MAPPING: DESCRIBING MULTIPLE VIEWPOINTS
This paper is the second major assignment of the semester, and is worth 200 points.
Due: March 4th.
Your assignment is to create an annotated bibliography of about 3-4 pages that describes
four different perspectives on the controversial topic that you chose.
The goal of this assignment is to research and describe multiple viewpoints on a single
controversial issue.
Describing multiple viewpoints involves summarizing the arguments of the resources you
select, including the main claim of the argument, the grounds and the backing – making
for a ‘fair summary’ of each of these sources.
The final product should demonstrate that you have an understanding of the parts of an
argument and the nuances of various positions on your chosen controversy;
Thus, it should present at least four different viewpoints (sources).
Remember that you’re still learning about the issue and your goal is to describe the
controversial issue from a neutral perspective, so do not bring your opinion or criticism
on the controversy into the paper. Write your paper in a way that I cannot tell where you
stand on this issue!
Source considerations:
** At least two of your four sources should exist in a non-digital format (published first as a
book, journal article, editorial, etc.) – please be sure to visit the library for these sources.
** Your sources should be recent - published in or later than the year 2018.
** Make sure that the sources you pick are not neutral but actually take a position—this is very
important!
** Be sure to use only arguments – i.e. writing that advocates a position, like editorials, opinion
columns, essays, speeches, peer-reviewed research, etc. Avoid objective news reports that offer
many perspectives, interviews, etc.
Paper process:
Step 1:
Begin your paper (and your research) by introducing your topic in a paragraph and posing an
issue question (a question about the controversy you’re examining that can be answered with a
yes or no):
Issue question e.g. “Are masks necessary on college campuses?”
Step 2:
Find 4 sources that take different positions on the issue question.
For e.g.
- Source 1: (The main claim responds to the issue question with a YES) Masks are
absolutely necessary on campus… because…
- Source 2: (The main claim responds to the issue question with a YES, BUT) Masks are
necessary on campus but…. ,
- Source 3: (The main claim responds to the issue question with a NO, BUT) Masks are not
necessary, but…
- Source 4: (The main claim responds to the issue question with a NO, BUT) Masks are not
necessary on campus, because…
Step 3:
- For each source you find, start with the full citation of the source in APA, MLA or
Chicago format. See student example.
- The citation will be followed by a well-written paragraph summary of about 200-250
words on that source, Start the summary by stating why you think the source is credible.
Then, provide annotations (or summaries) of each source.
- The paragraph should, at minimum, summarize the author’s main claim, grounds and
warrant. Then, discuss the intended audience (and how you know this!) as well as the
effectiveness of rhetorical appeals used as backing.
The paper is due on March 4th.
****************************************************************************
What’s an Annotated Bibliography? A student example follows.
An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents. Each citation is
followed by a brief description and evaluation of the text, the annotation.
Creating an Annotated Bibliography
Creating an annotated bibliography calls for the application of a variety of intellectual skills:
concise exposition, succinct analysis, and informed library research. First, locate and record
citations to books, periodicals, and documents that may contain useful information and ideas on
your topic. Briefly examine and review the actual items. Then choose those works that provide a
variety of perspectives on your controversy. Cite the book, article, or document using APA.
Write a concise, one-paragraph (about 200-250 words) annotation that discusses the source
credibility, summarizes the author’s main argument and also analyzes their rhetorical
techniques, such as purpose, intended audience, etc. Your analysis does not have to hit every
one of these techniques used but should be analyze effectiveness using at least a few of these
criteria.
Grading Rubric
1. Topic summary submitted and approved
2. Adherence to page limit (lower and upper)
3. Controversial nature of topic, establishment of ethical dilemma, broad nature of problem and
various stakeholders
4. Establishment of context for the topic and urgency of issue (exigency)
5. Quality of issue question posed in introduction
6. Use of style for citations (APA, MLA or Chicago)
7. Annotations – states why source is credible
8. Annotations – summarizes source main claim (i.e. thesis or take home point) AND evidence
9. Appropriateness of 4 sources (i.e. not neutral, relevance to the issue question, recency)
10. Writer is able to not take a stand on the issue
11. Paper organization, structure, and grammar
Annotated Bibliography
Student Example
Is death penalty a reasonable punishment for heinous crimes? Capital punishment is a
controversy that has stirred many conversations between philosophers, law makers, presidents,
and even average Joe’s. Capital punishment laws can be dated as far back as the Babylonian
times in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon. This is an issue that has been around for
many years, and affects all citizens of the world. Some challenge the death penalty saying that it
isn’t morally right to take the life of someone who has committed a heinous crime. They argue
that the death penalty is and has always been arbitrary. And they also argue that the death penalty
has taken the lives of innocent people. On the other hand, some support the death penalty saying
that the amount of innocent people that are actually put on death row is a very small percentage.
They argue that people who are capable of heinous crimes shouldn’t be locked away with a
chance of parole, but rather given a fate they deserve that will make sure they are never able to
commit such a crime again. They also argue that the law must be enforced somehow and with
death penalty as a law, it makes the criminals value their life more and decrease the rate of
crimes. Like any controversy, this one has two very strong positions on capital punishment, but
everyone has different grounds for their positions.
Fieser, James, and John McAdams. "Racial Bias and Executing the Innocent: No
Real Problem." Capital Punishment (The Practice of Morality). U.S. Senate, Judiciary
Subcommittee Hearing on An Examination of the Death Penalty, 15 Jan. 2011. Web. 03
Mar. 2013.
John McAdams, the author, states that the inequity of capital punishment is better than no
capital punishment at all. In this article, he specifically focuses on the claim that the death
penalty is mostly placed on black killers and therefore racially biased. However he argues
that the real focus of racism in capital punishment should be on those who are not
sentenced, which are mainly criminals. He also focuses on opposing the claim that many
innocent people die due to the death penalty. McAdams mainly appeals to logos by
giving a lot of facts and quotes then backing them up with data that is found on the
“innocent list”, a widely publicized list of the innocents that is given by the DPIC (Death
Penalty Information Center). This is his method of showing that not many innocent
people are being killed by the death penalty as the opposing view member would argue.
No matter the number of innocent people put on death penalty, it will always be argued
as immoral. All policies have negative consequences, but having policies is better than
chaos. The stakeholders of this article are tax payers, judicial systems, prisoners, and
victim’s families. McAdams is credible because he is an associate professor of political
sciences, which is “the branch of knowledge that deals with systems of government “as
stated by Google definitions, at Marquette University
Fieser, James, and Stephen B. Bright, JD. "Against the Death Penalty." Capital
Punishment (The Practice of Morality). U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on
An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United States, 15 Jan. 2011. Web. 03 Mar.
2013.
The death penalty is arbitrary and sometimes prosecutes those who are innocent, claims
Stephen B. Bright, author of “Against the Death Penalty”. It is based on a few people’s
verdicts and poor legal representations. He strongly states that it doesn’t prevent
criminals from committing the crimes because people like that do not assess risks. Bright
appeals to logos in his arguments by quoting important stakeholders like Supreme Court
Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor who has immense input on how cases regarding the death
penalty would transpire. He appeals to our logic by firmly telling us that the death penalty
is arbitrary and different based on juries, communities and regions which is something we
can assess to be accurate for ourselves. He appeals to pathos by talking about how a lot of
innocent people have been victim of the death penalty, which causes us to sympathize for
them. The cost of killing a criminal is not justified by the positive impact it tries to bring
to the society. Stephen B. Bright is credible because he is the President of the Southern
Center for Human Rights and is advocating that the death penalty should be abolished
because it directly impacts the rights of human beings.
Armenta, Julia (2011) "Capital Punishment: How Effective is it?," Macalester Journal of
Philosophy: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 4. Web. 03 Mar. 2013.
There is no need for capital punishment in our society says Julia Armenta, the author of
“Capital Punishment: How effective is it”. It is immoral to place these consequences on
people because it is hard to draw a line as to who deserves capital punishment and who
doesn’t. It in fact does not help in lowering the rate of crime as thought so by many
people. She appeals to logos by quoting people who have carried out experiments that
support her ideas. For example, the study done by Thorsten Sellin, showed that there was
no correlation between death penalty used as punishment and future crimes that were
committed that backs up Julia’s statements. Julia appeals to ethos by showing all sides of
arguments. This increases her credibility as a writer because she is taking the time to
inform us about other perspectives but also giving us her claim and backing it up with
reasonable data. Her credibility also increases with those who hold the same morals as
her in that it isn’t right to kill another human being regardless of what they have done.
The issue of capital punishment is very complicated and detailed and we do not have any
idea what the future holds, but after taking in all the facts, Julia concludes that the death
penalty should not be a means of punishment.
Koch, Ed. "The Death Penalty Option: I Support It." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 May 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
Edward Koch, is strongly pro capital punishment and effectively argues that the
death penalty sentences on innocent people are minimum to null, opposite of what is
generally believed by those against capital punishment. He appeals to logos by giving us
an example of a specific case that led to the death penalty, but was then over thrown due
to the changing of the laws that are abolishing the death penalty. He appeals to our
pathos because the case that he talks about was 2 (spell out all numbers below 11)
convicts that raped and killed a 48-year old woman, 17-year old teenager, and 11-year old
girl who now have been rid of their earlier sentence of the death penalty. This makes us
feel bad for the victims and scares us that these convicts now have the chance of parole.
He goes through talking about a few other problems and misconceptions people have
about the death penalty. Despite hearing all the views, Edward still strongly advocates
his decision that death penalty is effective and should remain legal. The stakeholders of
the this article are the people who support the death penalty but aren’t speaking out,
because Koch specifically tells these people to start speaking out and not be silenced by
fear. Edward I. Koch, is credible because he was a former Mayor of New York city from
1977-1989 who had a say in the voting of the necessity of the death penalty. During this
time, he wrote 2 books (autobiographies) as well as the article “Death and Justice” which
appeared in the New Republic, an American magazine that tackles politics, culture, and
other big ideas.
