Includes a statement of your argument/thesis & a preview of the paper’s organization. The argument/thesis should clearly state your evaluation of the resource
Part B: Analytic essay (2500 words) evaluating the resource for an audience of GWST scholars
Introduction that:
• Describes the public text (including a link to it)
• Includes a statement of your argument/thesis & a preview of the paper’s organization. The argument/thesis should clearly state your evaluation of the resource
Body that accomplishes two purposes:
• Explains the parameters for your evaluation (from GWST coursework or elsewhere, clearly cited)
• Provides evidence in support of your argument/thesis
Conclusion that:
• Draws conclusions and makes recommendations about the utility of the resource for GWST scholars (your peers and GWST professors) – the ‘so what’ question
Part C: A short op-ed (1000-1250 words) explaining the analytic essay to an audience of
scientists
Think of this like an editor’s introduction to a journal article (Part B being the journal article) –
What are the most important parts of the argument in Part B for scientists (social scientists,
basic researchers, clinical researchers, etc.)? You are an expert, and your task with Part C is to
convince an audience of scientists that they should modify, supplement, change their practices
based on the evaluation provided in Part B. Therefore, Part C must be connected to Part B.
* Text = the resource you’re evaluating
Criteria A-level qualities B-level qualities C-level qualities
D/F-level qualities
Focus (25) Paper is clearly
organized around a
single, narrow topic
and retains focus
throughout. Main
points are clear and
relate to larger
argument. Paper stays
closely on track.
Paper has a clear
topic, but focus
could be a little
tighter. Gets off
track or main points
do not relate to
larger argument.
It takes work for
the reader to fish
out the main
point or there are
a number of
points vying for
the main spot.
There is no evident main
point.
Argument
(25)
Paper makes an
original argument
about the text,* and in
so doing, offers a fresh
contribution to the
conversation of the
course. Argument is
interesting and novel.
Thesis statement is
clear, concise, and
well-articulated
Paper makes an
original argument
about the reading.
Argument is clear
but could be more
innovative. Thesis is
logical but could be
further refined.
Paper may merely
summarize the
text. Thesis
statement is not
well written
and/or illogical.
Paper provides
too much
summary and too
little original
insight.
There is no argument.
Content (30) Demonstrates
sophisticated
engagement with the
text. Makes strong
connections with
course content,
illustrating a critical
grasp of the course
material. Examples
and evidence make
sense and are used to
illuminate writer’s
argument.
Demonstrates solid
understanding of the
text, and makes
connection to course
content. Examples
and evidence are
clear, but their use
overshadows
writer’s original
argument.
Shows evidence
of
misunderstanding
the text or course
content. Too
many or too few
examples, or
evidence does not
relate clearly to
the argument.
Clear misunderstanding
the text or course
content. Makes little or
no connection with the
course content.
Writing /
organization
(20)
Clear organization that
flows easily from idea
to idea. Writing is
vivid and engaging.
Meets length
requirement. Citations
are correct.
Organized logically.
Meets length
requirement.
Citations are
generally correct.
Organization is
unclear. Writing
contains typos
and shows a clear
lack of thought
and effort. Meets
length
requirement.
Citations are
incorrect.
Little discernable
organization. Writing
contains typos and shows
a clear lack of thought
and effort. Does not meet
length requirement.
Citations are missing.
