Touchstone 4 ( English )

Running head: Touchstone 3.

2

2

Touchstone 3.2

Mohammed Alshaghathirah Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Hi Mohammed,
I am pleased to evaluate your assignment today.

Sophia Learning

English Composition II

There are different sides to every issue and the death penalty is no different. Death penalty has been a very controversial topic for centuries and still is today. It has existed before colonial times and its historical context is intertwined with segregation, religion, slavery as well as social reform movement. It was established far back as 14th century B.C in Hittite code, in the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets in 15th century B.C, 16th century B.C in Egypt where wrongdoers were punished by death and in the Draconian Code of Athens in 17th century B.C . For decades, this issue has resulted in various arguments and dilemmas from different sides of perspective. Some people say it is a deterrent to crimes in the society while others claim it cannot help in any way. Others believe the death penalty should be abolished because not only is it unethical but also cruel, while some claim life imprisonment without parole is as cruel as the death penalty. Religions also have different views on the death penalty, where some support it while others reject it. However, “with awareness of human rights, death penalty should not be a policy implemented in the 21st century,” (Olalere, S. (2019). An alternative for serious crimes such as murder should be implemented considering the risks involved in capital punishment. Therefore, although there are arguments that death penalty strongly deter people from committing serious crimes, life imprisonment without parole should be used instead of death penalty because it is ethically questionable, it is costly and it is irreversible in case an innocent person gets executed. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: You have written an effective introduction with an engaging hook. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: The thesis statement takes a stance on a debatable topic.

Death penalty is unethical. The immorality of the death penalty can be justified through its harm and its ability to violate human rights as well as society obligations to people’s well-being. International law does not prohibit capital punishment but most people consider the death penalty as a violation of human rights, which is immoral. From a religious perspective, many religious scholars from major world religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, have pointed their varying views on their faith’s perspective on death penalty. In the past, the death penalty was a preferred punishment for crimes considered serious in multiple religious histories and was widely practiced in religious hierarchies. But today, there is no agreement among major religions on the morality of the death penalty. However, some of these religious groups have demonstrated their concerns for the death penalty in contrast to their beliefs and pointed their concerns on the morality of the punishment and its application. For example, Christian believe that only God has the right to take life since He is the one who provided it in the first place. Therefore, the death sentence means going against God, which is immoral. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: You establish the background information. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Please include citation.

Societal moral obligation grounds, the society has the duty to protect the life of its members including their well-being and welfare. The use of death penalty breaches two essential human rights, the right to life and the right to live free from any torture. Taking a human life is not only denying the accused their right to live but also goes against the community’s obligation to refrain from killing or taking one’s life. Well, punishment is supposed to be used only to attain the greatest good over the evil for all involved stakeholders. Thus, executing a person also affects the family members, especially if it is racial bias. Given the value society places on human life and the societal obligations of minimizing human pain and suffering, using a less painful alternative such as life imprisonment without parole, which can accomplish the same goal as the death penalty would be significant. Moreover, society today is unequal, therefore “death penalty can be misused to target political opponents and specific groups,” (Olalere, S. (2019). For instance, according to the ACLU, in the United State, a colored person is more likely to be executed compared to white individual, especially if the victim is a white (ACLU (2012). Therefore, the ethical or morality of having the death penalty in the law or practice should be considered, taking into account religious perspective on life preservation and societal obligations and duties on human life. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: When moving from one paragraph to another, please remember to use transition words or phrases. This will help with the flow of the essay. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: This is a good call to action.

Death penalty is also expensive compared to the cost of upkeep for a person living in prison without parole. Many people believe that by executing a criminal, the state saves money because the executed individual no longer needs health care, confinements and other prison related expenses. However, given the procedures and applications of the death penalty today, this punishment has proven to be more expensive compared to other systems such as using life-without paroles as an alternative punishment. Well, according to experts, “the average federal prisoner costs about $37,500 per year compared to a death row prisoner, which would cost about $60,000 to $70,000 per year,” (Perez (2022). This is double or more of the cost required for life prison. Well, death penalty is expensive because it requires various trials, which can last for decades, legal cost, the incarceration cost, appeal, which can be costly, pre-trial cost and the jury selections, which are not only expensive but time consuming ((DPIC report (2022). Given that the imposing of death sentence will most likely result in case overturning in court, the need for more experts and lawyers for both the victim and the criminal including the relative execution rarity, will be required. Clearly, the death penalty imposes a higher net cost of the stakeholders involved compared to life imprisonment without parole. Therefore, are the assumed advantages of this punishment worth its costs and financial burden it can impose on the victim or the criminal’s family. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Good summation. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: What are the implications of this in regards to the argument?

Death penalty is also irreversible in case of any error in the criminal justice system. Unlike other types of punishment, execution of an innocent person is not reversible. An increasing amount of modern evidence shows that many innocent people often get convicted of crimes they did not commit including capital crimes and some of them get executed. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, while looking at several death penalty cases “ for cases whose outcomes are known, an astonishing 82% of retried death row inmates turned out not to deserve the death penalty; 7% were not guilty,” (Liebman, J., 2022). Research shows there is a higher rate of error in countries such as the United States when it comes to criminal justices, where many accused people face outcomes of tainted evidence and poorly investigated crime cases. Many factors contribute to errors in capital cases such as police misconduct, eyewitness fault, botched crime scenes, destruction of evidence or bad representation by inexperienced attorneys as well as misconduct from the prosecution. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Please provide more supporting evidence, with citation.

In case, an individual is executed and evidence is revealed in the future, which could change the investigation’s outcome, it has no use because the innocent person cannot be brought back. The death penalty mainly affects certain groups such as the poor and the people of color, especially in countries such as the United States. Information from DPIC shows that black people or black mixed are overrepresented in death sentences. In addition, The United Nation Human Rights Council also states that, people who are poor are more lucky to receive a death sentence compared to the upper class individuals. According to Morris, “Race is a particularly strong determinant: As of April 2020, Black people made up more than 41 percent of those on death row but only 13.4 percent of the U.S. population,” (Morris, P. (2021). These groups are unable to afford a good lawyer, they are an easy target for both the police and criminal justice as well as the public legal counselors provided for them are mostly inferior, increasing the rate of errors. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Please include a citation for this claim.

Life imprisonment without parole is both a sensible and better alternative to capital punishment, given the benefits it offers. Life imprisonment means locking away the criminal until they die. Unlike the death sentence, life imprisonment allows new evidence or any mistakes during the investigations to be corrected. For instance, if a person is accused falsely, while they are serving their punishment in prison, a new evidence, which might have been hidden or any mistakes such as identity mistakes can be used to set the free. Life imprisonment also costs less and the money used in executing an individual can be channeled to other significant programs, which are more effective in deterring crime. For instance, crime prevention programs such as Community Youth Development programs, mental health services, drug treatment centers, polices forces and other community programs. As such, life imprisonment is harsh, it offers a degree of protection to the society from any future serious violence from offenders without taking any life and spending much (Bagaric, M., & Svilar, J. (2021). This can be used as a death penalty alternative given its benefits. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: A compelling statistic would strengthen the argument. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Please remove the author’s first initial for each citation.

Death penalty is supported by many people because it is believed to deter murder crimes in society. This type of punishment can affect a certain percentage of people who commit murder in society. It can most apply if a member of a certain criminal group is executed for committing a serious crime such as murder. However, there is no evidence that supports the claim that this punishment is more effective in deterring murder and other serious crimes in the community (Death penalty information center (2022). In fact, various studies have compared the rate of murder and other serious crimes with and without capital punishment and shown that the rate of committing serious crimes are not related to whether the death sentence is enforced or not. Moreover, this argument could narrowly be defend only for the murder crimes but not for other serious crimes subjected to death penalty such as treason, rape and kidnapping. In addition, “Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence often do not premeditate their crimes,” (ACLU (2012). Many serious crimes are committed during moments of psychological or emotional stress as well as the influence of serious drugs or even alcohol. During these moments, an individual’s logical thinking is mostly suspended, thus they are more likely to commit capital crimes. Other people also claim that criminals commit capital crimes, through their action, they forfeit human rights, and therefore their right to life should be forfeit too. This might be a good alternative but it violets the moral order. Taking the death penalty as morally justified by the significant aims it serves such as deterrence and by using theories such as Forfeited rights theory do not make a punishment acceptable. However, it is important to consider societal obligations and duties while balancing the good over the evil within the society. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: You provide a counterargument with an appropriate rebuttal.

In conclusion, the death penalty is not only unethical but also costly and cannot be reversed in case of any error during investigation. Thus, using life imprisonment without any parole is a better alternative to the death penalty because it is less costly and most importantly gives time for more investigations or new evidence. The deterrent ability of the death penalty is not proven, therefore, it is important to research and consider impacts of this punishment to the society and find a better alternative. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: You appropriately restate the thesis in the conclusion.

Reference

Olalere, S. (2019). “The Dilemma of Death Penalty.”

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20925.51688

ACLU (2012). “The Case Against the Death Penalty”-
Revised.

https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty#

DPIC report (2022). “Cost: Studies consistently find that the death penalty is more expensive than alternative punishments.”

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs#

: Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: Good work on the source, but please be sure to sort in alphabetical order.

Perez (2022). “Legal Expert Explains Cost Behind a Death Row Sentence.”
ALIVE.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/trials/high-cost-behind-death-row-explained/

Liebman, J., Fagan, J., & West, V. (2022). “Technical Errors Can Kill.” Retrived from:
Death Penalty Information center. Special to
The National Law Journal.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/technical-errors-can-kill#

Morris, P. (2021). “Sentenced to death, but innocent: These are stories of justice gone wrong.”
National Geographic Magazine.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/sentenced-to-death-but-innocent-these-are-stories-of-justice-gone-wrong#

:

Bagaric, M., & Svilar, J. (2021). A (Partial and Principled) Defense of Sentences of Life Imprisonment. 
Clev. St. L. Rev., 
70, 667.

Death penalty information center (2022). “Deterrence: Studies show no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates.”

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence#

:

Reflection

1. Provide one example of a place where you have used rhetorical appeals or source material to support your argument. How does this enhance your essay? (2-3 sentences).

Have used a source material to provide statistics on how 82% retrieve death raw did not deserve a death punishment and 7% were not guilty. This is able to provide support for my argument and clarify the irreversibility point. Therefore, portraying a true understanding of the topic and credibility of the information.

2. Touchstone 4 is a revision of this draft. What kind of feedback would be helpful for you as you revise? Are there parts of your draft that you’re uncertain of? (3-4 sentences).

For my essay I believe I have great ideas. However, feedback such as the transition to the net paragraphs and the overall structure of the paper could be helpful. Am also not certain about the counter argument paragraph, especially the topic sentence. Comment by Eackloff, Robyn: I hope you find my comments helpful.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Logan Stevens

English Composition II

December 22, 2019

Where’s the Beef?: Ethics and the Beef Industry

Americans love their beef. According to a 2005 study on beef consumption, between

1994 and 1998, Americans consumed an average of 67 pounds of beef per year, the equivalent of

approximately three ounces of beef per day (Davis & Lin, 2005). Despite this high rate of

consumption, in recent years people in the United States have grown increasingly concerned

about where their food comes from, how it is produced, and what environmental and health

impacts result from its production. These concerns can be distilled into two ethical questions: is

the treatment of cattle humane and is there a negative environmental impact of beef production?

For many, the current methods of industrial beef production and consumption do not meet

personal ethical or environmental standards. Therefore, for ethical and environmental reasons,

people should limit their beef consumption, and the beef that they do eat should be humanely

raised, locally sourced, and grass-fed.

The first ethical question to consider is the humane treatment of domesticated cattle. It

has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies that animals feel physical pain as well as

emotional states such as fear (Grandin & Smith, 2004, para. 2). In Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (CAFOs), better known as “factory farms” due to their industrialized attitude toward

Comment [SL1]: Hi Logan! This is a great title.

Comment [SL2]: Good use of data as an effective hook
statement.

Comment [SL3]: This is a very strong, well-formed thesis
statement that takes a clear stance on a debatable topic.
Well done.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

cattle production, cattle are often confined to unnaturally small areas; fed a fattening, grain-based

diet; and given a constant stream of antibiotics to help combat disease and infection. In his essay,

“An Animal’s Place,” Michael Pollan (2002) states that beef cattle often live “standing ankle

deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick” (para. 40). Pollan not only describes

Americans’ discomfort with this aspect of meat production. He also notes that they are removed

from and uncomfortable with the physical and psychological aspects of killing animals for food

as well. He simplifies the actions chosen by many Americans: “we either look away—or stop

eating animals” (para. 32). This decision to look away has enabled companies to treat and

slaughter their animals in ways that cause true suffering for the animals. If Americans want to

continue to eat beef, alternative, ethical methods of cattle production must be considered.

In addition to the inhumane treatment of animals, CAFOs also raise ethical questions in

terms of the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Because cattle raised on factory

farms are primarily “grain-fed,” meaning that their diet largely consists of corn and/or soy rather

than grass or other forage, huge amounts of grain are required to provide the necessary feed. This

grain comes primarily from “monocropping,” an agricultural practice that involves planting the

same crop year after year in the same field. Although rotating crops to different fields each

season helps to retain the natural balance of nutrients in the soil, mono-cropping is considered to

be more efficient on an industrial scale, providing larger yields of grain even though it also

requires the use of more chemical fertilizers to provide adequate nutrients for the plants.

According to Palmer (2010), these chemicals can leach into the groundwater, polluting both the

surrounding land and the water supply.

The emphasis on a grain-based diet, and therefore a reliance on mono-cropping, also

contributes to the inefficient use of available land. The vast majority of grain production (75-

Comment [SL4]: This is a much better way to connect your
ideas regarding the physical and psychological aspects of
killing animals and how Americans deal with them.

Comment [SL5]: Yes!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

90% depending on whether corn or soy) goes to feeding animals rather than humans, and cattle

alone account for a significant share. As a result, a majority of land available for agriculture also

goes to producing livestock, whether actually housing the animals or growing grain to feed them

(Lappé, 2010, p. 22). This inefficiency means that a disproportionate amount of agricultural,

food, and monetary resources are poured into a type of cattle production which has been

demonstrated to be inhumane and to have negative environmental

consequences.

Other environmental issues include the amount of manure produced by factory farmed

cattle. Traditionally, cattle graze a large area and distribute their waste accordingly. In contained

situations such as CAFOs, however, animal waste builds up in a relatively small area and the

runoff from rainstorms can potentially contaminate the groundwater (Sager, 2008, para. 7).

Furthermore, because closely contained animals are more prone to disease, factory-farmed cattle

are routinely treated with antibiotics, which can also leach into the local ground and water,

potentially affecting humans. According to Brian Palmer, a man who has done extensive

research on the topic (2010), “Based on some estimates, we spend more than $4 billion annually

trying to clean up CAFO manure runoff. In addition, the long-term, low-dose antibiotics CAFOs

give livestock can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, further undermining our dwindling supply

of useful medicines” (para. 12). The negative impacts of antibiotic runoff, manure

contamination, fossil fuel use, and mono-cropping indicate that sourcing beef from CAFOs is

neither an ethically responsible nor an environmentally sustainable decision.

An alternative to the grain-fed cattle raised in CAFOs is cattle which are allowed to range

and forage for grass and other greenery as their primary form of nourishment. This “grass-fed”

beef is, almost by definition, more humane than grain-fed beef because the animals are allowed

to move freely and eat a more natural diet. There is also some evidence that grass-fed beef is

Comment [SL6]: Great job tying these ideas together here.

Comment [SL7]: Much better.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

healthier than grain-fed beef for the humans who consume it: it is higher in cancer fighting,

vitamin-A producing beta-carotene; it is much lower in fat, including having half the saturated

fat as grain-fed beef; and it contains many more omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid

(CLA), which prevents cancer growth, and vitamin E, which prevents cancer as well as heart

disease (Ruechel, 2006, p. 235). Due to the benefits of a grass-based diet, as well as the benefits

of being raised in pastures rather than feedlots, grass-fed cattle themselves tend to be healthier.

Taken altogether, grass-fed cattle production is better physically for both the cows and humans.

It is important to note that grass-fed does not inherently mean organic, which is a

separate, legal category with its own requirements. It is possible to find grain-fed beef from

cattle raised or slaughtered in inhumane conditions that is labeled “organic” because the cattle

were fed organic grain, whereas grass-fed beef may come from cattle that have been raised on

land that does not meet the requirements for organic labeling (Sager, 2008, paras.10-15).

However, in a guide to raising grass-fed cattle, Julius Ruechel (2006), notes that “Raising [cattle]

in a pasture reduces or even eliminates the use of toxic pharmaceutical pesticides to control

parasites and all but eliminates residues of high doses of antibiotics used on cattle in feedlot

conditions” (p. 236). Even though it may not always be organic, choosing grass-fed beef reduces

or eliminates many of the environmental and ethical concerns raised by factory farming.

Grass-fed beef also comes with some benefits to the environment. As noted earlier, most

grain-fed beef relies on environmentally damaging mono-cropping. This problem is not an issue

with grass-fed beef, which relies primarily on forage and does not require the same crop to be

planted year after year. Further, if the grass-fed beef that one eats comes from local farms and

ranches, it lessens the environmental impact, whereas the long-distance shipping required by

factory farming practices consumes fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming. Lappé

Comment [SL8]: Interesting!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

(2010) explains the massive effects that industrial food production has on the environment,

noting that throughout the life cycle of production, processing, distribution, consumption, and

waste, our food chain may be responsible for as much as a third of the factors causing global

climate change (p. 11). However, as Pollan (2002) argues by the end of his essay, farms which

focus on traditional agricultural practices are both more humane and more environmentally

friendly than CAFOs. Ultimately, food decisions should be made with an eye to sustainability

and humane treatment, ethical stances that are both supported by local farms focused on

sustainable diversity.

Despite grass-fed beef scoring better on an environmental impact level than grain-fed

beef, it is still not perfect, a fact that highlights the problems of eating beef at all if one is

concerned with environmental ethics. Most notably, to assuage Americans’ rapacious appetites

for beef, landowners in South America often clear cut rainforest in order to create grazing land.

“The realities of the global market are a great temptation to many: Where land is cheap and the

demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local economy may respond by cutting down a

forest to create pasture or by planting grass where millet or rice has been grown” (Sager, 2008,

para. 21). This practice has negative environmental impacts on the local landscape and the planet

as a whole, since losing vast swathes of rainforest increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our

atmosphere, contributing to ozone depletion. In their article for Science magazine, scholars

Molly Brown and Christopher Funk (2008) examine how climate change will affect food

security and find that people in the developing world are at particular risk for a lack of food due

to climate change. Mono-cropping and mono-grazing practices, designed to snag American

dollars in the short term and not to sustain the local population in the long term, will only

exacerbate these effects (p. 580–81). Furthermore, the rise in the market for grass-fed beef has

Comment [SL9]: Great use of signal phrasing here.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

meant that much grass-fed beef is shipped to the U.S. from South America and Australia. Even if

these animals are raised in a humane and sustainable manner, the long distances they travel to

reach American bellies has significant, negative environmental impact, again due to the use of

fossil fuels (Sager, 2008, para. 21). This reinforces the importance of buying beef which has

been locally produced, reducing the impact of long-distance shipping and potential mono-grazing

in other countries.

No matter how ethically sourced, one can still identify some serious ethical problems

with the raising and slaughter of beef, and those ethical quandaries are passed on to consumers.

While grass-fed beef is clearly an ethical improvement over grain-fed beef in terms of humane

treatment and potentially in terms of environmental impact, “No matter how you slice it, eating

beef will never be the greenest thing you do in a day. Scientists at Japan’s National Institute of

Livestock and Grassland Science estimate that producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more

greenhouse gas than driving 155 miles” (Palmer, 2010, para. 2). A kilogram of beef is about the

equivalent of two generously sized rib-eye steaks. Multiply this by the amount of beef consumed

by Americans in a year and the impact of these greenhouse gasses cannot be ignored. However,

as compelling as this argument is, it is not reasonable to expect that Americans will stop eating

beef altogether. In the short term, it is more practical to encourage Americans to eat humanely

raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, which will ultimately lessen the ethical and environmental

consequences.

If consumers are truly concerned about the ethical treatment of animals and the

environmental impact of agricultural production, then the logical action is to stop eating meat

altogether. If Americans are not willing to do this, then the next best action is to focus on

humanely raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, while acknowledging that this may affect our

Comment [SL10]: Great concluding sentence.

Comment [SL11]: Good. You’re not dismissing the counter-
arguments, but you’re indicating that your argument is
more persuasive. Well done.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

beef consumption at many levels. Pollan (2002) concludes his essay by acknowledging that more

humane treatment of animals would likely cause higher prices and lower consumption. However,

he states, “maybe when we did eat animals, we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and

respect they deserve” (para. 82). This emphasis on the respect for and well-being of the animals

cultivated for food benefits both the animals and the consumer, acknowledging the desire to be

true omnivores while satisfying our need for ethical clarity.

Comment [SL12]: Very good concluding statement!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

References

Brown, M., & Funk, C. (2008). Food security under climate change. Science, 319

(5863), 580-581. doi: 10.1126/science.1154102

Cook, C. (2004). Diet for a dead planet: How the food industry is killing us. New York,

NY: New Press.

Davis, C., & Lin, B.H. (2005). Factors affecting U.S. beef consumption. Retrieved from

https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=37389.

Grandin, T. & Smith. G. (2004). Animal welfare and humane slaughter. Grandin.com.

Retrieved from http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html

Lappé, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet: The climate crisis at the end of your fork. New

York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Palmer, B. (2010, December 21). Pass on grass: Is grass-fed beef better for the

environment? Slate. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/12/pa

ss_ on_grass.htm

Pollan, M. (2002, November 10). An animal’s place. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html

Ruechel, J. (2006). Grass-fed Cattle: How to produce and market natural beef. North

Adams, MA. Storey Publishing.

Sager, G. (2008). Where’s your beef from?: Grass-fed Beef: Is it green, humane and

healthful? Natural Life Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0812/grass-fed_beef_green_humane_healthful.htm

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Reflection Questions:

1. How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you
use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)

I spent about an hour and a half revising my draft. I spent a lot of time going over each of the
critiques I was given, and thinking about how I can implement those in a way that will truly
make my essay better. Creating unity and coherence was the most satisfying to me, because
it allowed me to put everything together in a way that made me proud.

2. List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What

problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity, cohesion,
rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive
feedback. (4-5 sentences)

One I came up with was moving the paragraph on how the production of meat can raise
questions in terms of environmental impacts. This helped increase the flow and effectiveness
of how the information was being presented. Another critique I made was including a more
focused thesis statement. This helped include all of the points I made. Another revision I
made was adding more appeals to my claim that chemicals can leach into the groundwater,
polluting both the surrounding land and the water supply. This helped add legitimacy to my
argument.

3. What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your

understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this course? (2-3
sentences)

I learned that writing a truly good Argumentative Essay is way more than just writing and
research. You need to dig deep into your sources, and really learn about both sides of the
arguments are you taking on. The entire process is important to make your argument a solid
and supported one.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Final Research Essay Rubric and Feedback

Rubric
Category

Feedback Score
(acceptable, needs
improvement etc.)

Revising

There was a clear effort to adjust your previous
draft. You effectively revised the organization of
your essay to gain a better focus on the
argument being presented.

35/40

Editing

You did a great job strengthening your
arguments by editing some of the word choices
throughout your essay.

38/40

Source
Integration

You were able to introduce your sources
effectively and seamlessly using a variety of
different types of citation.

19/20

Cohesion

Updating the flow of your argument throughout
your essay has really made it a more effective
argumentative essay. Well done!

18/20

Conventions
and
Proofreading

You have done a great job ensuring there are no
major convention errors.

19/20

Reflection You demonstrate thoughtful reflection,

consistently including insights, observations, and
examples in your responses.

10/10

Overall Score and Feedback: 139/150
Logan – You have written a very thought-provoking and well-researched essay. You use
relevant information from credible sources in order to support your argument. You
strike a good balance between these sources and your own discussion, allowing the
reader to see how you are using this information to further your own, unique
argument. You write very clearly, linking your ideas and paragraphs together in a very
logical and smooth manner. You remain consistently focused on your argument
throughout. I really enjoyed reading your essay! Nicely done!

Touchstones are projects that illustrate your comprehension of the course material, help you refine skills, and demonstrate application of knowledge. You can

work on a Touchstone anytime, but you can’t submit it until you have completed the unit’s Challenges. Once you’ve submitted a Touchstone, it will be graded

and counted toward your final course score.

Touchstone 4: Revise an Argumentative Research Essay

ASSIGNMENT: Review the in-text comments and summary feedback you received on your Touchstone 3.2 draft to enhance your writing. You will then

submit a revision of your Touchstone 3.2 draft that reflects the evaluator’s feedback, making all necessary changes to the idea development,

organization, style, and conventions. Make sure to include a copy of your Touchstone 3.2 draft below the reflection questions for this unit.

As this assignment builds on Touchstone 3.2: Draft an Argumentative Research Essay, that Touchstone must be graded before you can submit your

final research essay.

 Sample Touchstone 4

In order to foster learning and growth, all essays you submit must be newly written specifically for this course. Any recycled work will be sent back with a

0, and you will be given one attempt to redo the Touchstone.

A. Final Draft Guidelines

DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.

1. Editing and Revising

❒ Have you significantly revised the essay by adjusting areas like organization, focus, and clarity?

❒ Have you made comprehensive edits to word choice, sentence variety, and style?

❒ Have your edits and revisions addressed all the feedback provided by your evaluator?

2. Cohesion and Source Integration

❒ Is the information presented in a logical order that is easy for the reader to follow?

❒ Have you included smooth transitions between sentences and paragraphs?

❒ Have you introduced your sources clearly and in a way that demonstrates their validity to the reader? Are your sources formatted correctly following

Not Submitted Submitted Scored

You can submit this Touchstone when the previous Touchstone has been
scored. SUBMIT TOUCHSTONE

 It takes 5-7 business days for a Touchstone to be graded once it’s been submitted.

UNIT 4 — TOUCHSTONE 4: Revise an Argumentative Research Essay
SCORE

-/150

https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/10040-Touchstone%204%20Sample

https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/10040-Touchstone%204%20Sample

https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/10040-Touchstone%204%20Sample

https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/10040-Touchstone%204%20Sample

https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/10040-Touchstone%204%20Sample

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

https://app.sophia.org/spcc/english-composition-ii

APA style?

3. Conventions and Proofreading

❒ Have you double-checked for correct formatting, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization?

❒ Have you ensured that any cited material is represented accurately?

4. Reflection

❒ Have you displayed a clear understanding of the revision process?

❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses?

❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the composition?

B. Reflection Questions

DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions.

. How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you use, and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)

. List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be

unity, cohesion, rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive feedback. (4-5 sentences)

. What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your understanding of the research process changed as a result of

taking this course? (2-3 sentences)

C. Rubric

  Advanced (100%) Proficient (85%) Acceptable (75%) Needs
Improvement
(50%)

Non-Performance
(0%)

Revising (40 points)

Demonstrate
comprehensive “re-
visioning” of the
composition.

There is evidence of
comprehensive re-visioning of
the draft composition,
including adjustments to
organization, focus, clarity,
and/or unity where needed or
appropriate.

There is evidence of
significant re-visioning of the
draft composition, including
adjustments to organization,
focus, clarity, and/or unity
where needed or appropriate.

There is evidence of some re-
visioning of the draft
composition, including
adjustments to organization,
focus, clarity, and/or unity
where needed or appropriate;
however, a few areas need
some additional revision.

There is little evidence of re-
visioning of the draft
composition, such that
multiple areas in need of
changes were unaltered.

Revisions are absent or did
not address the issues in
the essay.

Editing (40 points)

Demonstrate
comprehensive sentence-
level edits throughout the
composition.

There is evidence of
comprehensive edits to the
draft composition, including
adjustments to word choice,
sentence completeness,
sentence variety, and/or style
where needed or appropriate.

There is evidence of
substantial edits to the draft
composition, including
adjustments to word choice,
sentence completeness,
sentence variety, and/or style
where needed or appropriate.

There is evidence of some
edits to the draft composition,
including adjustments to word
choice, sentence
completeness, sentence
variety, and/or style where
needed/appropriate; however,
some issues were overlooked.

There is little evidence of
edits made to the draft
composition, such that many
errors remain.

Edits are absent or did not
address the issues in the
essay.

Source Integration (20
points)

Introduces sources smoothly
and effectively through direct
quotation, paraphrase, or

Primarily introduces sources
effectively through direct
quotation, paraphrase, or

Introduces some sources
effectively through direct
quotation, paraphrase, or

Relies too heavily on one
method of source integration
(direct quotation, paraphrase,

Shows no attempt to
integrate source material
into the composition or

  Advanced (100%) Proficient (85%) Acceptable (75%) Needs
Improvement
(50%)

Non-Performance
(0%)

Integrate source material
appropriately and
effectively.

summary. summary. summary, but more variety
could be used.

or summary); does not
thoughtfully apply source
integration techniques.

relies on quoted source
material for over half of the
composition.

Cohesion (20 points)

Establish and maintain a
logical flow.

Sequences ideas and
paragraphs logically and uses
smooth transitions (within and
between paragraphs) such
that the reader can easily
follow the progression of
ideas.

Sequences ideas and
paragraphs logically and uses
transitions (within and
between paragraphs) such
that the reader can easily
follow the progression of
ideas.

Primarily sequences ideas and
paragraphs logically and uses
sufficient transitions (within and
between paragraphs) such that
the reader can generally follow
the progression of ideas.

The progression of ideas is
often difficult to follow, due
to poor sequencing,
ineffective transitions, and/or
insufficient transitions.

The progression of ideas is
consistently difficult to
follow, due to poor
sequencing and lack of
transitions.

Conventions and
Proofreading (20 points)

Demonstrate command of
standard English grammar,
punctuation, spelling,
capitalization, and usage.

There are few, if any,
negligible errors in grammar,
punctuation, spelling,
capitalization, formatting, and
usage.

There are occasional minor
errors in grammar,
punctuation, spelling,
capitalization, formatting, and
usage.

There are some significant
errors in grammar, punctuation,
spelling, capitalization,
formatting, and usage.

There are frequent
significant errors in grammar,
punctuation, spelling,
capitalization, formatting, and
usage.

There are consistent
significant errors in
grammar, punctuation,
spelling, capitalization,
formatting, and usage.

Reflection (10 points)

Answer reflection
questions thoroughly and
thoughtfully.

Demonstrates thoughtful
reflection; consistently
includes insights,
observations, and/or
examples in all responses,
following or exceeding
response length guidelines.

Demonstrates thoughtful
reflection; includes multiple
insights, observations, and/or
examples, following response
length guidelines.

Primarily demonstrates
thoughtful reflection, but some
responses are lacking in detail
or insight; primarily follows
response length guidelines.

Shows limited reflection; the
majority of responses are
lacking in detail or insight,
with some questions left
unanswered or falling short
of response length
guidelines.

No reflection responses are
present.

D. Requirements

The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:

• Composition must be 6-8 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words, not including your references or reflection question responses).

• Double-space the composition and use one-inch margins.

• Use a readable 12-point font.

• All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.

• Composition must be original and written for this assignment.

• Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.

• Submission must include your name, the name of the course, the date, and the title of your composition.

• Submission must include your graded Touchstone 3 assignment.

• Include all of the assignment components in a single file.

• Acceptable file formats include and x.

E. Additional Resources

The following resources will be helpful to you as you work on this assignment:

. Purdue Online Writing Lab’s APA Formatting and Style Guide

a. This site includes a comprehensive overview of APA style, as well as individual pages with guidelines for specific citation types.

. Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style

a. This page on the official APA website addresses common questions related to APA formatting. The “References,” “Punctuation,” and “Grammar and

Writing Style” sections will be the most useful to your work in this course.

. APA Style: Quick Answers—References

a. This page on the official APA Style website provides numerous examples of reference list formatting for various source types.

About Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use

© 2023 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/faqs/index?_ga=2.108387778.1714049845.1568211418-1848442951.1567702038

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/faqs/index?_ga=2.108387778.1714049845.1568211418-1848442951.1567702038

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-references?_ga=2.35495777.1714049845.1568211418-1848442951.1567702038

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-references?_ga=2.35495777.1714049845.1568211418-1848442951.1567702038

https://www.sophia.org/about

https://www.sophia.org/about

https://www.sophia.org/contact-us

https://www.sophia.org/contact-us

https://www.sophia.org/privacy

https://www.sophia.org/privacy

https://www.sophia.org/terms

https://www.sophia.org/terms

https://app.sophia.org/home

https://app.sophia.org/home