American Gov
deefer
AmericanGovernment-AnalysisAssignmentInstructions-spring-2023.docx2
Analysis Paper 150 Points Spring 2023 American Government
IMPORTANT: Please read every word of this document before you begin your work.
Do not hesitate to contact the instructor with any questions or concerns. 3 pages
Purpose: The primary purpose of this assignment is to help students build practical skills including careful reading, critical thinking, thoughtful writing, time management, and a keen attention to detail as they improve their understanding of course materials.
Topic Selection: The student will select a document from an approved list. Alternately, students may request instructor approval for another document, not on the list. Any student using an alternate document, not listed as an approved document for that analysis assignment, must receive approval in writing before beginning work on their analysis.
Headings: The paper’s headings, indicating each section of the analysis, must be clearly presented in bold font, like in the example.
Failure to use the appropriate headings may result in a zero.
Formatting: Your work should use one-inch margins. The body of the text should be double spaced in Times New Roman 12 PT. Footnotes (if used) should be single spaced in Times New Roman 10 PT. The works cited section should be single spaced in Times New Roman 12 PT. You must include page numbers in the upper right-hand corner. Failure to use the proper formatting may result in a deduction of ten points. In extreme cases, improperly formatted documents may receive a score of zero. If you do not know how to change the default formatting, ask for help.
Citations: The work should cite their sources with MLA style parenthetical citations and a works cited section at the end. Any student who fails to cite the document and at least one additional peer reviewed resource with in text parenthetical citations and a works cited section may suffer a ten point reduction in grade.
Research: This is a scholarly endeavor, and you should only use peer reviewed journal research in the thesis assessment section. Any student in need of research help should contact the instructor for assistance.
Helpful peer reviewed articles may be found at the following databases.
1.ProQuest Central - Available Through the College Library’s Webpage
Select the Options for Full Text and Peer Reviewed When Using ProQuest
2. JSTOR - Free JSTOR articles are Available Here https://about.jstor.org/oa-and-free/
Additional JSTOR Articles are Available If You Sign Up for a Free Account
3. Directory of Open Access Journals - https://doaj.org/
Click the Option for Articles When You Search DOAJ
4. The Encyclopedia of North Carolina - https://www.ncpedia.org/
Plagiarism: Any work shown in the analysis must be the student’s own work and words; otherwise this constitutes plagiarism or cheating. You may not work together. No student should ever be in possession of another student’s work for any reason, even after the work has received a grade. If you want to improve your work or do not understand your grade, you should speak with the instructor, not another student. Plagiarized assignments will receive a zero and may result in additional penalties up to and including expulsion from the college. If a student turns in another student’s work from any class, both students will receive a zero on that assignment.
Quotes: You may not use any quotes in the analysis – not even from the document. No quotation marks should appear anywhere in the document , other than in the citations. Any analysis containing a quote, will receive a ten point reduction in grade. In extreme cases, excessive quotations may result in a score of zero.
Length: Papers will not exceed three pages of analysis. Students may list their works cited on a fourth page, but nothing else. Anything over this length will not be read or graded.
Writing Mechanics: Your work should follow standard rules of English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Proofread your work carefully.
Rough Drafts: Students may send rough drafts to the instructor as email attachments. The instructor will be happy to answer questions and provide comments on rough drafts. However, time is limited. If a student wants help with their assignment, they should ask sooner rather than later.
Submission Process: Each analysis must focus on an approved document for that analysis. Each analysis must be submitted under the corresponding upload link in Blackboard. Any assignment which is not submitted under the correct upload link, will receive a score of zero. If a student uploads the wrong document, they may upload an additional document under the corresponding upload link in Blackboard before the deadline. Only the last submission will be graded. Once a document receives a grade, no part of the work may be reused for any purpose.
Deadlines: Late papers will suffer a ten-point reduction in grade for each business day the work is due, unless the student is dealing with a serious extenuating circumstance and provides proof of that circumstance to the instructor. If a file does not arrive before the deadline, is damaged, or fails to open for any reason, the student will receive no points. Students are strongly encouraged to submit work early and request confirmation that the document opened correctly if they are concerned about their file.
Example: Model your work on the provided example. Your work should be nearly indistinguishable from the example.
Extra Credit: Students may produce one additional analysis assignment for up to 100 points of extra credit. Extra credit assignments must come from the extra credit and make up document list. Each analysis assignment a student submits must be on a different document.
The approved list of documents appears below. Any student using an alternate document, not listed as an approved document for that analysis assignment, must receive approval in writing from the instructor before beginning work on their analysis. Any student who submits an analysis of a document that was not approved for that analysis, will receive a zero on that assignment.
All documents are available in Blackboard, for free.
Students are free to agree or disagree with the authors of these documents. Inclusion of an article on this list does not imply the instructor’s agreement or disagreement with the article’s claims.
Analysis 1
Adeclat, Luc Hardy. “Money Talks: Why the First Amendment Should Protect the Ability of Student Athletes to Profit off Their Name, Image, or Likeness.” University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 32, no. 1, Fall 2021, pp. 109–32. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=156166054&site=eds-live, accessed December 6, 2022.
Curfman, Gregory. “Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels, the First Amendment, and Public Right to Accurate Public Health Information: Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Back Under Legal Scrutiny.” JAMA Health Forum, vol. 2, no. 9, Sept. 2021, p. e212886. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.2886, accessed December 6, 2022.
Rex, Welshon. "Hate Speech on Campus: What Public Universities can and should do to Counter Weaponized Intolerance." Res Publica, vol. 26, no. 1, 2020, pp. 45-66. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.faytechcc.edu/login? ies/docview/2180288881/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-019-09424-5, accessed December 6, 2022.
Analysis 2
Heaney, Michael T. “Protest at the Center of American Politics.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 2, Mar. 2020, p. 195. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgcc&AN=edsgcl.650607664&site=eds-live, accessed December 6, 2022.
John Agnew (2022) “Failing federalism? US dualist federalism and the 2020–22 pandemic,” Regional Studies, Regional Science, 9:1, 149-171, DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2022.2045214, accessed December 6, 2022.
Maskivker, Julia. “Being a Good Samaritan Requires You to Vote.” Political Studies, vol. 66, no. 2, May 2018, pp. 409–24. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723513, accessed December 6, 2022.
Extra Credit and Make Up Analysis Assignments
Perreault, Gregory, et al. "How Journalists Think About the First Amendment Vis-a-Vis Their Coverage of Hate Groups." International journal of communication, Sept. 2021, pp. 4129+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A679119430/AONE?u=faye20607&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=20c2e674. Accessed 6 Dec. 2022.
Whelan, Allison M., and Michele Goodwin. “Abortion Rights and Disability Equality: A New Constitutional Battleground.” Washington & Lee Law Review 79, no. 3 (July 2022): 965–1005. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=159525144&site=eds-live. Accessed December 5, 2022.
Grading Rubric
|
Heading |
Ideas to think about while writing each section. |
Points Possible |
|
1. Thesis |
What is the author’s central argument? Provide their argument in your own words in one sentence.
The argument will be a statement that a reasonable person could agree or disagree with. The author may (but will not always) use words such as argue, claim, demonstrate, or prove to highlight their central thesis. |
20 |
|
2. Evidence |
What specific evidence did the author(s) used to support their thesis? This should not be a summary of the article. It should be a list of at least three specific facts the author used to support their thesis. |
20 |
|
3. Author |
1. Is the author a trustworthy source for this article? (Yes or No) 2. Provide evidence in support of your response. 3. Cite your source of information on the author with a complete parenthetical citation and a listing in the works cited section. Information on authors can be found a variety of ways. Some journals include author biographies. A simple internet search can often be helpful. Search for professional pages that might mention the author. Social media pages often provide useful information. |
30 |
|
4. Strength |
What is the single greatest strength of this article's argument?
|
10 |
|
5. Weakness |
What is the single greatest weakness of this article's argument?
|
10 |
|
6. Thesis Assessment |
1. Is the author's point convincing? (Yes or No) 2. Why or why not? 3. You must support your claim with at least one scholarly source other than the article you are analyzing. The source should be from a peer reviewed journal article. The source should not be by the same author as the article you are analyzing. 4. The research must be supported with a complete parenthetical citation and a listing in the works cited section.
|
60 |
|
|
|
150 Total Points |
EXAMPLE
Your Name Here
Your Class Here
“The Boxing Art” By Andy Kaufman
Thesis: Men participated in boxing because they wanted to prove that they were men. (Kaufmann 17)
Evidence:
· Kaufman quotes numerous boxers who referred to boxing as proof of their manhood.
· Kaufman cites stories from several boxers which indicate that most boxers made little, if any money as boxers. This indicates that money was not the primary motivating factor for most boxers.
· Kaufman shares numerous artistic depictions of boxers which presented boxers as examples manly icons. (Kaufmann 31)
Author: Andy Kaufman is a trustworthy source on this topic. He is well educated with a bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree in history from Harvard where his studies focused on the history of masculinity. This is an excellent educational background for this topic. Kaufman currently serves as a professor history at Brown University which indicates that a noted university endorses his work. He has written extensively on the topics of sport, manhood, and urban America in several of the profession's best journals including the Journal of Gender History. (Brown University) This article appeared in the prestigious Journal of American History and indicates that organization's validation of Kaufman and his work. (Kaufmann 32)
Strength: This article's greatest strength is Kaufman's excellent research. He cited more than one hundred separate boxers who discussed boxing in terms of manhood. Kaufman also provided numerous artistic depictions of boxers, produced during the golden era of boxing, which highlight the men as masculine icons.
Weakness: This article's greatest weakness is Kaufman's inability to connect the dots. He proves that many boxers saw themselves as masculine figures. Kaufman also proves that their fans saw them in similar lights. However, he never proves that fighters entered the ring for those reasons. If he had cited a single boxer who stated that he fought for pride and did not care about money, it would have made this article much stronger, but Kaufman did not quote a single boxer expressing that idea.
Thesis Assessment: Kaufman does not provide a convincing argument. While he does demonstrate that boxers and contemporary observers discussed boxing in terms of masculinity, he does not prove that they entered the ring primarily to prove their manhood. Kaufman repeatedly mentions rival historian James Samson in his footnotes and tries to disprove Samson’s contention that men entered became boxers in an effort to earn money. (Kaufmann 32) A careful reading of Samson’s work provides a much more convincing argument than anything Kaufman provides. In contrast to Kaufman’s love of the anecdote, Samson provides detailed statistical data which is far more compelling than Kaufman’s evidence. (Samson 236) Hugh McDonald agrees with Samson and rejects Kaufman's work. Like Samson he champions an economic determinist model, but unlike Samson he adds extensive interviews with current and former boxers in which he explicitly asks boxers why they decided to become pugilists. (McDonald 23)
Works Cited
Kaufman, Andy, "The Boxing Art," Journal of American History, 20, no. 2 (June 2002): 10 - 39. accessed July 11, 2021. http://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.np.edu/docview/2864447?accountid=62093.
Brown University "Andy Kaufman,
http://www.luc.edu/history/people/facultydirectory/Kaufman, accessed August 11, 2021.
McDonald, Hugh . "Boxers Speak." Journal of Pugilistic Science, 13, no. 1 (January 2011): 23
87, accessed July 11, 2021. http://search-om.ezproxy.np.edu/docview/2834447?accountid=620.
Samson, James. The Great Boxers and their Legacy, University of Tennessee Press, 2003.
