"FOR NJOSH ONLY"

First Paper - Grading Rubric - Phil 101 - Fall 2017

First Paragraph (2 points)

The thesis clearly outlines the argument and structure of the paper. 2points

The thesis outlines only the argument or structure, or is vague in both. 1points

The thesis sentence offers little guidance to the content and organization of the paper. 0points

Second Paragraph (5 points)

Great: Clearly articulates Schwitzgebel’s definition of a jerk and spells out his reasons for giving this definition. Argues persuasively that Dale is a jerk, showing an appreciation for the the nuances of the situation. 5points

Between "great" and "good". 4points

Good: Gives Schwitzgebel’s definition of a jerk, but is not entirely clear or is slightly off on key points. The discussion tends to be summaries of the arguments/text as opposed to engaging with complicated ideas and arguing for a position. 3points

Between "good" and "room for improvement". 2points

Room for Improvement: The arguments deviate substantially from the prompt, either by being off topic or through significant mischaracterization. The paper does not place the arguments in the correct context, perhaps by making tangential arguments or drastically oversimplifying. 1points

Third Paragraph (5 points)

Great: Clearly articulates Polemarchus’ definition of justice. Argues that it it unjust to be a jerk on this definition and applies it to Dale, showing an appreciation for the the nuances of the situation. 5points

Between "great" and "good". 4points

Good: Gives Polemarchus’ definition of justice, but is not entirely clear or is slightly off on key points. The discussion tends to be summaries of the arguments/text as opposed to engaging with complicated ideas and arguing for a position. 3points

Between "good" and "room for improvement". 2points

Room for Improvement: The arguments deviate substantially from the prompt, either by being off topic or through significant mischaracterization. The paper does not place the arguments in the correct context, perhaps by making tangential arguments or drastically oversimplifying. 1points

Fourth Paragraph (5 points)

Great: Clearly articulates Thrasymachus’ definition of justice. Argues that it it unjust to be a jerk on this definition and applies it to Dale, showing an appreciation for the the nuances of the situation. 5points

Between "great" and "good". 4points

Good: Gives Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, but is not entirely clear or is slightly off on key points. The discussion tends to be summaries of the arguments/text as opposed to engaging with complicated ideas and arguing for a position. 3points

Between "good" and "room for improvement". 2points

Room for Improvement: The arguments deviate substantially from the prompt, either by being off topic or through significant mischaracterization. The paper does not place the arguments in the correct context, perhaps by making tangential arguments or drastically oversimplifying. 1points

Audience (3 points)

Keeps the audience in mind. Defines relevant terms and organizes explanations and reasons in a way that would make sense to a non-philosopher. 3points

Neglects many needs of the audience by leaving key terms undefined or by giving explanations that would be confusing to a non- philosopher. 2points

Entirely ignores the primary audience. If given to a non- philosopher, much of the paper will be undecipherable. 1points