Global 120 Second Short Paper: Prompts and Cover Page

Winter 2020
Professor Kai M. Thaler
Due January 29 in class
This paper should be between 1250 and 1500 words, and submitted double-spaced, in 12-point font,
with each page numbered. The pages should be stapled together and compiled in this order:
A. Please fill in the cover page included below and put it as your first page.
B. As the second page, please include a copy of the rubric, with check marks in the boxes that you
think reflect the quality of your work. You may include comments to explain your reasoning.
This will help section leaders and me to understand if there have been issues with the clarity of
the assignment and expectations.
C. Your completed paper.
You are not expected to do any outside research or reading, but you can cite arguments, ideas, and
examples from lecture and optional, recommended readings. References to material from readings or
lecture and any short direct quotations must be properly cited. All work, wording, and ideas that are
not cited must be your own. You may choose any one of the following citation formats: APA, MLA, or
either Chicago style, but please use it consistently. Information on these formats is available here:
http://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/citations/citationwhich. If you are using in-text citations, then you must
provide a bibliography at the end listing the sources you have cited.
Prompts and Structure
Please choose one of the two prompts below. You should provide an introductory paragraph about your
chosen topic, present a thesis statement, and then write several paragraphs providing examples and
elaborating on these to support your thesis. You should then have one or two concluding paragraphs
restating your argument and making a case for its significance.
Prompt 1. Early anarchism and Marxism both emphasized greater worker control and a more equal
distribution of resources, and each came to its own conclusions about the what role the state should have
in an ideal society. How and why are anarchism and Marxism’s views of the state similar or different?
Compare and contrast the two ideologies’ ideas and then choose one of the two and argue for why it
provides a more convincing case for what the role of the state should look like in an ideal society.
Formulate an argument and support it and support it using examples, from readings and lecture, of
authors’ arguments and real-world cases.
Prompt 2. Ideologies are formulated to organize not just political and social life, but also economic
systems. Liberalism and Marxism each advanced ideas about how the economy should be organized in
an ideal society, what types of economic freedoms people should have, and what the roles of different
individuals or classes might be. Compare and contrast the liberal and Marxist positions, then choose one
of the two and discuss the potential flaws or downsides in its economic vision. Formulate an argument
and support it using examples, from readings and lecture, of authors’ arguments and real-world cases.
Global 120 First Short Paper Cover Sheet
Name:
Perm #:
Prompt number chosen:
Section Leader:
Section Day and Time:
Academic Integrity
I certify that this assignment is my own work, except where I have acknowledged the use
of the works of other people.
______________________ ______________
Signature Date
D C B A
GRADING/MARKING
CRITERIA
Achievement that
minimally meets the
course requirements
Achievement that
satisfactorily meets the
course requirements
Achievement that is
significantly above the course
requirements
Achievement that is
outstanding relative to the
course requirements
COMMENTS
Thesis/Argument: Logical
reasoning, supported
claims, and critical thinking.
25 points.
Argument is unclear
and does not
adequately respond to
the prompt or
demonstrate
relationship to course
materials.
Simple, standard argument
taken directly from course
materials. Adequately
responds to prompt.
Fully-formed, complete and
wholly logical argument.
Demonstrates clear
understanding of course
materials and prompt, but
develops a new approach to
standard arguments.
Fully-formed, complete and
wholly logical argument.
Demonstrates clear
understanding of course
materials and prompt, but
advances an original
argument not directly
discussed in course
materials.
Analysis/synthesis:
Examination and
interpretation of class
materials to compare and
contrast ideologies and their
principles or goals.
35 points.
Key elements or
arguments may be
incorrectly identified;
analysis may be
attempted but
unjustified. Limited
provision of examples.
Most key elements and
arguments are identified.
Generally accurate, but
superficial interpretation,
comparison, categorization,
analysis or explanation from
readily available sources,
using examples in exact same
manner as class materials.
Key elements and arguments
are identified. Accurate
interpretation and analysis
with some rationale or
justification integrated into
explanation from readily
available sources, presenting
some new interpretations and
ideas based on course
materials.
Key elements and arguments
are identified and clarified in
detail. Accurate, deep
interpretation and
justification using
independent thought,
building on course materials
to present new and original
interpretations and ideas.
Discussion: Development,
depth, breadth and
synthesis. 30 points.
Significantly superficial.
Discussion lacks depth,
breadth and/or
examples to support
argument. Examples or
concepts incorrectly
identified or defined.
Only references lecture
or one reading.
Adequate evidence of depth,
breadth and/or examples
from course materials to
support argument, but
connections between
argument and evidence not
clear or consistent. Partially
accurate understanding of
course concepts and authors’
arguments. Some minor
irrelevancies and inaccuracies.
Only engages with one or two
readings.
Connects examples together
and to different specific
aspects of argument. Some
standard criticism or pro/con
points from course materials.
Generally accurate, extensive
understanding of course
concepts and authors’
arguments. References
multiple course readings. Few
minor irrelevancies and
inaccuracies.
Deep, copious evidence
and/or comparative detail in
supporting argument with
clear, logical examples.
Discussion fully developed
with author’s opinion or
interpretation in taking a
stance of advocacy or
criticism. Completely and
fully accurate, extensive
understanding of relevant
course concepts and
multiple authors’ arguments.
GENERAL CRITERIA
Writing, organization, & structure: Clarity and accuracy of message; clear, logical structure and flow; grammatical or spelling errors do not
obscure arguments. 5 points.
Proper citation of sources with formatted references (in-text citations/bibliography or footnotes). 5 points.