Draft an Argumentative

Touchstone 3.2: Draft an Argumentative Research Essay

ASSIGNMENT: Using your outline and annotated bibliography from Touchstones 1.2 and 2.2, draft a 6-8 page argumentative research essay on your chosen topic.
As this assignment builds on 
Touchstone 2.2: Create an Annotated Bibliography, that Touchstone, as well as Touchstone 3.1, must be graded before you can submit your research essay draft.

Sample Touchstone 3

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. Assignment Guidelines

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

1. Argumentative Thesis Statement

❒ Have you included a thesis in your introduction that takes a clear, specific position on one side of a debatable issue?

2. Argument Development

❒ Are all of the details relevant to the purpose of your essay?

❒ Is the argument supported using rhetorical appeals and source material?

❒ Is your essay 6-8 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words, not including your references or reflection question responses)? If not, which details do you need to add or remove?

3. Research

❒ Have you cited outside sources effectively using quotation, summary, or paraphrase techniques?

❒ Are the sources incorporated smoothly, providing the reader with signal phrases and context for the source information?

❒ Have you referenced a range of at least 7 credible sources?

❒ Have you properly cited your sources according to APA style guidelines?

❒ Have you included an APA style reference page below your essay?

4. Reflection

❒ 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 main assignment?

B. Reflection

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

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)

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)

C. Rubric

 

Advanced (100%)

Proficient (85%)

Acceptable (75%)

Needs Improvement (50%)

Non-Performance (0%)

Argument Development and Support (40 points)

Provide a clear argument with sufficient support.

The argument is thoroughly developed with highly relevant details to support it, including the use of rhetorical appeals and source material.

The argument is well-developed with relevant details to support it, including the use of rhetorical appeals and source material.

The argument is not fully developed; while it is supported by some relevant details, including rhetorical appeals and source material, some aspects of the argument are neglected.

The argument is poorly developed with irrelevant details that frequently distract from the argument; there is little evidence of the use of rhetorical appeals and/or source material.

The argument is not developed and/or the composition is not argumentative; details are irrelevant and distract from the argument.

Research (30 points)

Incorporate sources through effective quotations, paraphrases, and summaries.

Cites all outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources smoothly and effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary.

Primarily cites outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary.

Generally cites outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources adequately through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary.

Cites outside sources, but most are cited improperly; incorporates sources through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary, but the integration is not smooth and/or the credibility of the sources is unclear.

Does not cite sources, or citation is consistently inappropriate; does not reference sources and/or sources are not credible or appropriate.

Organization (15 points)

Exhibit competent organizational writing techniques.

Includes all of the required components of an argumentative research paper, including an introduction with relevant and engaging background information and an argumentative thesis, an adequate number of body paragraphs with topic sentences, a body paragraph addressing counterargument(s), and a conclusion with a concluding statement.

Includes all of the required components of an argumentative research paper, including an introduction with background information, an argumentative thesis, an adequate number of body paragraphs with topic sentences, a body paragraph addressing counterargument(s), and a conclusion with a concluding statement.

Includes nearly all of the required components of an argumentative research paper; however, one component is missing.

Includes most of the required components of an argumentative research paper, but is lacking two components; sequences ideas and paragraphs such that the connections between ideas (within and between paragraphs) are sometimes unclear and the reader may have difficulty following the progression of the argument.

Lacks several or all of the components of an argumentative research paper; sequences ideas and paragraphs such that the connections between ideas (within and between paragraphs) are often unclear and the reader has difficulty following the progression of the argument.

Style (5 points)

Establish a consistent, informative tone and make thoughtful stylistic choices.

Demonstrates thoughtful and effective word choices, avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a wide variety of sentence structures.

Demonstrates effective word choices, primarily avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a variety of sentence structures.

Demonstrates generally effective style choices, but may include occasional redundancies, imprecise language, poor word choice, and/or repetitive sentence structures.

Frequently includes poor word choices, redundancies, imprecise language, and/or repetitive sentence structures.

Consistently demonstrates poor word choices, redundancies, imprecise language, and/or repetitive sentence structures.

Conventions (5 points)

Follow conventions for standard written English.

There are only a 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 (5 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.

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

· Acceptable file formats include and x.

· Your annotated bibliography must be graded before your research essay draft will be accepted.

E. Additional Resources

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

1.

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.

2.

Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style

b.
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.

3.

APA Style: Quick Answers—References

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

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

Logan Stevens

English Composition II

December 20, 2019

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

Americans love their beef. Despite the high rate of its 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.

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

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

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

Comment [SL2]: It will help strengthen your opening
sentence to include some sort of facts or statistics about
beef consumption in America.

Comment [SL3]: Throughout your essay, you talk about
more than just limiting the consumption of beef. How could
you strengthen your Thesis Statement to connect all of
those points?

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

deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick” (para. 40). Pollan describes

Americans’ discomfort with this aspect of meat production and notes that they are removed from

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

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-

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.

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

Comment [SL4]: Great use of sources! The transitions here
could be a bit smoother and the connection between these
ideas could be a bit more explicit.

Comment [SL5]: This is a great topic sentence.

Comment [SL6]: In terms of cohesion, you may want to
look into how your paragraphs flow from one to the other.
The content of your essay is great, but how could you
structure it differently to make it even better?

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

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

chemicals can leach into the groundwater, polluting both the surrounding land and the water

supply.

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 (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

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

Comment [SL7]: This is a great paragraph, but it could be
stronger with the use of sources supporting and reinforcing
these ideas.

Comment [SL8]: This is a good use of a signal phrase, but it
would also be helpful to indicate what position Brian Palmer
holds so that the audience can understand why his input is
relevant. Is he a scientist? A farmer? A reporter?

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

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

(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

Comment [SL9]: I wasn’t sure how the information in this
paragraph was relevant, but you do a good job of
demonstrating it here. You could make these links a bit
clearer in the earlier parts of this paragraph.

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

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

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

Comment [SL10]: This is a very good introduction to the
counter-arguments.

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

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, Americans need 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

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

Comment [SL11]: Excellent. I like that you have two
paragraphs addressing the counter-arguments, one focused
on environment and one focused on ethics. This parallels
your discussion nicely.

Comment [SL12]: How could you change the wording to
make it less dismissive of the counter-arguments?

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

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 [SL13]: 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. 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)

One place I was able to use source material throughout my essay, but I think the part where I
included the statistic about how producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more greenhouse gas
than driving 155 miles. This helps enhance my essay because it puts the information into
perspective for the reader in terms of how much the production of meat can affect our
environment.

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)

I think a fresh set of eyes will certainly be beneficial to ensure I come up with the best draft
possible. Sometimes, I can “get in my own head” about my writing and am not able to see
the big picture as easily. An objective critique of the essay is going to be much appreciated
and will help me immensely.

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

Research Essay Draft Rubric and Feedback

Rubric
Category

Feedback Score
(acceptable, needs
improvement etc.)

Argument
Development
and Support

Your thesis statement takes a specific position
on one side of a debatable issue. Try to focus it a
bit more by adding a bit more detail to it. The
details you provide are primarily relevant and
support your main idea. You consistently use
logical reasoning and source material to support
your argument effectively throughout your essay.

34/40

Research

You reference a number of credible, outside
sources effectively, using quotation, paraphrase,
and summary. You primarily incorporate these
sources smoothly into your discussion. You could
fine-tune some of your signal-phrasing in your
next draft. There is a good balance between
original writing and outside sources.

25/30

Organization You have a great start on the organization of
your paper. You have a thesis, an adequate
number of paragraphs with topic sentences, and
you address counterarguments. You also have
an effective concluding paragraph. Look a bit
more closely at the organization of your
paragraphs (see notes in body of essay) to
enhance this even more.

13/15

Style

You do a great job with your word choices and
sentence structures.

4/5

Conventions There are few – if any – negligible errors in

grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization,
formatting, and usage.

5/5

Reflection You demonstrate thoughtful reflections, and

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

5/5

Overall Score and Feedback: 86/100