Overview

For this assignment, you will work with the same issue that you did for Researched Argument 1, but you now will forward a different position on it supported by evidence. By earnestly and thoroughly considering multiple perspectives, we will participate in a classical rhetorical practice called dissoi logoi, or "contrasting arguments." Our goal is to examine different positions on an issue critically by adopting them and determining how effectively they can be advanced. This practice affords us genuine engagement with a subject by resisting both dogma and the casual dismissal of alternatives. Our goal is not to reduce perspectives on an issue to equivalent choices distinguished merely by personal preference (such charges of relativism often are leveled at contemporary culture); rather, we seek to gain a broader viewpoint by legitimately exploring an issue in multiple, even antithetical, ways.

The assignment's two deliverables will be submitted as one complete electronic file in a common format (such as Microsoft Word, Apple Pages, or .pdf).

Deliverables

Researched Argument (50 points)

For this Researched Argument, you will address the same topic as your previous one, but you now will forward a different assertion. The document should be in MLA format (with a Works cited section), include at least two sources from your previous essay, and contain at least 1,000 words. Additionally, it should be shaped to suit a particular publication that you select (and will identify in your corresponding Argument Analysis). Your Researched Argument need not focus specifically on a question of policy; it can assume a position contrary to the one you took in in your previous Researched Argument, or it alternately might adopt one of many valid stances that do not fall into a for/against binary.

 

Argument Analysis (10 points)

The Argument Analysis is a document of approximately 750 words that consists of two sections:

1. The first part of the analysis should demonstrate that the current Researched Argument addresses the same topic as the previous one but assumes a distinct position. To accomplish this goal, you should differentiate the current Researched Argument from the previous one by examining its elements, such as the thesis it forwards, the stasis question it addresses, the language it uses, the tone it constructs, the readers it addresses, the arguments it forwards, the sources it incorporates, and the arrangement it constructs.
   
   
2. The second part of the analysis should explicate how the Researched Argument's concrete features suit its audience, context, and purpose. To do this, you must first identify a specific publication that would be an appropriate venue for the argument and reveal its conventions (including related subjects it has covered). You also must discuss its readership and the aims of your argument. Then you can demonstrate how your document's features fit these elements.