|
|
The student recognizes the manipulation involved in the context and rejects the implication that inflicting harm is neutral in a scientific setting no matter the setting.
|
The situation is only recognized as ambiguous without addressing need for taking responsibility. Does not adequately question the assumption of value neutrality in the context of a course assignment/experiment.
|
The position described is defended as based on the authority of the school and context. Represents failure to think for oneself and to examine assumptions of the situation which are ingredients of critical reasoning.
|
|
|
|
The student clearly states a position (Driving over 55 mph should be outlawed) delivering information about background and history of the issue (history of legislation regarding speed limits, variations by state and region); asks who, what, when, where, and why (what is the source of and support for this legislation – Mothers Against Drunk Driving or car manufacturers or oil companies?); makes sound argument backed up with factual evidence (costs in terms of fuel usage, time spent on the road, road accidents and fatalities, traffic congestion) and examples of pros and cons; includes reference to at least three scientific or peer reviewed sources demonstrating diverse points of view; includes emotional appeal and examples of relevant personal experience (Grief at a young age from losing high school friend to auto accident when speeding; pain due to cost of gasoline to pocketbook and environment)
|
Incomplete description of background and history of the issue; asks some but not all questions; arguments not completely supported by evidence; divergent points of view acknowledged but not developed and answered; limited use of sources; sources of information need verification; includes relevant personal information but little attention to emotional impact.
|
Lack of clarity about position, unstated or vaguely stated. Meager history or consideration of consequences. Insufficient question of pertinent questions; unsound arguments; absence of factual evidence and/or alternative views; meager or no references and failure to give diverse points of view.
|
|
Content is available under the
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike License.
Privacy Policy | Authors