Are Vitamin Drinks A Bad Idea

Anderson ENG 112 Paper 2 Directions P a g e | 1

Paper 2: Responding to an Article of Your Choice

For this assignment, your task is to locate a current article, read it carefully, and then write a paper in

which you summarize and respond to the article’s ideas. As part of your response, you must also assess

the credibility of the article as a source.

The Target Article

You need to find your own article this time. The article you pick can be about any subject, but ideally it

should focus on an issue that you can continue exploring in Papers 3 and 4. The article must have a

named author(s) whose perspective and expertise is evident in the article. The article must be current

(published within the past year), written in English, at least 1,000 words long, and published by a

reputable periodical or web site.

The article must be approved by the instructor. You are required to provide a copy of the article (or

working link) to the instructor. Deadline for submission is five days prior to the revision workshop, but

extra credit will be rewarded for early submission. See Blackboard for details.

Structure, Length and Format

Your paper should have two parts, an introduction/summary part and a response part, and be at least

900 words long (counting just the text after the title and before the works cited). The introduction/

summary should be one-third to one-half of the paper. Format the paper according to MLA guidelines,

and provide an MLA works cited list and appropriate in-text citations.

Introduction/Summary

Introduce the article and provide an overview of its important ideas. The introduction should be

accomplished in a single sentence that identifies the author, title and main action the purpose or main

idea. The introduction should be made at or near the beginning of your summary.

Develop your summary as described in Chapter Two of They Say, I Say. Present a fair, comprehensive

account of the original while at the same time preparing readers for your own response to come. Your

summary must identify the issue being discussed in the original article and the position the author takes.

The bulk of the summary (90% or more, up to 100%) should be in your own words.

Response

First, as part of the response section of your paper, evaluate the article’s credibility as a source. In

evaluating credibility, consider the kinds of issues raised in class and on pages 92 – 95 of The Little

Seagull Handbook. (Also see Blackboard.) What is it about the writer, the writing, and the publication

that should give readers confidence in this article? How much confidence is deserved? Are there

reasons to be cautious about the article? Make a case for this article’s credibility. (This evaluation of

credibility should be about 20-30% of your overall response, a solid paragraph.)

Anderson ENG 112 Paper 2 Directions P a g e | 2

Next, present and develop your stance on the ideas raised in the article. Do you agree, disagree or

both? Follow the advice and templates in Chapter Four to structure your response. Specifically, use

templates from pages 60, 62, and/or 64-66. If you quote the original article in your response, follow the

guidelines in Chapter Three for integrating and explaining quotations.

Revision Workshop

Submit a complete draft of your paper to the Revision Workshop forum in Discussion Board in

Blackboard before class on the date of the workshop (see the syllabus for the date). Your full, timely

participation in the workshop can earn you up to 40 points.

Final Draft

Submit the final draft of your paper on Blackboard by the deadline given in the syllabus. The final draft

is worth up to 100 points. Late final drafts will lose two points per day, or part of a day, late up to seven

days late; after that, it will not be accepted. The final draft will be graded with the rubric below.

20 18 16 12 8/0

Total Length of

Paper

900 or more

words

899 – 850 words 849 – 750 words 749 – 650 words 649 – 500

words/ Under

500 words.

Summary Covers the

article well while

setting up the

response to

follow. Has a

focus. Is clear

and accurate.

Minor problem

in coverage,

clarity, accuracy

or focus. Still

sets up the

response well.

Has a focus.

Covers the

article

adequately.

Needs stronger

focus or

improved clarity,

accuracy.

Overly long and

unfocused, a

“list summary.”

Or has a serious

clarity, accuracy

or coverage

problem.

Does not

adequately

cover the article.

Or is confusing.

Or has multiple

significant

problems.

Evaluation of

credibility

Applies relevant

criteria to the

article to judge

its credibility

with great

success.

Applies relevant

criteria to the

article to judge

its credibility

with adequate

success.

Applies relevant

criteria to the

article to judge

its credibility

with limited

success.

Applies relevant

criteria to the

article to judge

its credibility

with little

success.

Does not apply

relevant criteria

to the article to

judge its

credibility.

Response to

ideas

Successfully

identifies and

explains areas of

agreement /

disagreement,

and evaluates

credibility.

Has adequate

success

explaining areas

of agreement /

disagreement,

and evaluating

credibility.

Has limited

success in

identifying and

explaining areas

of agreement /

disagreement.

Has little

success in

identifying and

explaining areas

of agreement /

disagreement.

Has no

success in

identifying and

explaining areas

of agreement /

disagreement.

Mechanics,

Syntax,

Documentation,

Format

No errors. A few errors but

they are not

distracting or

confusing.

Errors become

more obvious

and distracting,

or raise

questions about

documentation.

Errors are

distracting and

may cause

confusion or

improper

documentation.

Distracting and

confusing errors.

Or there is no

works cited list.

Or there is

plagiarism.

At the instructor’s discretion, a score of zero in any area may result in a zero for the entire paper.