PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: choose a topic (assisted suicide, abortion, immigration, welfare, etc.) that can lead to political controversy

 For this assignment, you will choose a topic (assisted suicide, abortion, immigration, welfare, etc.) that can lead to political controversy. In 750-1,000 words, do the following:

1. Explain both sides of the political argument through ethical analysis.

2. Recommend how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public. What is the importance of public participation in politicians passing controversial policy, such as the one chosen?

3. Describe how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation such as the one chosen.

Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

 You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Rubric Criteria

Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All

Ethical Analysis

18 points

Criteria Description

Explain both sides of the political argument of the chosen topic through ethical analysis

5. Target

18 points

Explanation of both sides of the political argument for the chosen topic through ethical analysis is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

Explanation of both sides of the political argument for the chosen topic through ethical analysis is present, clear and makes some connection to research.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

Explanation of both sides of the political argument for the chosen topic through ethical analysis is present.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

Explanation of both sides of the political argument for the chosen topic through ethical analysis is vague and inconsistent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of both sides of the political argument for the chosen topic through ethical analysis is missing.

Controversial Policy

22.5 points

Criteria Description

Recommend how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy.

5. Target

22.5 points

Recommendation of how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.

4. Acceptable

19.58 points

Recommendation of how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy is present, clear and makes some connection to research.

3. Approaching

17.78 points

Recommendation of how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy is present.

2. Insufficient

16.65 points

Recommendation of how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy is vague and inconsistent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Recommendation of how policy makers can reconcile differing wishes of the public, including the importance of public participation in the passing of controversial policy is missing.

Christian Worldview (B)

22.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation such as the one chosen. (C 4.2)

5. Target

22.5 points

Description of how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation like the one chosen is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.

4. Acceptable

19.58 points

Description of how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation like the one chosen is present, clear and makes some connection to research.

3. Approaching

17.78 points

Description of how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation like the one chosen is present.

2. Insufficient

16.65 points

Description of how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation like the one chosen is vague and inconsistent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Description of how aspects of a Christian Worldview might inform the approach policy makers take to create public policies in a situation like the one chosen is missing.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

7.2 points

Criteria Description

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

5. Target

7.2 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable

6.26 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching

5.69 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient

5.33 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

4.5 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target

4.5 points

Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively.

4. Acceptable

3.92 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.

3. Approaching

3.56 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

2. Insufficient

3.33 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

4.5 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target

4.5 points

No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable

3.92 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching

3.56 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient

3.33 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

4.5 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target

4.5 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable

3.92 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching

3.56 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient

3.33 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.