The Brief Bedford Reader: Eating Greens

Requirements and Specifications: Argument Analysis/Evaluation Essay (100 points)
Overview: According to The Brief Bedford Reader, to analyze is to separate the whole into its component parts (16); to evaluate is to “judge the merits of something” (567).
Objective: This assignment asks you to prepare a five paragraph essay in which you analyze and evaluate an argument on the topic of humans and the environment. You are required to analyze and evaluate one of the following:
• “Waste Not, Want Not” by Bill McKibben (pp. 468-472 in The Brief Bedford Reader)
• “Forget Shorter Showers” by Derrick Jensen (pp. 475-478 in The Brief Bedford Reader)
• “Eating Green” by Margaret Lundberg (pp. 481-486 in The Brief Bedford Reader)
After carefully analyzing the argument of your choosing, your job is to evaluate it and determine its credibility.

Content and Style: In this evaluation, the evaluative term is “credible.” To determine whether or not the argument is credible, one must define “credible.” So what makes an argument credible?
First, a credible argument is one in which the author’s position is the product of careful reasoning. In other words, it has what Aristotle referred to as logical appeal (or logos). The argument’s conclusions are based on fact—sound evidence, statistics, and testimony provided by experts who are qualified to judge; this evidence is demonstrated to have originated with reliable sources. Furthermore, an argument that possesses logos is one in which the argument is both unified (all words, sentences, and paragraphs support the single central idea) and coherent (there is a clear relationship between ideas; one sentence flows into the next). Lastly, a logical argument is free of fallacy (and may seek to point out the logical deficiencies in an opponent’s argument).
Second, a credible argument is one that has ethical appeal (or ethos). Put simply, when the arguer (or speaker) comes across as knowledgeable, principled (moral), confident in his or her position, considerate of others, and fair, the argument is said to have ethical appeal.
Third, a credible argument is one in which the author uses emotional appeals (or pathos) responsibly. Language and images that stir the audience’s emotions and remind them of deeply held values are emotional appeals. It is ultimately the audience who decides which emotional appeals are acceptable and which are manipulative.
In the end, your opinion on the subject of humans and the environment matters not. Your objective is not to argue your side of the issue. Your objective is to analyze the argument, to determine the extent to which it satisfies the definition of a “credible argument,” and to evaluate (or judge) it.

Structure: The essay should comprise five paragraphs (an introduction, a three-paragraph body, and a conclusion).
The introduction should clearly and concisely identify the issue in question (humans and the environment). It should also identify some of the particulars concerning the argument you intend to analyze and evaluate (e.g. the title of the argument, the author’s name, and his/her position on the issue). Lastly, it should suggest your purpose, which is to evaluate, as well as the criteria you intend to apply when evaluating the argument (e.g. logos, ethos, and pathos). You may even wish to briefly explain why these criteria are an appropriate means of evaluating an argument’s credibility.
The best way to structure the essay’s body section would be to divide it into three parts, each of which would apply one criterion to the argument. For instance, the first part might evaluate the author’s use of logic (i.e. the efficacy of his data, his/her sources’ levels of expertise). The second part might evaluate the author’s character and credibility (i.e. his/her qualifications, perceived level of objectivity or even-handedness). The third part might evaluate the extent to which the author used emotional appeals responsibly, all the while citing specific examples as needed.
The conclusion should clearly state your final judgment of the argument. The answer to the question “To what extent is the argument credible?” should be stated in your thesis. The remainder of the conclusion should be used to explain (actually, review) how you arrived at this judgment.
The essay should include a works cited page that cites the subject of your evaluation (i.e. work in an anthology) as well as any other outside sources you may have cited.
Suggestions to Aid Development:
1. It is important that your essay maintains a neutral tone; therefore, use third person point of view, as this lends objectivity to an evaluation.
2. Avoid using language that is simplistically judgmental. Refrain from describing an argument as “unclear” or “biased.” Your readers will want to judge those things for themselves. Rather, your job as a writer is to show how the argument under consideration is “biased” or “unclear.”
3. Resist the urge to summarize the argument. This is NOT a summary paper. A sentence or two is enough to recap the author’s position on the issue. Remember, your audience is familiar with this argument.
4. Lastly, I encourage you to take advantage of free tutoring and proofreading at Student Support Services. You may contact Alecia Deitz at 358-7270.
Specifications and Dates:
The final draft of the essay must be five paragraphs long; the essay must be typed in 12 pt. Times New Roman font and double spaced. The title, author's information, and page numbers must be made to accommodate 7th edition MLA formatting guidelines. All documentation of outside sources—and this includes the essay you have chosen to evaluate—must abide by 7th edition MLA documentation guidelines. The final draft must include a works cited page with a citation for the essay you are evaluating (see “Work from an Anthology” p. 417 in The St. Martin’s Handbook #11) and all references to the essay—whether quoted or paraphrased—must be indicated via proper in-text (parenthetical) citations.
Please refer to the semester schedule for relevant dates.