This is a C
If you came to this page directly, be sure you read the "Before
you begin" page. Otherwise, download the entire sample paper
in PDF or Word.
Here's the introduction and a body paragraph from the C paper.
Which Way is the Best Way?
Our country has been a land full of chaos.
We have been facing a variety of challenges these past months up to
the present. There was the attack on The World Trade Center, the disastrous
downfall of the economy, and the very recent tragic death of the kidnapped
journalist. There were also numerous attempts of similar attacks by
terrorist who, fortunately, were unsuccessful. The kidnappings, deaths,
and other tragic circumstances that's been taking place can make each
of us re-think of what one could have done or should have done to prevent
all of these commotions to have come about. Frans de Waal explained
in his text, "The Ape and the Sushi Master", that we have
been taught and should reconsider the acts of kindness and altruism
towards all situations around us. Lani Guinier agreed on the idea of
reciprocity in the government that will wipe away discrimination, as
she explains further in her text, "Second Proms and Second Primaries:
The Limits of Majority Rule". These ideas of re-considering a more
humanitarian approach on different circumstances especially on the on
going war that America's been having are ideas Mary Kaldor construed
in her essay, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races and Arms Control".
They all believe that there are other ways in setting about ideas that
we have been brought up with and ways that we can rethink otherwise.
In some cases, re-thinking gives way to obtaining better solutions and
explanations to questionable theories and methods. Yet, in other cases,
rethinking of alternative strategies might cause more tragic consequences
depending on the circumstances.
However, some ideas of rethinking may not always
work on certain situations like September 11. In my opinion, it would
have cost the people who were closely affected by the tragedy more grief
if the president has decided not to attack the terrorists. If the president
has decided to go about it the "nicer" way, it would have
angered most of the citizens of US, especially those individuals who
were affected by the most. America is one of the most powerful countries
in the world and as a result, we have helped several countries along
the way. However, in situations where terrorists attack innocent victims,
a decent approach would have prevented from capturing the ones responsible.
America has captured several terrorist leaders that can be held responsible
for the attacks and in this situation; I think military attack was the
only way for this to happen. In instances like voting, the outcome of
rethinking might take so long that it might not even be worth all the
trouble. There might be a lot of other factors to consider. Guiner somehow
saw that there would be a lot of work needed for her ideas to be successful.
She states, "To get full benefits of cumulative voting, however,
it would also be necessary to change the process of government decision-making,
away from majorities model toward one of proportional power" (344).
There would be hard work needed to obtain the changes that we wish for.
Even de Waal would somewhat believe that it might be difficult to change
some people's ways. He states, "The question becomes whether animals
and people posses the knowledge of to act selfishly. In nature, the
future is mostly hidden behind a veil of ignorance" (322). It is
very difficult not to think of our own well being and only think of
other's well being. We sometimes might feel this is selfish, but de
Waal believes that it is a part of our personalities. Not everything
can be thought over and be done something about. It would all depend
on the circumstances that rethinking can be a benefit to others.
Here's how we read these two passages:
-
The introduction: What is striking here is the student writer's
effort to bring the three assigned readings into conversation with
each other. As she considers de Waal on altruism, Guinier on discrimination,
and Kaldor on humanitarianism, she formulates her project as showing
that all three authors "believe that there are other ways in
setting about ideas that we have been brought up with and ways that
we can rethink otherwise." The student writer has demonstrated
a basic control of connective thinking to formulate a general project.
-
The body: In this passage, the student writer begins to qualify
the argument of her opening paragraph with the observation that "rethinking
may not always work on certain situations." Here, she takes issue
with both Guinier and de Waal over the appropriate response to a perceived
injustice and concludes that the value of rethinking depends "on
the circumstances." The student writer is making use of the assigned
materials to construct a more nuanced position than was outlined in
the introduction.
-
Other observations: In the passages cited here and in the
extended paper, the writing is marred by grammatical and syntactical
errors. While these errors do hinder comprehension at times, they
do not rise to the level of warranting failure. Rather, this student
needs to be given the opportunity to proofread her paper so that errors
in comprehension can be distinguished from errors produced by carelessness.
Then, the student needs to receive directed instruction on the handling
of verb forms in dependent clauses (e.g. "The kidnappings, deaths,
and other tragic circumstances that's been taking place . . ."
and "[I]t would have cost the people who were closely affected
by the tragedy more grief if the president has decided . . . "
Applying the grading criteria:
In order to better understand the following final assessment
of this paper, please refer to the section of the grading
criteria that discusses C papers.
This paper clearly qualifies as passing work because it
has:
-
"evidence of an emerging project" and it shows the student's
ability to "work with more than one source text."
-
a clear organizational structure which is used to present a fairly
general observation--all of these authors are interested in re-thinking--and
which is then complicated with a fairly general qualification--re-thinking
doesn't work or, in the student writer's terms, seem "decent"
in all situations.
The paper does not rise to the C+ level for two reasons:
it does not have "several moments of strong work" with the assigned
texts" and it does not have "most errors under control."
In evaluating the quality of the student's work with the assigned texts,
for instance, note for example that, in the body paragraph above, where
the student is challenging the notion of "rethinking" in the
wake of September 11th, she cites de Waal, who is concerned with altruism,
and Guinier, who is concerned with reciprocity, but not the assigned theorist
on war--Mary Kaldor. This is the sort of citational move that typically
occurs at this level of performance, where a qualification is made without
contending with the most relent position in the assigned materials.
So this paper is a C: it moves beyond report-style summary,
moves towards solid connections between the readings, and does all that
with some sense of emerging project. What about a B?
next >>
|
