Writing Project 3: Evaluation/Quality

Targeted UULO: Global/Multicultural Knowledge and Awareness

Topic: In Writing Project 3, you will continue your examination of the problem you analyzed in Writing Project 2 by evaluating the seriousness of the problem. If you think skateboarders are a nuisance on campus, but they have never caused anyone to trip or fall, they might not constitute a problem that needs to be addressed. The problem is not serious. On the other hand, if students are being rushed to a hospital every week because they have been run over by skateboarders, then the problem needs to be considered in more depth.

Required Sources:
One new written text (i.e., a text you did not use in WP2). The source may be from The Norton Mix, the collection of supplemental readings I have assembled, or an outside source approved by me
Interview(s) with individual(s) affected by or otherwise connected to the problem

Optional Sources: One image, chart, or graph illustrating the importance of the issue or seriousness of the problem; self-produced and conducted survey(s). (Although you may incorporate an image, chart, or brief survey within your essay, the paper must consist of at least 3 full pages (1000 words) of written text in addition to the image, etc.)

Audience: Instructor, classmates, individual or group with power to resolve the problem, and group(s) involved in and/or affected by the problem

Stasis Theory Questions: Quality

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? (Since you have already determined that something is a problem, something is, from your perspective, “bad.” But to convince your audience of this, you need to identify specific criteria—i.e., standards—and evidence that prove the problem exists.)
How serious is the problem/issue?
Whom might or does it affect (stakeholders)?
What happens if we don't do anything?
What are the costs of solving the problem/issue? Of not solving the problem?
Who/what is influencing our determination of the seriousness of this problem/issue?
How/why are these sources/beliefs influencing our determination?
Your evaluation will evolve from categories, criteria, evidence, and judgments pertaining to your topic. (See attached evaluation worksheet.) Some of the stasis theory questions incorporate general categories you will need to address in your assessment. For instance, “cost” is relevant to most, if not all, problems. But “cost” can be monetary, spiritual, emotional, psychological, and/or physical. Keep in mind, too, that all criteria are not created equal. You might think that skateboards have no place in civilized society, but this is simply an opinion many other people obviously do not share. A more reasonable criterion is that people at UNLV should be safe when they walk on the sidewalks. Yet another might be that space in classrooms should be reserved for equipment and resources necessary for class work (i.e., not for parking modes of transportation). Notice that “should” or “should not” is often a part of criterion.
Remember that all of the stakeholders connected to an issue might not regard the issue as a problem. To be thorough and fair, you need to acknowledge their perspectives in your essay. This is one way you establish your credibility and make good use of the ethos appeal.
Due Dates: Rough Draft Due In Class for Review Tuesday, October 29th Final Draft Due via WebCampus Tuesday, November 5th (by the end of the class period)

Project Objectives
Rhetorical Knowledge
Students establish the rhetorical situation for their evaluation essay and use the rhetorical elements to identify sound criteria for their evaluation. The audience of WP2 is expanded to include other stakeholders affected by or otherwise involved in the problem. Students demonstrate their awareness of the different audiences by acknowledging different perspectives and the cultural mores that influence those perspectives. Language and tone are appropriate for a diverse