Detailed Instructions for Argumentation Assessment
This assessment consists of 2 pieces of writing, combined in one document. Each piece of writing requires you to demonstrate argumentation skills, in addition to skills relating to research, analysis and critical thinking.
Maximum word count is 2,400 words in total (+/-10%) including references. See below for guidance on word counts.
You can see the evaluation criteria for this piece of assessment on Blackboard. It is a good idea to read and apply the evaluation criteria to your own work before you submit it.
POLI20982 Environmental Politics
Semester 2 AY 2021-22
– Must be typed in 12 pt font and be double spaced.
– Page numbers must be at top right, number the pages consecutively for the whole document.
– Fully referenced using the author-date Harvard style (no hyperlinks); one list of references (all sources cited) to be included at the end of the document (i.e. not two separate lists).
– Must be carefully proofread.
Overview
A key objective of the Environmental Politics course is to give you instruction on, and a chance to practise, your argumentation skills. Throughout the module, we will pay close attention to the way arguments are constructed and presented, as well as to the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. This will help you to fine-tune your own ability to make an effective argument.
Why?
The point of making an effective argument is to convince or persuade others that your position on an issue is a valid one. Your argument will be persuasive if you offer good reasons and strong evidence to support your conclusion. Life is full of occasions when you will need to present a convincing argument – and not only when you write essays: think of contesting a parking ticket, applying for a job, making the case for a higher salary, starting a campaign for or against something happening in your community.
For this assessment, you will write two pieces of work totalling 2,400 words including bibliography (+/- 10%).
1. A critical review of a blog [max 1000 words]
2. A blog by you (in which you present and support an argument) [min 800/max 1000 words]
The required text for this assignment is Anthony West’s (2009) A Rulebook for Arguments (5th edition). We will be looking for evidence that you have put what you have learned from this book into practice when writing your two pieces.
There are also some YouTube videos that will help you to understand the art of arguments. You are encouraged to view these videos as well as reading Weston — they work well together.
In Youtube, search for ‘Introduction to critical thinking’
Watch:
Episode 1.2: Understanding Arguments
Episode 1.3: Deductive and Inductive Arguments Episode 1.4: Premises and Conclusions
Episode 1.5: What is an Argument?
Instructions
Part 1: A review of a blog post (1,000 words)
For this exercise you must summarize, deconstruct and respond to one of the following blogs. All of these blogs are on the course reading list and will be discussed in tutorials. You may not review a blog that is not on this list.
Hulme, M. (2019) ‘Climate Emergency Politics Is Dangerous’
Thomas, L. (2021) ‘Intersectional Environmentalism Is the Urgent Way Forward’
https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a36176067/what-is-intersectional-environmentalism/
Walia, H. (2022) ‘Why Climate Justice Must Go Beyond Borders
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/climate-justice-migrant-labour-harsha-walia/
Joy, M. (2021) ‘The Idea of “Green Growth” is Flawed. We Must Find Ways of Using and Wasting Less Energy https://theconversation.com/the-idea-of-green-growth-is-flawed-we-must-find-ways-of-using-and- wasting-less-energy-160432
MacGregor, S. (2017) ‘Why England’s new litter strategy is actually a bit rubbish’
https://theconversation.com/why-englands-new-litter-strategy-is-actually-a-bit-rubbish-81202
Carter, N. (2019) ‘Connecting to nature is a matter of environmental justice’ ; Open Democracy Online at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/nicki-carter/connecting-to-nature-is- matter-of-environmental-justice
Mildenberger, M. (2019) ‘The tragedy of the tragedy of the commons’ Scientific American 23 April
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/
Your review should contain three parts of roughly similar length: i) a summary of the argument, a ii) deconstruction of the argument, and iii) your critical response to the argument presented by the author.
i. Summary (what is it about?)
Present a summary of the argument that is being made in the blog. It should be brief, precise and should present a clear identification of the central – that is, most important – argument made in the text. This summary should not contain your own opinions.
Because you are limited in the number of words you can use, you must go straight to the heart of the issue and say what the main argument is in your own words. This means that you need to make a judgement about what is most important.
To arrive at this judgement, think about what the author is trying to persuade you to think; what is she or he trying to convince you of? This is the most challenging and important part of the précis: you must represent the author’s argument as accurately and persuasively as possible. The summary should be a well-written composition that makes sense on its own; it should not be a disjointed list of points.
ii. Deconstruction (how is the argument being made?)
Write a paragraph that stands back and considers how the author has constructed their argument. Assess it as a piece of writing. What devices have they used, what is the structure, how have they supported their argument (i.e. what kinds of evidence)? Treat this is a kind of dissection of the blog using what you have learned from reading Weston’s Rulebook for Arguments.
iii. Critical response / counter argument (what is your assessment?)
In the third part, present your own response to the argument you have just summarised. This is where your own critical assessment comes in. What do you think of the argument? What do you find compelling or problematic and why? Has the author committed any logical fallacies? Remember that critique is not always negative – you might well agree with what the author has argued. Your response might take the form of a disagreement with part or all of the argument, a further elaboration of it, or a question or problem arising from it that you think merits further discussion. You need to explain your response to the argument persuasively. Give reasons and evidence to support it.
Part two: A blog-style article that presents and supports an argument (min 800, max 1,000 words)
After reading some blogs and completing the first part of the assessment, you should be familiar with the genre of writing that is the blog. It is a genre that is becoming increasingly important in contemporary popular culture and – as a result – within academic circles
Your task for this portfolio piece is to write a 800 (min) to 1,000 (max) word blog-article in the style of those published in intellectually rigorous/serious online current affairs platforms such as The Conversation, Open Democracy, etc.
The best way to learn how to write a blog it is to read several such articles and pay attention to the formula. How are they typically structured and what kind of claims do they make? There are also instructions for authors on each of the sites mentioned above – do look at those for additional help.
What should you write about? You are free to choose your own topic, but it must be related to one of the weekly lecture or tutorial themes. One suggestion is to draw on the research you did for your group presentation and develop an individual commentary on some aspect of that topic. You can run your idea past your tutor or one of the lecturers if you are having trouble deciding.
Bottom line is that your blog must explicitly express and defend with reasons and evidence, an argument.
You must use the ‘traditional’ style of referencing for this blog, as opposed to using hyperlinks.
Please cite all sources and evidence cited in the document using the Harvard style and include one full list of works cited at the end.
