated the ability to use either Classical or Rogerian argument with any degree of skill. Incorporation of research is weak, or sources are few and not documented properly. The student must review core concepts, and seek writing help for future assignments.
|
The conclusion contains effective topic, supporting, and closing sentences.
The thesis is restated, and the logic and validity of this paper’s assertions are emphasized.
Suggestions, recommendations, or compromise solutions for a complex problem are stated and explained. A very strong effort.
|
The conclusion lacks some form of a paragraph structure (topic, supporting, or closing sentences).
If the thesis is restated it is unclear, or not focused in a way that ensures the validity of the argument presented in the paper. Suggestions or recommendations are not fully developed. There could be a stronger effort with this section of the paper.
|
Conclusion is weak and paragraph structure is lacking.The thesis is not restated.
There are no suggestions or recommendations for the future. Therefore, the validity of this paper’s argument is suspect, as the student has not indicated how the paper’s principle argument is valid.
|