CT Oral Arguments Paper

Problem Analysis

Criteria Area

Low

Performance

(1)

(2)

Acceptable

Performance

(3)

(4)

High

Performance

(5)

1. States the Question & Conclusion Clearly and with Precision.

Score

Fails to provide the question being addressed and conclusion defended.

Question and conclusion stated in clear, simple and precise terms, but supporting evidence not clear or directly related to conclusion.

Question and conclusions and supporting evidence are clear, simple and precise and include author’s assumptions and point-of-view. Argument also addresses counter arguments.

2. Gathers and Assesses Relevant Information.

Score

Provides only minimal review of information available, and/or fails to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information. Cannot adequately distinguish fact from opinion.

Provides and evaluates multiple sources of information, and recognizes deceptive arguments or fallacies. Does not address counter arguments and does not show clear relationship between conclusion and supportive evidence.

Broad and deep review of sources of information, including those from more than one system of thought. Understands the concepts of both significance and relevance of information to argument and addresses counter arguments well.

3. Reasons to support conclusions.

Score

Falls prey to “egocentric thinking” and/or uses sources that are distorted, irrelevant to argument or not carefully developed intellectually.

Discusses evidence or warrants to support conclusion, and discusses how they are related to conclusion.

Extensive use of reasoning criteria, especially purpose, information, assumptions, inferences, points of view and implications.*

Extensive use of supportive evidence or warrants that are directly relevant to the conclusion.

4. Discuss Alternative Points of View.

Score

Very limited or no discussion of various points of view leading to a conclusion or obvious preference for only one possible solution.

Describes multiple points of view with both an economic and political perspective.

Extensive and in-depth analysis of multiple perspectives with clear understanding of how various parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, including the social work profession and the author.

5. Communicates Effectively.

Score

Fails to follow the outline provided, and/or makes a number of grammatical errors, and/or fails to utilize peer or university sources to write in an understandable style. Or exceeds page limit.

Utilizes the outline provided to provide a clear answer to the initial question and intended purpose. Follows acceptable APA standards with references.

Clearly exceeds the acceptable intellectual standards in a number of areas: clarity, accuracy, relevance, and logic.* Addresses topic in an exceptional manner and/or may be very creative in style or conclusion.

Mean

Score

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT