I. Introduction paragraph (one body paragraph)
1. Attention hook - startling statistics, a dramatic story, a challenging question, etc.
2. Thesis statement
3. A preview of the main points (3 Statements of Organization: II. Introduction of topic,
III. Exploration of topic, and IV. Solutions)
II. Introduction of topic (two body paragraphs)
A. Paragraph #1: Background information
-- Description of topic / field of study
-- Definition of key terms
B. Paragraph #2: Historical overview / process
-- How controversy developed or evolved
-- Key “players” involved (scientists, politicians, experts, victims, etc.)
-- Milestones in how problem came about /discussion started
-- Laws / legal cases
III. Exploration of topic: types/kinds of problems; causes/effects of problems; arguments for
support (three body paragraphs)
A. Paragraph #1 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
B. Paragraph #2 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
C. Paragraph #3 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
IV. Opposition / Overcoming it (= Recommendations for changes / solutions (three body
paragraphs)
The Opposition’s argument (three main arguments)
A. Paragraph #1: (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
Overcoming the opposition / Recommendation for change
B. Paragraph #2 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
C. Paragraph #3 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
V. Concluding paragraph: restate main points from II. – IV. (one paragraph)
The Roman Numerals are for each section of the essay
When is says “Paragraph #” it means there needs to be
that many paragraphs in each section. Right above or
right next to where it says Paragraph # for each section
is where the directions are for that section. The chunks
mean that there needs to be another argument with
evidence and analysis for each paragraph. There needs
to be in-text citations wherever you are paraphrasing,
using statistics, evidence, or quotes. Use a few quotes in
each chunk but not too many because my
plagiarism/originality percentage can’t be high so do
not overuse quotes.
Works Cited Page needs to have at least 10 sources and
5 must be from data bases.
For Data Bases
Go on LVUSD.org
Hover over the Student Tab
Click Library Services
On Library Services Page Click Secondary Resources
There is the complete list of databases.
SIRS:
Username: CA0495 password: 91302
JSTOR has a user name and password:
Username: Calabasas
Password: Coyotes
You can use the other databases on the page besides
Sirs and Jstor but those 2 are the best.
Attached below is a picture of the rubric
The topic is: the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. It is an
argumentative essay. The Essay needs to be around 7-8 pages with a
works cited page. Attached are the directions/ format/ rubric. Needs to be
Original Work!
Topic: Explain How the benefits of Vaccinations outweigh the risks.
I. Introduction paragraph (one body paragraph)
1. Attention hook - startling statistics, a dramatic story, a challenging question, etc.
2. Thesis statement
3. A preview of the main points (3 Statements of Organization: II. Introduction of topic,
III. Exploration of topic, and IV. Solutions)
II. Introduction of topic (two body paragraphs)
A. Paragraph #1: Background information
-- Description of topic / field of study
-- Definition of key terms
B. Paragraph #2: Historical overview / process
-- How controversy developed or evolved
-- Key “players” involved (scientists, politicians, experts, victims, etc.)
-- Milestones in how problem came about /discussion started
-- Laws / legal cases
III. Exploration of topic: types/kinds of problems; causes/effects of problems; arguments for
support (three body paragraphs)
A. Paragraph #1 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
B. Paragraph #2 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
C. Paragraph #3 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
IV. Opposition / Overcoming it (= Recommendations for changes / solutions (three body
paragraphs)
The Opposition’s argument (three main arguments)
A. Paragraph #1: (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
Overcoming the opposition / Recommendation for change
B. Paragraph #2 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
C. Paragraph #3 (Topic Sentence)
1. Chunk #1 (each has a specific example and analysis)
2. Chunk #2
3. Chunk #3
V. Concluding paragraph: restate main points from II. – IV. (one paragraph)
The Roman Numerals are for each section of the essay
When is says “Paragraph #” it means there needs to be
that many paragraphs in each section. Right above or
right next to where it says Paragraph # for each section
is where the directions are for that section. The chunks
mean that there needs to be another argument with
evidence and analysis for each paragraph. There needs
to be in-text citations wherever you are paraphrasing,
using statistics, evidence, or quotes. Use a few quotes in
each chunk but not too many because my
plagiarism/originality percentage can’t be high so do
not overuse quotes.
Works Cited Page needs to have at least 10 sources and
5 must be from data bases. Organized Alphabetically by
the authors last name and my teacher should be able to
match the in text citations with the source on the
Works Cited page(s).
For Data Bases
Go on LVUSD.org
Hover over the Student Tab
Click Library Services
On Library Services Page Click Secondary Resources
There is the complete list of databases.
SIRS:
Username: CA0495 password: 91302
JSTOR has a user name and password:
Username: Calabasas
Password: Coyotes
You can use the other databases on the page besides
Sirs and Jstor but those 2 are the best.
Attached below is a picture of the rubric
ISP
Poor
RIC
Superior
Weak
Good
Meaningful, captivating hook,
smooth, concise thesis w/ topic
and opinion; Sofo's clearly
preview all required sections
Average
Hook lacks detail/may not be
very interesting or be poorly
worded; thesis on topic, but may
be hard to locate / not to specs
too short/too longSofo's may
be incomplete or hard to match
to sections
Clear, but less thorough hook,
thesis wi topic and opinion, but
less concise or sophisticated;
Solo's preview most required
sections, maybe do this less
obviously
Introduction Paragraph
(1)
Thesis has issues / may mis
pertinent info, Sofo's are
unclear, or organized
unconvincingly, intro includes
elements that don't belong
The intro doesn't show an effort
to follow the required format
may sound like a quick, verbal,
disorganized discussion of topic
2 clearly separated bo's
1. Broad, thorough intro of field
of study: def. of key terms/
players, situation, milestones,
laws
2. Detailed historical overview of
the issues
Both bp's don't leave any
obvious questions
Intro of Topic
Paragraphs (2)
2 clearly separated bp's
1. Overall clear intro of field of
study, may leave out an element
that should have been included
though
2. Hist. overview is mostly
complete, but may skip an
obviusly relevant point
Clear attempt at intro of field of
study and historical overview,
may be superficial or clearly lack
some pertinent information; may
be somewhat disorganized, but
still provide a basic intro to the
field of study
hard to follow, not clear what the
topic is about what the issues
are
Major elements missing, reader
may not gain a basic
understanding of the
topic/issues; intro may be
confusing; may not show
evidence of attempt to follow the
required format may sound like
a superficial, verbal intro of the
field of study, without evidence
of research of details
Exploration of topic is
incomplete, lacks major points,
too superficial; organization
confusing, repetitive info,
overlapping bo's; missing
significant support/credibility
variety, support-analysis ratio is
not balanced, little logic is used,
contradictions, weak
understanding of topic
Hard to understand the issues of
the topic; organization and
exploration questionable/
lacking; arguments are illogical
and fail to demonstrate that
writer has read text, no real
attempt to support arguments w/
credible sources
3 clearly distinct bp's explore the
main problems / issues
thoroughly, ideal organization
without overlapping; variety of
examples from credible sources;
thorough, convincing analysis,
more analysis than support,
keeps overall topic in mind
Exploration of Topic
Paragraphs (3)
3 clearly distinct bp's explore the
main problems / issues
convincingly, may have slight
overlapping, but overall good
organization; not all issues of
the topic may be addressed;
examples may not be as varied
or relevant, sources may be less
credible; analysis is overall
convincing, but not as thorough
as 'A'
3 clearly distinct bp's:
1. One bp addresses
opposition's main points, wl
some evidence provided, but
may fall back on writer's side
2. Two solution bp's recommend
some possibilities for change,
but may at times only focus on
reverse argument of Explor.
bp's not enough distinction /
new ideas
Thesis and SofO's and main
points restated, but may not
reflect on major arguments
thoroughly, may not include
unique, thoughtful ending
Bp's may contain repetitive
information; organization may
not be convincing/obvious
overlapping: one or more major
concerns may not be
addressed; some arguments
may not be supported, sources
may lack credibility or variety
analysis sometimes simplistic,
may lose sight of overall
argument
3 bp's included, but may not be
organized to specs:
bp's may contain repetitive info:
organization not convincing, one
or more major solutions may not
be addressed; some arguments
may not be supported, sources
may lack credibility or variety
analysis sometimes simplistic,
may lose sight of overall
argument
3 clearly distinct bp's:
1. One well-developed bp on
opposition's three main points,
wl convincing evidence
provided, no falling back on
writer's point-of-view
2. Two solution bp's recommend
realistic solutions /
recommendations thoroughly;
no overlapping w/ Explor, bp's
Opposition Paragraph
(1) and
Recommendations for
Change / Solution
Paragraphs (2)
Oppostion may get mixed up
with writer's point of view,
solutions may be simplistic /
unrealistic /mainly reverse
arguments/major points
lacking, organization confusing,
repetitive info; missing
significant support, support-
analysis ratio not balanced
weak understanding of topic
Clearly missing some of the
required elements: thesis,
SofO's, main bp points (topic
background, historical info,
explor of topic, opposition,
solutions), closing
Fails to address the opposition
in an understandebale manner,
solutions are questionable and
don't provide sufficient support:
section fails to demonstrate that
writer has read text no real
attempt to support arguments w/
credible sources
Thesis and SofО's restated with
different wording; all major
points summarized and detailed
goes beyond with a thoughtful
ending
Thesis and main points restated
briefly, conclusion is overall
short, without detail from bp's
Fails to follow the basic pattern
of conclusion paragraph; just a
few sentences long
Conclusion
Clear effort of editing to present
sophisticated vocabulary and
strong verbs; visible attempt to
avoid wordiness and repetition
Overall includes a good amount
of sophisticated wording and
shows an effort to avoid simple,
overused words; but also
includes simple words regularly
that could have been replaced
with little effort
Paper contains fewer trans.,
lead-ins not as varied, but still
fluent
Very basic vocabulary and
sentence structure. Overall
written more like a like a verbal
communication, an informal
"chat" than a formal research
paper
Vocabulary and Tone
Style of writing is so informal
that it does not meet high school
requirements may be written
like 'a char with "street
language,' and possibly in
"stream-of-consciousness" style
without an effort to build logical
sentences
Wording is not unique, but easily
understandeable; no awkward
or colloquial wording, but could
have been improved by
spending more time on editing
and choosing some
replacements for common
words
Few transitions, quote
integration simple, repetitive
Mostly complete sentences, but
without noticeable variety
includes some transitions;
mostly simple subject-verb-
object sentences
Some errors, but do not confuse
Nonexistent, no flow, choppy
Paper flows, lots of smooth,
natural trans, quote lead-in
variety
Varied and imaginative,
transitions are clearly used
purposefully, frequently, and
noticeably
Style / Transitions
Sentence Variety
Sentence variety is noticeable
and purposeful
Too many incomplete or
gramatically incorrect sentences
distract from the undersanding
of the paper, barely any
purpuseful transitions
Serious frequent errors that
confuse meaning and make the
paper hard to read
Few errors
Grammar and
Punctuation
Near perfect
meaning
Trans. rarely present, paper not
smooth
Few transitions, several
incomplete, awkward sentences
although an ability to compose
grammatically correct sentences
is still visible
Too many errors, but the paper
is still understandeable with
some effort
Errors in heading, header,
creative title, indents for bp's,
spacing are frequent and show
a lack of effort to follow the
requirements
Below average, shows lack of
knowledge about MLA citation
requirements; may negelct to
cite specific information; too
many foramt errors (author,
shortened title, page or par#
comma / no comma, name/no
name, pd at end)
The paper shows a general
understanding of format
requirements, but errors in
heading, header, creative title,
indents for bo's, spacing are
noticeable
Heading, header, creative title,
indents for bp's, spacing are
near perfect
Very few errors in heading.
header, creative title, Indents for
bp's, spacing
Barely resembles MLA format
and shows ignorance about
basic MLA requirements
MLA format
Near perfect, author or
shortened title, page or par#
comma before par#, no comma
before page #; no name in ()
in lead-in, pd at end
Parenthetical (In-Text)
Citation
Very good, only very few errors:
MLA citation requirements are
mostly followed (author
shortened tide, page or par. #
comma/ no comma, name/no
name, pd at end)
Average, several errors, but still
obvious attempt at following
MLA citation specs (author,
shortened tite, page or par. #
comma/ no comma, name / no
name, pd at end)
Lack of citation for obvious for
quotes / specific info, citation
does not resemble MLA style
Error free or almost error free,
matches in-text citation (almost)
perfectly, double-spaced,
reverso indent, alphabetized, 10
sources, 6 data base sources
Mostly error free but may
include small errors
may have some issues with in-
text citation matching with works
cited; or any issue with double-
spaced, reverse indent,
alphabetized, 10 sources, 5 data
base sources
Works Cited List
Too many issues
May include too many urt's
compared to full citation; may
have too many unmatched in
text citations may not follow
protocol re, spacing, indentation,
alphabetization, or required
sources
Quite a few url's; MLA works
cited requirements barely
recognizeable
Overall recognizeable MLA
works cited list, but may include
visible errors: may include
several in-text citations that
don't macth works cited, may
include urf's, may have some
issues with alphabetization or
reverse indentation; may include
less than 10 sources, may
Include less than 5 data basse
source
Overall understandable and
solid, with clear effort, but may
lack detail
Convincing thoughtful
sophisticated, detailed, no
questions, perfect
Very simple, but still gives a
basic introduction to the topic
without convincing detail, may
be incomplete
Interesting, solid, good effort,
may just miss some details, but
overall really good job
Total & Overall Effect
Confusing organization and
information, incomplete
research not to specs
Purchase answer to see full
attachment