study response paper

Mechanics:

The paper should be typewritten, double spaced, in Times New Roman, size 12 font, 2-3 pages in length, and with ‘normal’ margins. It is due in class on June 20 (for Sections WA and ND / Monday and Wednesday classes) and May 21 for (Section NN, Thursday class). It must use in-text citations (direct quotations and/or paraphrased materials) that follow MLA conventions, at least for the two paragraphs where summaries are required (see #4 below). The paper must be spellchecked and proofread for grammatical and punctuation errors. (This is a College paper!) Review Rubrics…in ‘General Guidelines… for common grammatical and punctuation errors. It will not have unnecessary space-fillers! (Specified in “General Guidelines….)

Content:

1) Have a cover page that follows the required format in the first two response papers.

2) Page 1 is the first page after the cover page. Have a clear title that contains/suggests your position. (You can use a catchy phrase, but it should make your position clear to any reader.)

3) Write an introductory paragraph that introduces the issue/ debate (it could be factual updates and and/or where law or public policy stands in relation to the issue or how debates on the issue affect current politics). Introduce also the authors you were required to follow.

4) In the next two paragraphs (at least! A little more than two is ok), summarize without judgment the position and argument of the authors you’ve read: For example: Author X argues for the morality of Y (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage?) and supports legalizing Y or keeping Y legal. Author Y argues for the immorality of Y and does not support legalizing Y or keeping Y legal. Or author X argues for helping the global poor or for promoting animal rights. Do not forget to lay out the author’s reasons and evidences for their positions. This could be explicit in the article or inferred by you from the article. Anchor these in the text by providing pages (in-text citations!)

5) Then state your position plus your reason and evidences. Feel free to lean towards one or to question both authors and add your own or to find yourself with reservations about both or questions for both. What matters here are your reasons – how you are thinking out or thinking through the matter. You can do a more neutral critical evaluation that brings out strengths and weaknesses in both authors, if that’s where you are now.

6) If you lean towards one side, address the strongest objections to it, from the opposing side. You don’t have to answer this question if you did an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of both sides. But do mention what kinds of evidence you would want to have or check into that would tip the scales to one of the two sides.

7) What have you gained from following two voices from different sides of the debate. (Learnings? Realizations? Insights?)

A. Required Source: You must summarize only the articles emailed to you. If you are including critical comments on a religion or about religious positions, what you say should be guided by a sophisticated enough understanding of ‘religion’—one informed by our discussion of Chapter 2 and not just by any pet opinion or personal bias or prejudice. Also, if utilitarian ethics, natural law, deontological ethics, virtue ethics is brought up in the articles, your paper must now reflect understanding of these topics as discussed in class.

Below is the grading rubric that I use. To make it obvious that it corresponds to this detailed guideline, I added in boldfaced font the letter and number in the detailed guide that each item below corresponds to.