Philosophy Analytical Rubric Question Title * 1. COURSE NUMBER Question Title * 2. SECTION NUMBER Question Title * 3. YEAR/SEMESTER Question Title * 4. FOCUS (4) Exemplary: ▪ Prompt is completely & clearly addressed▪ Well-developed, interesting opening leads to central idea(s)▪ Clear, interesting central idea(s) that takes a stance on an issue or promotes an original theory stated/implied & gradually revealed▪ Specific audience, occasion, or situation addressed with appropriate language to the extent of anticipating questions that might be raised (3) Accomplished ▪ Prompt is clearly addressed▪ Effective, though less detailed opening leads to central idea(s)▪ Clear central idea(s) that takes a stance on an issue or promotes an original theory stated explicitly▪ Clear awareness of audience, situation, & occasion in form of address but no anticipation of questions to be raised (2) Developing▪ Prompt is addressed▪ Adequate opening leads to a central idea▪ Central idea may not be immediately clear but is evident by the end of the piece or the central idea is not an original theory or clear in its stance▪ Occasional awareness of audience, situation, & occasion (1) Beginning ▪ Prompt is partially or unclearly addressed▪ Rudimentary opening to writing sample▪ Ambiguous or unclear central idea▪ Little or no awareness of audience, situation, or occasion (0) Unacceptable▪ Prompt is not addressed▪ No opening or intro▪ No central idea▪ No awareness of audience, situation, or occasion Question Title * 5. ORGANIZATION & DEVELOPMENT (4) Exemplary▪ Consistently logical & effective ¶ing & structure▪ Smooth, sophisticated transitions between & within ¶s▪ Body ¶s provide convincing well organized arguments & detailed evidence/examples▪ Effective, thorough discussion & explanation of topic in terms of historical context and social impacts▪ Interesting, effective, insightful conclusion (3) Accomplished ▪ Usually logical & effective ¶ing & structure▪ Mostly smooth transitions between & within ¶s▪ Logical reasoning in argument and detailed evidence/examples in body ¶s with only occasional lapses▪ Mostly convincing, competent discussion of topic with some consideration for history or effects▪ Concludes paper effectively (2) Developing ▪ Occasionally inconsistent logic or unclear ¶ing & structure▪ Occasional transitions between & within ¶s▪ Body ¶s contain adequate but inconsistent levels of organization in argument and detailed evidence▪ General, occasionally convincing discussion of topic▪ Concludes adequately (1) Beginning▪ Rarely logical, mostly ineffective ¶ing▪ Awkward or missing transitions between & within ¶s▪ Inadequate evidence/ examples in body ¶s or confusing explanations▪ Rarely convincing discussion of topic▪ Weak/mechanical/incomplete conclusion (0) Unacceptable▪ No logic and no ¶ing▪ No transitions▪ Body ¶s provide random or no evidence, discussion, or explanation▪ Ineffective, unconvincing discussion of topic▪ Missing, ineffective, dull, incoherent, or irrelevant ending Question Title * 6. STYLE & SENTENCE STRUCTURE (4) Exemplary▪ Sophisticated, effective, appropriate diction▪ Sophisticated, varied sentence length & structure▪ Consistent tone and appropriate voice▪ Consistently smooth, clear, readable syntax▪ Free of sentence faults and errors▪ No wordiness (3) Accomplished ▪ Usually sophisticated, mostly accurate diction▪ Frequently varied sentence length & structure▪ Usually consistent tone and voice▪ Frequently smooth, clear, readable syntax▪ Infrequent errors▪ Little wordiness▪ Occasional errors▪ Some wordiness (2) Developing▪ Unsophisticated but generally accurate diction▪ Some variety in sentence length & structure▪ Occasionally inconsistent tone and voice▪ Clear, occasionally tangled syntax▪ Frequent errors▪ Wordy (1) Beginning▪ Often limited, frequently imprecise diction▪ Mostly simple, rarely varied sentence length & structure▪ Frequently inconsistent toneinappropriate voice▪ Distracting, unidiomatic expressions & syntax▪ Frequent errors▪ Wordy (0) Unacceptable▪ Limited, imprecise diction prevents communication of complex ideas▪ Unsophisticated or no variation in sentence length & structure▪Inconsistent, inappropriate tone and voice▪ Unreadable▪ Widespread errors▪ Excessive wordiness Question Title * 7. GRAMMAR & MECHANICS (4) Exemplary▪ Free of grammatical errors▪ Free of usage and mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format (3) Accomplished▪ Few grammatical errors▪ Infrequent usage and mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format (2) Developing▪ Some grammatical errors▪ Some usage or mechanical errors▪ Appropriate/correct format (1) Beginning▪ Distracting number of grammatical errors▪ Distracting number of usage or mechanical errors▪ Incorrect format (0) Unacceptable▪ Excessive errors in grammar or mechanical conventions▪ Distorted, obscured, or incomprehensible meaning▪ Inappropriate/incorrect format Question Title * 8. RESEARCH (4) Exemplary▪ Consistently uses reliable, relevant, appropriate sources▪ Consistently & correctly cites sources in-text & parenthetically▪ Unfailingly uses appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Thoughtful, insightful, effective synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources Recognizes all logical fallacies in thinkers and successfully avoids them in own reasoning. (3) Accomplished▪ Frequently uses reliable, relevant, appropriate sources▪ Infrequent errors citing sources in-text & parenthetically▪ Few lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Frequent insightful synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources Recognizes most logical fallacies in thinkers and for the most part avoids them in own reasoning (2) Developing ▪ Uses sources, most of which are reliable and relevant▪ Occasional errors citing sources in-text or parenthetically▪ Occasional lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Some effective synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources Recognizes occasionally logical fallacies in thinkers and avoids some of them in own reasoning (1) Beginning▪ Frequently uses unreliable or irrelevant sources▪ Frequent errors citing sources in-text or parenthetically▪ Frequent lapses in use of appropriate documentation▪ Complete absence of plagiarism▪ Unsuccessfully attempts to synthesize writer’s ideas with info from sources Recognizes one or two logical fallacies in thinkers and only falls into a few fallacies (0) Unacceptable▪ Lacks sources or uses unreliable, irrelevant, inappropriate sources▪ Missing citations and has widespread errors citing sources in-text or parenthetically▪ Little or no use of appropriate documentation▪ Evidence of plagiarism▪ No synthesis of writer’s ideas with info from sources Does not consider the logical weaknesses of other thinkers nor recognizes the fallacies in own thinking Done