Constructing Your Claim Your position must be presented as a precise claim using one of the following formulae from Dennis Jerz: NOT “I am for/against [topic]” For example: ● Weak: “I am against ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance” ● Strong: “The phrase ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance should be removed from public schools because it pressures non-religious students to choose between civic participation and personal belief, frames refusal to recite it as a sign of disloyalty rather than a protected right, and embeds a religious standard for belonging into a ritual meant to unify all Americans — eroding the constitutional guarantee that citizenship carries no religious requirement.” This construction: ● Allows for greater nuance in your argument ● Keeps focus on the issue rather than the author ● Forces precise articulation of your position Introduction ● Define and present the specific issue ● Provide necessary context ● State your precise claim Engaging with Opposing Views Your essay must include substantive engagement with opposing viewpoints: 1. Identify Strong Counterarguments ○ Find the most compelling arguments against your position ○ Focus on counterarguments from credible sources ○ Include perspectives that challenge your core claim 2. Present Opposition Fairly ○ Describe opposing views in their strongest form ○ Use precise quotes from those who hold contrary views ○ Avoid creating “straw man” versions of opposing arguments 3. Respond Thoughtfully ○ Address the core reasoning of opposing views ○ Acknowledge valid points while explaining why your position is stronger ○ Use evidence to support your responses 4. Demonstrate Complexity ○ Show how different viewpoints illuminate various aspects of the issue ○ Acknowledge areas of uncertainty or needed compromise ○ Consider the implications of both positions Evidence Requirements Your argument must include: ● A minimum of 5 sources (at least 3 scholarly journal articles from the Hacc databases) ● All sources must be published within the last 10 years (2015 or later) ● At least one documented concrete example (historical or current event) ● Direct quotes from ALL sources (no paraphrasing or summarizing) ● All quotes must include page numbers in citations ● A combination of: ○ Arguable assertions ○ Facts and statistics ○ Examples and anecdotes ○ Expert quotes ○ Counterarguments Remember: ● Sources support your writing, not vice versa. Your voice and analysis should drive the essay. ● Every source you cite must be quoted directly with proper page numbers ● Failure to provide direct quotes with page numbers will result in the source not being counted toward the minimum requirement Format and Citation Requirements ● MLA format throughout ● 12pt font ● 1-inch margins ● Double-spaced ● Works Cited page ● Direct quotes only (no paraphrasing) ● Locators (page numbers) are required for all in-text citations Important Dates ● Three Annotated Works Cited Entries Due: 4/15 ● Draft for Peer Review Due: 4/20 ● Final Revision Due: 4/22 Submission Requirements Your peer review draft must include: ● Complete draft with all required sources ● Proper MLA citations ● Works Cited page Note: Essays without the required number of sources cannot be accepted. Evaluation Criteria Argument (35%) ● Clear, specific claim using required construction ● Logical reasoning ● Effective use of evidence ● Strong analysis of a real-world example Research (25%) ● Required number and quality of sources ● Integration of evidence ● Proper in-text citations with page numbers ● Complete Works Cited Counterargument Engagement (25%) ● Fair representation of opposing views ● Good-faith engagement with the strongest counterpoints ● Effective responses that advance your argument ● Recognition of valid concerns in opposing views Writing (15%) ● Clear organization ● Effective paragraphing ● Grammar and mechanics ● Academic tone Tips for Success ● Start with your real-world example to help narrow your focus ● Draft your claim before deep research to guide your investigation ● Use topic sentences that advance your main claim ● Integrate sources to support, not replace, your analysis ● Allow time for substantive revision