[Solved] Rhetorical Features of the Controversy

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Rhetorical Features of the Controversy – ## RFCFormat.pdf – ## RFCInstructions1.pdf – ## RFCRubric.pdf **## RFCFormat.pdf** 316: Rhetorical Features of the Controversy Paper Format I. Introduction a. Introduce your topic b. Thesis statement (explain why you selected this topic) c. Purpose statement (why does investigating this topic matter) d. Preview main points for analysis II. Methodology a. Methodological framework: describe rhetorical criticism b. Why is rhetorical crit the best framework for analysis of your controversy c. Describe the method of analysis you used; content analysis, media analysis, critical theory, etc. III. Analysis a. Rhetorical features – identify and explain the rhetorical features of your controversy i. Power ii. Spheres iii. Distrust iv. Ideographs b. Rhetorical strategy i. Explain how the rhetorical features of your controversy work in the public sphere ii. What messaging have you discovered is favored, conveyed, promoted through the rhetorical features you examined. IV. Conclusion a. Remind readers of your thesis b. Remind readers of your purpose for exploring this phenomenon c. Succinctly review each of your main points showing readers how they all fit together; how does an understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy help you situate your controversy for further investigation d. Tell readers what is different now that you have undertaken this research project; what has changed? Format requirements: *APA (including cover page, abstract, and references) *In text citations *Papers will be submitted through SafeAssign **## RFCInstructions1.pdf** Rhetorical Features of the Controversy 100 points This assignment asks you to begin the research process of understanding the complexity of a controversy we discuss this semester. You will select a controversy listed in the syllabus (Immigration, Covid-19, Protest, Cancel Culture, Social Media and Democracy, or Negative Partisanship). You will write a 4-page paper identifying the specific rhetorical features you see presented in your research of the topic (public controversy, discourse & power, spheres of argument, rhetoric of distrust, ideographs). The assignment requires 4-pages of analysis and does not include cover sheet, abstract, references, images, or figures. This paper will serve as the foundation for the State of the Controversy paper that you will turn in at the conclusion of the semester. Begin this assignment by introducing the topic you selected. Tell your readers why you selected this topic. Frame the topic within the study of rhetorical criticism. Explain why rhetorical criticism is the best framework for analysis of your topic; i.e. explain how rhetorical criticism will help you to best understand your topic and effectively analyze its different rhetorical components. Then identify and explain the different rhetorical features present within the rhetoric surrounding your topic; i.e. public controversy, power, spheres of argument, distrust, ideographs). Explain how the rhetorical features of your topic work and what messaging they favor, convey, or promote. Conclude by explaining how your understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy will situate your controversy for further investigation. You have some flexibility in the organizational structure of the paper—the requirements are that it has an introduction, thesis statement, preview statement, a description of the major arguments of the controversy, a discussion of the relationship in and among the arguments, and a conclusion (see the paper structure outline for guidance). You may organize the argument and discussion sections however seem appropriate to your particular topic. It is expected that this paper is written in APA format and contains cover sheet, abstract, and references pages. Please review the rubric for discussion of formatting expectations. **## RFCRubric.pdf** Paper Introduction/ Conclusion Strong introduction of the topic through an attention getting device. Strong thesis statement. Clear preview of the document to come. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the document and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to productively engage in discourse around it. Good introduction of the topic. Thesis statement is identifiable and clear. Preview of the document effectively communicates the general organization of the document. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the paper and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to engage in the debate. Introduction and conclusion are present but could use some work to make them more compelling and effective as opening and closing movements of the document. Thesis statement is present but not strong. Preview of document is present but unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments of the paper and starts a conversation about what new perspectives we might take on the controversy. Introduction and conclusion are weak and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is missing or very weak. No preview is identifiable or is ineffectual. The conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little effort at reviewing the major arguments of the document. Explication of Theory Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are specifically addressed, defined, and their importance is articulated. Steps of the analysis process of clear, concise, and organized. Writing explains and justifies why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explains the connection the texts have to the controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized explanation of why the texts analyzed are the most rich in terms of content. Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are defined and their importance explained. Steps of the analysis are clear. Writing explains why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a good justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group provides an explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are generally explained and their importance to the analysis is noted. Steps in the analysis could be more clear or organized. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent but could use more detail or clarity. Overall, adequate justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group’s explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy is missing, significantly under-covered, and/or very unclear. Theoretical concepts are missing or treated with no depth. Steps in the analysis are missing or incorrectly explained. Explanation of the connection between the texts and controversy is missing or muddled. Overall, little effort is made in the way of justification for the selection of texts. Analysis of Arguments Analysis is clearly documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized efficiently and effectively to progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples are abundant as evidence for the claims forwarded. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is detailed and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized to avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is demonstrated. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is developed. Analysis is organized and clear, but falls into repetition in some places. The theory explained above is mostly apparent in each section of the analysis. Topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is missing examples, or examples provided do not support the claims of the paper. Application of theory is weak or missing. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is missing or is not clearly discernable. Analysis is unorganized and repetitive. Theory explained above is apparent in each section of the analysis but does not help understand the rhetorical features of the controversy. Examples are missing or do not support the claims forwarded in the paper. Organization and Mechanics Well organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can easily follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; few grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Well-organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; some grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Somewhat well-organized sections with transitions. Readers can follow the flow of the argument, but must fill in gaps or jumps in logical transitions between ideas or points. Some errors in citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; moderate number of grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Document is not effectively organized and lacks useful transitions. Readers cannot follow the flow or argument of the document. Writing jumps between and among ideas. Lacks a narrative quality. Problems with citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; many or very many grammatical errors or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages or is over 12 pages. **## RFCRubric.pdf** Paper Introduction/ Conclusion Strong introduction of the topic through an attention getting device. Strong thesis statement. Clear preview of the document to come. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the document and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to productively engage in discourse around it. Good introduction of the topic. Thesis statement is identifiable and clear. Preview of the document effectively communicates the general organization of the document. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the paper and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to engage in the debate. Introduction and conclusion are present but could use some work to make them more compelling and effective as opening and closing movements of the document. Thesis statement is present but not strong. Preview of document is present but unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments of the paper and starts a conversation about what new perspectives we might take on the controversy. Introduction and conclusion are weak and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is missing or very weak. No preview is identifiable or is ineffectual. The conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little effort at reviewing the major arguments of the document. Explication of Theory Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are specifically addressed, defined, and their importance is articulated. Steps of the analysis process of clear, concise, and organized. Writing explains and justifies why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explains the connection the texts have to the controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized explanation of why the texts analyzed are the most rich in terms of content. Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are defined and their importance explained. Steps of the analysis are clear. Writing explains why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a good justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group provides an explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are generally explained and their importance to the analysis is noted. Steps in the analysis could be more clear or organized. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent but could use more detail or clarity. Overall, adequate justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group’s explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy is missing, significantly under-covered, and/or very unclear. Theoretical concepts are missing or treated with no depth. Steps in the analysis are missing or incorrectly explained. Explanation of the connection between the texts and controversy is missing or muddled. Overall, little effort is made in the way of justification for the selection of texts. Analysis of Arguments Analysis is clearly documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized efficiently and effectively to progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples are abundant as evidence for the claims forwarded. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is detailed and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized to avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is demonstrated. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is developed. Analysis is organized and clear, but falls into repetition in some places. The theory explained above is mostly apparent in each section of the analysis. Topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is missing examples, or examples provided do not support the claims of the paper. Application of theory is weak or missing. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is missing or is not clearly discernable. Analysis is unorganized and repetitive. Theory explained above is apparent in each section of the analysis but does not help understand the rhetorical features of the controversy. Examples are missing or do not support the claims forwarded in the paper. Organization and Mechanics Well organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can easily follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; few grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Well-organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; some grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Somewhat well-organized sections with transitions. Readers can follow the flow of the argument, but must fill in gaps or jumps in logical transitions between ideas or points. Some errors in citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; moderate number of grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Document is not effectively organized and lacks useful transitions. Readers cannot follow the flow or argument of the document. Writing jumps between and among ideas. Lacks a narrative quality. Problems with citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; many or very many grammatical errors or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages or is over 12 pages. **## RFCFormat.pdf** 316: Rhetorical Features of the Controversy Paper Format I. Introduction a. Introduce your topic b. Thesis statement (explain why you selected this topic) c. Purpose statement (why does investigating this topic matter) d. Preview main points for analysis II. Methodology a. Methodological framework: describe rhetorical criticism b. Why is rhetorical crit the best framework for analysis of your controversy c. Describe the method of analysis you used; content analysis, media analysis, critical theory, etc. III. Analysis a. Rhetorical features – identify and explain the rhetorical features of your controversy i. Power ii. Spheres iii. Distrust iv. Ideographs b. Rhetorical strategy i. Explain how the rhetorical features of your controversy work in the public sphere ii. What messaging have you discovered is favored, conveyed, promoted through the rhetorical features you examined. IV. Conclusion a. Remind readers of your thesis b. Remind readers of your purpose for exploring this phenomenon c. Succinctly review each of your main points showing readers how they all fit together; how does an understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy help you situate your controversy for further investigation d. Tell readers what is different now that you have undertaken this research project; what has changed? Format requirements: *APA (including cover page, abstract, and references) *In text citations *Papers will be submitted through SafeAssign **## RFCInstructions1.pdf** Rhetorical Features of the Controversy 100 points This assignment asks you to begin the research process of understanding the complexity of a controversy we discuss this semester. You will select a controversy listed in the syllabus (Immigration, Covid-19, Protest, Cancel Culture, Social Media and Democracy, or Negative Partisanship). You will write a 4-page paper identifying the specific rhetorical features you see presented in your research of the topic (public controversy, discourse & power, spheres of argument, rhetoric of distrust, ideographs). The assignment requires 4-pages of analysis and does not include cover sheet, abstract, references, images, or figures. This paper will serve as the foundation for the State of the Controversy paper that you will turn in at the conclusion of the semester. Begin this assignment by introducing the topic you selected. Tell your readers why you selected this topic. Frame the topic within the study of rhetorical criticism. Explain why rhetorical criticism is the best framework for analysis of your topic; i.e. explain how rhetorical criticism will help you to best understand your topic and effectively analyze its different rhetorical components. Then identify and explain the different rhetorical features present within the rhetoric surrounding your topic; i.e. public controversy, power, spheres of argument, distrust, ideographs). Explain how the rhetorical features of your topic work and what messaging they favor, convey, or promote. Conclude by explaining how your understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy will situate your controversy for further investigation. You have some flexibility in the organizational structure of the paper—the requirements are that it has an introduction, thesis statement, preview statement, a description of the major arguments of the controversy, a discussion of the relationship in and among the arguments, and a conclusion (see the paper structure outline for guidance). You may organize the argument and discussion sections however seem appropriate to your particular topic. It is expected that this paper is written in APA format and contains cover sheet, abstract, and references pages. Please review the rubric for discussion of formatting expectations. **## RFCRubric.pdf** Paper Introduction/ Conclusion Strong introduction of the topic through an attention getting device. Strong thesis statement. Clear preview of the document to come. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the document and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to productively engage in discourse around it. Good introduction of the topic. Thesis statement is identifiable and clear. Preview of the document effectively communicates the general organization of the document. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the paper and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to engage in the debate. Introduction and conclusion are present but could use some work to make them more compelling and effective as opening and closing movements of the document. Thesis statement is present but not strong. Preview of document is present but unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments of the paper and starts a conversation about what new perspectives we might take on the controversy. Introduction and conclusion are weak and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is missing or very weak. No preview is identifiable or is ineffectual. The conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little effort at reviewing the major arguments of the document. Explication of Theory Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are specifically addressed, defined, and their importance is articulated. Steps of the analysis process of clear, concise, and organized. Writing explains and justifies why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explains the connection the texts have to the controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized explanation of why the texts analyzed are the most rich in terms of content. Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are defined and their importance explained. Steps of the analysis are clear. Writing explains why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a good justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group provides an explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are generally explained and their importance to the analysis is noted. Steps in the analysis could be more clear or organized. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent but could use more detail or clarity. Overall, adequate justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group’s explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy is missing, significantly under-covered, and/or very unclear. Theoretical concepts are missing or treated with no depth. Steps in the analysis are missing or incorrectly explained. Explanation of the connection between the texts and controversy is missing or muddled. Overall, little effort is made in the way of justification for the selection of texts. Analysis of Arguments Analysis is clearly documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized efficiently and effectively to progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples are abundant as evidence for the claims forwarded. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is detailed and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized to avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is demonstrated. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is developed. Analysis is organized and clear, but falls into repetition in some places. The theory explained above is mostly apparent in each section of the analysis. Topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is missing examples, or examples provided do not support the claims of the paper. Application of theory is weak or missing. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is missing or is not clearly discernable. Analysis is unorganized and repetitive. Theory explained above is apparent in each section of the analysis but does not help understand the rhetorical features of the controversy. Examples are missing or do not support the claims forwarded in the paper. Organization and Mechanics Well organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can easily follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; few grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Well-organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; some grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Somewhat well-organized sections with transitions. Readers can follow the flow of the argument, but must fill in gaps or jumps in logical transitions between ideas or points. Some errors in citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; moderate number of grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Document is not effectively organized and lacks useful transitions. Readers cannot follow the flow or argument of the document. Writing jumps between and among ideas. Lacks a narrative quality. Problems with citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; many or very many grammatical errors or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages or is over 12 pages. **## RFCFormat.pdf** 316: Rhetorical Features of the Controversy Paper Format I. Introduction a. Introduce your topic b. Thesis statement (explain why you selected this topic) c. Purpose statement (why does investigating this topic matter) d. Preview main points for analysis II. Methodology a. Methodological framework: describe rhetorical criticism b. Why is rhetorical crit the best framework for analysis of your controversy c. Describe the method of analysis you used; content analysis, media analysis, critical theory, etc. III. Analysis a. Rhetorical features – identify and explain the rhetorical features of your controversy i. Power ii. Spheres iii. Distrust iv. Ideographs b. Rhetorical strategy i. Explain how the rhetorical features of your controversy work in the public sphere ii. What messaging have you discovered is favored, conveyed, promoted through the rhetorical features you examined. IV. Conclusion a. Remind readers of your thesis b. Remind readers of your purpose for exploring this phenomenon c. Succinctly review each of your main points showing readers how they all fit together; how does an understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy help you situate your controversy for further investigation d. Tell readers what is different now that you have undertaken this research project; what has changed? Format requirements: *APA (including cover page, abstract, and references) *In text citations *Papers will be submitted through SafeAssign **## RFCInstructions1.pdf** Rhetorical Features of the Controversy 100 points This assignment asks you to begin the research process of understanding the complexity of a controversy we discuss this semester. You will select a controversy listed in the syllabus (Immigration, Covid-19, Protest, Cancel Culture, Social Media and Democracy, or Negative Partisanship). You will write a 4-page paper identifying the specific rhetorical features you see presented in your research of the topic (public controversy, discourse & power, spheres of argument, rhetoric of distrust, ideographs). The assignment requires 4-pages of analysis and does not include cover sheet, abstract, references, images, or figures. This paper will serve as the foundation for the State of the Controversy paper that you will turn in at the conclusion of the semester. Begin this assignment by introducing the topic you selected. Tell your readers why you selected this topic. Frame the topic within the study of rhetorical criticism. Explain why rhetorical criticism is the best framework for analysis of your topic; i.e. explain how rhetorical criticism will help you to best understand your topic and effectively analyze its different rhetorical components. Then identify and explain the different rhetorical features present within the rhetoric surrounding your topic; i.e. public controversy, power, spheres of argument, distrust, ideographs). Explain how the rhetorical features of your topic work and what messaging they favor, convey, or promote. Conclude by explaining how your understanding of the rhetorical features of your controversy will situate your controversy for further investigation. You have some flexibility in the organizational structure of the paper—the requirements are that it has an introduction, thesis statement, preview statement, a description of the major arguments of the controversy, a discussion of the relationship in and among the arguments, and a conclusion (see the paper structure outline for guidance). You may organize the argument and discussion sections however seem appropriate to your particular topic. It is expected that this paper is written in APA format and contains cover sheet, abstract, and references pages. Please review the rubric for discussion of formatting expectations. **## RFCRubric.pdf** Paper Introduction/ Conclusion Strong introduction of the topic through an attention getting device. Strong thesis statement. Clear preview of the document to come. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the document and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to productively engage in discourse around it. Good introduction of the topic. Thesis statement is identifiable and clear. Preview of the document effectively communicates the general organization of the document. Narrative flows nicely from introduction to body of paper. Conclusion reviews the major arguments of the paper and demonstrates what new perspectives we might take on the controversy and how to engage in the debate. Introduction and conclusion are present but could use some work to make them more compelling and effective as opening and closing movements of the document. Thesis statement is present but not strong. Preview of document is present but unclear. Conclusion reviews the arguments of the paper and starts a conversation about what new perspectives we might take on the controversy. Introduction and conclusion are weak and/or ineffective. Thesis statement is missing or very weak. No preview is identifiable or is ineffectual. The conclusion is abrupt and/or makes little effort at reviewing the major arguments of the document. Explication of Theory Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are specifically addressed, defined, and their importance is articulated. Steps of the analysis process of clear, concise, and organized. Writing explains and justifies why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explains the connection the texts have to the controversy itself. Clear, concise, organized explanation of why the texts analyzed are the most rich in terms of content. Group provides a clear and succinct explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are defined and their importance explained. Steps of the analysis are clear. Writing explains why they chose the specific texts analyzed. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent. Overall, a good justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group provides an explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy. Theoretical concepts are generally explained and their importance to the analysis is noted. Steps in the analysis could be more clear or organized. Explanation of the connection between the texts and the controversy itself is apparent but could use more detail or clarity. Overall, adequate justification for the selection of texts is crafted. Group’s explanation of theory used to analyze the rhetoric of the controversy is missing, significantly under-covered, and/or very unclear. Theoretical concepts are missing or treated with no depth. Steps in the analysis are missing or incorrectly explained. Explanation of the connection between the texts and controversy is missing or muddled. Overall, little effort is made in the way of justification for the selection of texts. Analysis of Arguments Analysis is clearly documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is systematic, detailed, and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized efficiently and effectively to progressively reveal the rhetorical landscape of the controversy and avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, specific, topical examples are abundant as evidence for the claims forwarded. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is detailed and clearly demonstrates a new perspective on the rhetoric of the controversy itself. Analysis is organized to avoid unnecessarily repetitive claims. All parts of the theory explained above are addressed in each section of the analysis where relevant. Where the chosen theory is insufficient to explain the rhetorical features of the controversy alternative explanations or theory suggestions are provided. Clear, topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is documented with several examples provided from the controversy as it appears in the public sphere. Application of theory is demonstrated. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is developed. Analysis is organized and clear, but falls into repetition in some places. The theory explained above is mostly apparent in each section of the analysis. Topical examples are used as evidence for the claims forwarded in the paper. Analysis is missing examples, or examples provided do not support the claims of the paper. Application of theory is weak or missing. A new or different perspective of the rhetoric of the controversy is missing or is not clearly discernable. Analysis is unorganized and repetitive. Theory explained above is apparent in each section of the analysis but does not help understand the rhetorical features of the controversy. Examples are missing or do not support the claims forwarded in the paper. Organization and Mechanics Well organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can easily follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; few grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Well-organized sections and excellent transitions among sections. Readers can follow the flow of the argument in the document. Correct citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; some grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Somewhat well-organized sections with transitions. Readers can follow the flow of the argument, but must fill in gaps or jumps in logical transitions between ideas or points. Some errors in citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; moderate number of grammatical errors or typos. Paper is at least 8 pages and no longer than 12 pages. Document is not effectively organized and lacks useful transitions. Readers cannot follow the flow or argument of the document. Writing jumps between and among ideas. Lacks a narrative quality. Problems with citation and reference format; double-spaced; 1 inch margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font; many or very many grammatical errors or typos. Paper is does not make 8 pages or is over 12 pages. – 1 – 2 – 3