Philosophy Paper Grading Rubric - CMU



| |Excellent |Good |Needs Improvement |Unacceptable |

|CONTENT | | | | |

|Argument | | | | |

|Thesis |A clear statement of the main conclusion of |The thesis is obvious, but there is no |The thesis is present, but must be uncovered|There is no thesis. |

| |the paper. |single clear statement of it. |or reconstructed from the text of the paper.| |

|Premises |Each reason for believing the thesis is made|The premises are all clear, although each |The premises must be reconstructed from the |There are no premises—the paper merely |

| |clear, and as much as possible, presented in|may not be presented in a single statement. |text of the paper. It is not made clear |restates the thesis. Or, if there are |

| |single statements. It is also clear which |It is also pretty clear which premises are |which premises are to be taken as given, and|premises, they are much more likely to be |

| |premises are to be taken as given, and which|to be taken as given, and which will be |which will be supported by sub-arguments. |false than true. |

| |will be supported by sub-arguments. The |supported by sub-arguments. The paper |There are no sub-arguments, or, if there are| |

| |paper provides sub-arguments for |provides sub-arguments for controversial |sub-arguments, the premises for these are | |

| |controversial premises. If there are |premises. If there are sub-arguments, the |not made clear. The paper does not provide | |

| |sub-arguments, the premises for these are |premises for these are clear. The premises |sub-arguments for controversial premises. | |

| |clear, and made in single statements. The |which are taken as given are at least |The plausibility of the premises which are | |

| |premises which are taken as given are at |plausibly true. |taken as given is questionable. | |

| |least plausibly true. | | | |

|Support |The premises clearly support the thesis, and|The premises support the thesis, and the |The premises somewhat support the thesis, |The premises do not support the thesis. |

| |the author is aware of exactly the kind of |author is aware of the general kind of |but the author is not aware of the kind of | |

| |support they provide. The argument is either|support they provide. The argument is either|support they provide. The argument is | |

| |valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the |valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the |invalid, and the thesis, based on the | |

| |thesis, based on the premises, is likely to |thesis, based on the premises, is likely to |premises, is not likely to be or plausibly | |

| |be or plausibly true. |be or plausibly true. |true. | |

|Counter-Arguments |The paper considers both obvious and |The paper considers obvious |The paper may consider some obvious |No counter-examples, counter-arguments, or |

| |unobvious counter-examples, |counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or |counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or |opposing positions are considered. |

| |counter-arguments, and/or opposing |opposing positions, and provides responses. |opposing positions, but some obvious ones | |

| |positions, and provides original and/or | |are missed. Responses are non-existent or | |

| |thoughtful responses. | |mere claims of refutation. | |

|Understanding | | | | |

|Text |The paper contains highly accurate and |The summarization, description and/or |The summarization, description and/or |The summarization, description and/or |

| |precise summarization, description and/or |paraphrasing of text is fairly accurate and |paraphrasing of text is fairly accurate, but|paraphrasing of text is inaccurate and/or |

| |paraphrasing of text. The paper uses |precise, and has textual support, but other |not precise, and the textual support is |has no textual support. |

| |appropriate textual support for these. |passages may have been better choices. |inappropriate. | |

|Ideas |The paper contains a highly accurate and |The description of the problem or issue is |The description of the problem or issue is |The description of the problem or issue is |

| |precise description of the issue or problem,|fairly accurate and precise, and possible |fairly accurate but not precise, and |inaccurate, and possible alternatives or |

| |along with a careful consideration of |alternatives or solutions are considered. |possible alternatives or solutions are |solutions are not considered, and examples |

| |possible alternatives or solutions. The |Examples are given, but similar examples may|either not considered, or ill-described. |are not provided. |

| |paper contains relevant examples, and |have been better. |Examples are given, but it is not made clear| |

| |indicates the salient issues the examples | |how they are relevant. | |

| |highlight. | | | |

|Analysis |The paper successfully breaks the argument, |The paper successfully breaks the argument, |The paper breaks the argument, issue, or |The parts identified are not the correct |

| |issue, or problem into relevant parts. The |issue, or problem into relevant parts. The |problem into parts, but some parts may be |and/or relevant ones. The connections |

| |connections between the parts are clear and |connections between the parts are fairly |missing or unclear. The connections between |between the parts are completely inaccurate.|

| |highly accurate. |accurate. |the parts are somewhat accurate. | |

|Synthesis |The paper successfully integrates all |The paper integrates most relevant parts |The paper integrates some parts from various|The parts to be integrated are not clear |

| |relevant parts from various places into a |from various places into a mostly coherent |places into a somewhat coherent whole. The |and/or relevant. The connections between the|

| |coherent whole. The connections between the |whole. The connections between the parts are|connections between the parts are somewhat |parts are unclear. |

| |parts are clear and insightful. |generally clear. |unclear. | |

| | | | | |

|Evaluation | | | | |

|Argument |The paper evaluates the argument in question|The paper evaluates the argument in question|The paper evaluates the argument in question|The paper evaluates the argument in question|

| |by checking for adherence to various |by checking for adherence to various |by checking only the truth of the premises |by whether the author agrees or disagrees |

| |standards (validity, soundness, etc.), and |standards (validity, soundness, etc.), and |and/or the conclusion, and does not check |with the conclusion or a premise. |

| |checking for informal fallacies. The paper |checking for informal fallacies. |for informal fallacies. | |

| |suggests how the argument could be made | | | |

| |better according to the appropriate | | | |

| |standard. | | | |

|Position |The paper evaluates the position in question|The paper evaluates the position in question|The paper evaluates the position in question|The paper evaluates the position in question|

| |by checking for support in an argument and |by checking for support in an argument and |by considering its plausibility. |by whether the author agrees or disagrees |

| |internal consistency, and by exploring |internal consistency. | |with it. |

| |unmentioned plausible alternatives. | | | |

|Creation | | | | |

|Thesis |Thesis is original, interesting, and |The thesis is interesting and relevant. |The thesis is slightly off-topic, obviously |The thesis is totally irrelevant. |

| |relevant. | |true (or false), or not really worth writing| |

| | | |about. | |

|Examples |Examples are original, relevant, insightful,|Examples are original, relevant, and |Examples are unoriginal, only somewhat |Examples are missing, irrelevant an/or |

| |and well-used. |well-used. |relevant, and/or not well-used. |misused. |

|Alternative Positions |Previously unmentioned alternative positions|Alternative positions are explored. |Alternative positions are mentioned but not |Alternative positions are ignored. |

| |are explored. | |explored. | |

|STYLE | | | | |

|Clarity |All sentences are complete and grammatical. |All sentences are complete and grammatical. |A few sentences are incomplete and/or |Many sentences are incomplete and/or |

| |All words are chosen for their precise |Most words are chosen for their precise |ungrammatical. Words are not chosen for |ungrammatical. The author does not |

| |meanings. All new or unusual terms are |meanings. Most new or unusual terms are |their precise meanings. New or unusual terms|acknowledge that key words have precise |

| |well-defined. Key concepts and theories are |well-defined. Key concepts and theories are |are not well-defined. Key concepts and |meanings. Information (names, facts, etc.) |

| |accurately and completely explained. Good, |explained. Examples are clear. Information |theories are not explained. Examples are not|is inaccurate. Paper has many spelling |

| |clear examples are used to illuminate |(names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has |clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is |errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of |

| |concepts and issues. Information (names, |been spell-checked and proofread, and has |mostly accurate. Paper has several spelling |slang. |

| |facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has been |very few errors, and no rhetorical questions|errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of | |

| |spell-checked and proofread, and has no |or slang. |slang. | |

| |errors, and no rhetorical questions or | | | |

| |slang. | | | |

|Organization | | | | |

|Introduction |Thesis is clear, and contained in the |Thesis is contained in the introduction. The|Thesis is not contained in the introduction.|Only the topic is introduced, with no |

| |introduction. The topic is introduced with |topic is introduced with little fanfare. It |The topic is introduced with too much |description of the paper. Or, the paper is |

| |minimal fanfare. It is made clear how the |is generally clear how the paper will get to|fanfare. The flow of the paper is described |described inaccurately. |

| |paper will get to this conclusion, not in a |this conclusion, not in a detailed outline |as an outline, and not as a description of | |

| |detailed outline of the paper, but rather in|of the paper, but rather in a description of|the steps in argument. | |

| |a concise summary of the steps in argument. |the steps in argument. | | |

| | | | | |

|Body |It is very easy to follow the argument. It |It is generally easy to follow the argument.|It is somewhat difficult to follow the |It is impossible to follow the argument. It |

| |is made explicit which claims are being used|It is clear which claims are being used as |argument. It is somewhat unclear which |is completely unclear which claims are being|

| |as premises, and how these premises are |premises, and how these premises are |claims are being used as premises, and/or |used as premises. It is completely unclear |

| |supposed to support the thesis. New premises|supposed to support the thesis. Usually, new|how these premises are supposed to support |how the premises are supposed to support the|

| |are each introduced in new paragraphs or |premises are introduced in new paragraphs or|the thesis. Separate premises are lumped |thesis. Premises are discussed randomly, or |

| |sections. If there are sub-arguments, it is |sections. If there are sub-arguments, it is |together in the same paragraphs or sections.|not at all. There seem to be many arguments,|

| |made explicit which argument is the main |clear which argument is the main one, and |If there are sub-arguments, it is not clear |and it is completely unclear which is the |

| |one, and which are the secondary ones. |which are the secondary ones. |which argument is the main one, and which |main one. |

| | | |are the secondary ones. | |

|Conclusion |The paper uses the conclusion to tie up |The paper uses the conclusion to tie up some|The conclusion is merely a restatement of |The conclusion is missing. |

| |loose ends. For example, the paper considers|loose ends, but combines this with a |the introduction. | |

| |objections to the argument to which it is |restatement of the introduction. | | |

| |acknowledged there is no space or expertise | | | |

| |to respond. Or, the paper briefly considers | | | |

| |the implications of the acceptance of the | | | |

| |conclusion for a larger argument, or for a | | | |

| |larger issue or problem. Or the paper | | | |

| |explains what further work may need to be | | | |

| |done in this area. | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download