baberrrrr

Submission Three

Generally, submission one introduced and contextualized the problem. Submission two investigated the stakeholders for your topic (their arguments and their values) and included your own critical analysis (strengths and weaknesses) of those arguments. Submission three focuses on your solution: Building on the research outlined in sections one or two, this section will explain your reasoned, educated perspective on your controversy. You will explain and defend that perspective clearly.

Review Handbook p. 28, pp. 29-33, and pp. 65-76.

Submission three will:

a. include your final revision of submission one (the one you submitted with submission two) followed by a substantial revision of your submission two. The better your submission two revision is, the more you have to work with for section three.

b. identify your position/solution: clearly state which solution (which policy, proposed policy, variation on a policy or policies, or REJECTION of a policy) you think is best. Remember NOT to use first person in formal academic work, though.

c. clearly explain the arguments and evidence that support your position. Do reiterate the strengths of your chosen argument, but don’t oversimplify here: since ideally there were strengths and weaknesses on all sides, clearly explain why your chosen position is the best DESPITE the other side’s strengths and your chosen side’s weaknesses. You need to develop at least two arguments in this section (review Handbook p. 67).

d. include a clear, thorough counterargument. For at least one whole paragraph, outline the strongest argument against your perspective AS IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED IT. Use the language and reasoning that your best opponents would use. Then, AFTER you have fully developed your counterargument, rebut.

NOTE: your rebuttal should NOT be longer than (or even as long as) your counterargument.

e. justify your position using Ruggiero’s moral reasoning model (obligations, values, and consequences). Also, be sure to discuss at least one intrinsic value that you believe your course of action will further.

f. describe the two normative principles (the handbook also refers to these as foundational principles) that best supports your moral reasoning and proposal (review Handbook pp. 71 and 111-115).

g. include a well-crafted conclusion. Restate your thesis, revisit your main points, and end gracefully.

h. adhere to MLA style.

i. be 15-16 pages long, NOT including your Works Cited page.