Michael Jordan on Racism: 'It Sucks Your Soul ... We Need to Make a Stand'

Over the next several weeks, you will be developing an analysis of a case study of your choice. The first step is to analyze a debatable claim. You will select a scholarly article from a reliable source that relays a strong position on a debatable topic. Be sure to record the full APA data, including title, author, and publication information.
Remember, while you are investigating an opinionated piece, your selected article should still come from a reputable publishing source and be well-researched.
In a four- to five-page analysis, address the following in a well-developed and structured essay.
Provide a clear and detailed introduction.
What is the topic and why is it important?
What are the multiple sides of the debate?
What is your thesis or point of view on the topic?
Summarize the topic/angle/purpose.
What is the topic of the article?
What is the angle or argument that the writer presents?
What is the purpose of the article? What does the writer want the audience to do with the information they are presented with?
Analyze rhetorical appeals.
How does the author use appeals to reason (logos)?
How does the author use appeals to emotion (pathos)?
How does the author use appeals to credibility (ethos)?
What appeals are used most effectively? What is the impact on the argument?
Provide a counterargument.
What are the opposing arguments to the argument?
What are some reasons why the argument is incomplete or illogical?
What are some examples or forms of evidence that show why or how the counterargument is incomplete or illogical?
What are the reasons why the original argument is stronger?
Explain your position.
What is your evaluation of the issue?
How does utilizing a counterargument make your analysis stronger?
Remember, you must include detailed examples and analyses to help support your claims. Select your topic wisely and be sure to address each part of the prompt as this assignment will be used for your Week 7 Persuasive Presentation.
Item
Description
Value
Topic/Angle/ Purpose Summary
Topic, angle, and purpose are summarized to help build a foundation for understanding the argument.
20
Rhetorical Appeals Analysis
There is a clear evaluation of the use of rhetorical conventions, including rhetorical appeals, audience, and context.
30
Counterargument Development
A clear and detailed counterargument is explored that considers rhetorical conventions and audience awareness.
50
Position Explanation and Analysis
Attention is paid to style conventions utilized. Value judgments are conveyed concerning the effectiveness of the argument.
30
Mechanics
Standard language conventions are used for appropriate academic and professional communication. Attention is paid to grammar, syntax, spelling, and punctuation. Citations are in APA format.
20
TOTAL

150
RUBRIC
LMA.GE.ENGL135.JUL19
LMA.GE.ENGL135.JUL19
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Study: Critical Thinking 16 Points)
16.0 to >14.0 pts
Excellent
The case study includes a strong, central idea that uses topic, angle, and purpose to summarize a text/issue and provide a lens for analysis through a clear and engaging thesis.
14.0 to >11.0 pts
Competent
The case study illustrates a central idea using topic angle and purpose to summarize a text/issue and provides as thesis that is limited beyond summary.
11.0 to >9.0 pts
Limited
The case study indicates a central ideas but discussion of topic, angle and purpose may be limited in scope and are not adequately used to formulate a clear thesis.
9.0 to >7.0 pts
Poor
The case study presents no unifying central idea to engage with key components of the text or argument.
7.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectation
The materials do not address this competency.
16.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Study: Communication (16 points)
16.0 to >14.0 pts
Excellent
The materials clearly communicate a central idea through precise use of language, attention to audience, grammar and mechanics, and APA conventions and formats appropriate to the genre.
14.0 to >12.0 pts
Competent
The materials communicate a central idea by demonstrating proficient use of language, audience awareness, grammar and mechanics and APA conventions appropriate to the genre.
12.0 to >10.0 pts
Limited
The materials attempt to communicate a central idea, but needs more proficient use of language, stronger attention to audience, and a more precise utilization of APA conventions. Grammar and mechanics need improvement
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Poor
The materials lack a clear understanding of language usage, audience awareness, and APA competence. Grammar and mechanics inhibit understanding.
8.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
The materials do not address this competency.
16.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Study: Information Literacy (26 Points)
26.0 to >23.0 pts
Excellent
The case study utilizes an appropriate academic source and demonstrates a clear evaluation of the use of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
23.0 to >18.0 pts
Competent
The case study using a source and demonstrates some understanding of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
18.0 to >14.0 pts
Limited
The case study uses an inappropriate source for academic research and demonstrates limited understanding of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
14.0 to >10.0 pts
Poor
The case study does not effectively use source material and lacks a basic understanding of rhetorical conventions, such as rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
10.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
The paper does not address this competency.
26.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Study: Cultural Competence (36 Points)
36.0 to >30.0 pts
Excellent
The case study demonstrates a clear and detailed counter argument that is explored in detail and uses the rhetorical conventions and audience awareness.
30.0 to >24.0 pts
Competent
The case study presents a counter argument that addresses major points but may lack clarity or detail.
24.0 to >18.0 pts
Limited
The case study included a limited use of counter argument that does not fully underscore the role of rhetorical conventions and audience awareness.
18.0 to >11.0 pts
Poor
The case study lacks a counter argument and does not address rhetorical conventions or audience awareness.
11.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
The materials do not address this competency.
36.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Study: Global Awareness and Civic Engagement (36 Points)
36.0 to >30.0 pts
Excellent
The case study uses sophisticated conventions of style to develop arguments. Value judgements are conveyed concerning the effectiveness of the argument.
30.0 to >24.0 pts
Competent
The case study uses some conventions of style to develop arguments. Value judgments may lack clarity or specificity
24.0 to >18.0 pts
Limited
The case study does not adequately use conventions of style to develop arguments. Value judgements are weak or absent.
18.0 to >11.0 pts
Poor
The case study does not effectively use conventions of style or make value judgments to support main ideas.
11.0 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
The materials do not address this competency.
36.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE.ENGL135. A.Critical Thinking
view longer description
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Excellent: Strong, central idea that use topic, angle, and purpose to summarize a text/issue and provide a lens for analysis through a clear and engaging thesis.
3.0 pts
Competent: Central idea uses topic angle and purpose to summarize a text/issue and provides as thesis that is limited beyond summary.
2.0 pts
Limited: Offers a discussion of topic, angle and purpose may be limited in scope and are not adequately used to formulate a clear thesis.
1.0 pts
Poor: No unifying central idea to engage with key components of the text or argument.
0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: Does not demonstrate this competency.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE.ENGL135. B.Communication
view longer description
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Excellent: Communicates a central ideas through precise use of language, attention to audience, grammar and mechanics, and APA conventions and formats appropriate to the genre.
3.0 pts
Competent: Communicates a central idea by demonstrating proficient use of language, audience awareness, grammar and mechanics and APA conventions appropriate to the genre.
2.0 pts
Limited: Attempts to communicate a central idea, but needs more proficient use of language, stronger attention to audience, and a more precise utilization of APA conventions. Grammar and mechanics needs improvement
1.0 pts
Poor: Lacks a clear understanding of language usage, audience awareness, and APA competence. Grammar and mechanics inhibit understanding.
0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: Does not demonstrate this competency.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE.ENGL135.C.Information Literacy
view longer description
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Excellent: Utilizes an appropriate academic source and demonstrates a clear evaluation of the use of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context
3.0 pts
Competent: Uses a source and demonstrates some understanding of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
2.0 pts
Limited: Uses uses an inappropriate source for academic research and demonstrates limited understanding of rhetorical conventions including rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
1.0 pts
Poor: Does not effectively use source material and lacks a basic understanding of rhetorical conventions, such as rhetorical appeals, audience and context.
0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: Does not demonstrate this competency.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE.ENGL135.D.Cultural Competence
view longer description
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Excellent: Demonstrates a clear and detailed counter argument through the use of rhetorical conventions and audience awareness.
3.0 pts
Competent: Presents a counter argument that addresses major points but lacks clarity or detail.
2.0 pts
Limited: Limited in use of counter argument, the role of rhetorical conventions and audience awareness.
1.0 pts
Poor: Does not use a counter argument or address rhetorical conventions or audience awareness.
0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: Does not demonstrate this competency.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE.ENGL135.E.Global Awareness & Civic Engagement
view longer description
threshold: 3.0 pts
4.0 pts
Excellent: Demonstrates a sophisticated use of conventions of style to develop arguments. Conveys value judgements concerning the effectiveness of the argument.
3.0 pts
Competent: Demonstrates use of some conventions of style to develop arguments. Value judgments may lack clarity or specificity.
2.0 pts
Limited: Does not adequately use conventions of style to develop arguments. Value judgements are weak or absent.
1.0 pts
Poor: Does not effectively use conventions of style or make value judgments to support main ideas.
0.0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations: Does not demonstrate this competency.
4.0 pts
Total Points: 150.0