Instructions
Your task in this assignment is to find two articles, published either on the Internet or in print, each of which purports to provide useful and true information about some topic. The topics are up to you, but try to choose something that matters to you or to other people you know. There is no required length for the article here; just be sure it is long enough to be taken as offering somewhat detailed and important information about the topic in question.
Part A
Look for one article that you find to be completely credible and which you take as reporting factual information. This article should be an example of something you might credit with either creating a belief in yourself or changing your beliefs. For example, let’s say the article is a review of a product that promotes weight loss, and you were interested in losing weight. Because of the information in this article, you would be motivated to try the product if the article claims that the product works and is safe; alternatively, if the article reports that the product is ineffective or unsafe, you would likely not try the product. In other words, this article should be something that you take as truthful and knowledge-enhancing.
Part B
Now find an article that you find to be bogus or untrustworthy but which is intended as providing useful and factual information. Nothing in this article convinces you to change your behavior or your beliefs. (You may stick with the same topic or move to a different topic from that addressed in Part A.)
Part C
For each article (the one you believe and the one you disbelieve), explain why you find it to have, or to lack, credibility and persuasiveness.
What are your reasons for accepting, or being positively inclined to accept, what the author(s) of the credible article says?
What are your reasons for rejecting or doubting what the author(s) of the article that lacks credibility says?
You may want to review the topics covered in Chapter 4 of the course text to get going on this activity. This learning activity will give you a chance to elicit feedback from your instructor on your skills at detecting the credibility of both claims and sources and the trustworthiness of sources and those claiming expertise or some sort of authority in relation to the information, proposition, advice, admonition, or message communicated or advanced in the article.
Provide a citation for, and a link to the articles (if it’s legible, a screenshot will do) you used. Feel free also to simply copy and paste the passage if it’s short enough, along with a citation.
*USE AS MANY WORDS AS YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR CASE, but your goal should be clarity, precision, and conciseness.
*Grading
This assignment is worth 6 points and due on Sunday. For more specifics on how this will be graded, refer to the rubric below.
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: PHL238: Argument Forum Rubric: Discussion 2
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Competent
Developing
Unsatisfactory
Criterion Score
*Examples selected for analysis
0.5 points
Provides a relevant and insightful example of each type of fallacy or inappropriate use of rhetoric listed in assignment instructions. Shows a deep understanding of how they are used in real-world communication.
0.4 points
Provides a relevant example of each type of fallacy or inappropriate use of rhetoric listed in assignment instructions. Shows a clear understanding of how they are used in real-world communication.
0.35 points
Provides an example of each type of fallacy or inappropriate use of rhetoric listed in assignment instructions. Shows a basic understanding of how they are used in real-world communication.
0.275 points
Provides somewhat questionable examples for the three types of fallacy or inappropriate use of rhetoric listed in assignment instructions. Shows a limited understanding of how they are used in real-world communication.
0 points
Fails to provide relevant examples of three different devices or fallacies, or provides examples that are incorrect or unrelated to the topic.
Score of Examples selected for analysis,/ 0.5
*Definitions/ explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled
0.5 points
Provides clear and thorough definitions/explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and samples, demonstrating a deep understanding of the concepts in play and an ability to clearly distinguish between different types of rhetorical devices and fallacies. Accurately applies the appropriate terminology in the analysis. Organizes the definitions/explanations in a logical and accessible manner, making it easy for the reader to follow and understand.
0.4 points
Provides clear definitions/explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled, demonstrating a solid understanding of the concepts in play and an ability to distinguish between different types of rhetorical devices and fallacies. Accurately applies the appropriate terminology in the analysis. Organizes the definitions/explanations in a logical manner, making it easy for the reader to follow and understand.
0.35 points
Provides basic definitions/explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled, demonstrating a general understanding of the concepts. Demonstrates a basic ability to distinguish between different types of rhetorical devices and fallacies, and applies the appropriate terminology in the analysis. Organizes the definitions/explanations in a generally logical manner, making it somewhat easy for the reader to follow and understand.
0.275 points
Provides limited definitions/explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled, demonstrating a limited understanding of the concepts in play. Struggles to distinguish between different types of rhetorical devices and fallacies, and inconsistently applies the appropriate terminology in the analysis. Organizes the definitions/explanations in a limited or unclear manner, making it difficult for the reader to follow and understand.
0 points
Provides no or inaccurate definitions/explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled. Demonstrates no understanding of the concepts or terminology in play, and fails to accurately apply them in the analysis. Organizes the definitions/explanations in a confusing or unclear manner, making it impossible for the reader to follow and understand.
Score of Definitions/ explanations of rhetorical devices and fallacies identified and sampled,/ 0.5
*Analysis
1.5 points
Provides a comprehensive analysis of the selected examples, demonstrating a deep understanding of the underlying logic and rhetorical strategies involved. Clearly and persuasively demonstrates how the examples commit fallacies or how the rhetoric is misleading or misinforming. Uses clear and concise language, making the analysis easy to understand for the target audience.
1.2 points
Provides a thorough analysis of the selected examples, demonstrating a clear understanding of the underlying logic and rhetorical strategies involved. Effectively demonstrates how the examples commit fallacies or how the rhetoric is misleading or misinforming. Uses clear and concise language, making the analysis easy to understand for the target audience.
1.05 points
Provides a basic analysis of the selected examples, demonstrating a general understanding of the underlying logic and rhetorical strategies involved. Discusses but may not clearly demonstrate how the examples commit the fallacies or how the rhetoric is misleading or misinforming. Uses language that is generally clear and easy to understand for the target audience.
0.825 points
Provides a limited analysis of the selected examples, demonstrating only a limited understanding of the underlying logic and rhetorical strategies involved. Struggles to demonstrate how the examples commit the fallacies or how the rhetoric is misleading or misinforming. Uses language that is sometimes unclear or difficult to understand for the target audience.
0 points
Provides no analysis of the selected examples, or the analysis is unrelated to the topic. Demonstrates no understanding of the underlying logic and rhetorical strategies involved. Fails to demonstrate how the examples commit the fallacies or how the rhetoric is misleading or misinforming. Uses language that is unclear or difficult to understand for the target audience.
Score of Analysis,/ 1.5
*Recommendations for legitimate argumentation
1 point
Offers specific and well-supported recommendations for addressing the fallacy or inappropriately used rhetoric, and proposes alternative strategies for presenting the information or arguments more effectively.
0.8 points
Offers specific recommendations for addressing the fallacy or inappropriately used rhetoric, and proposes alternative strategies for presenting the information or arguments more effectively.
0.7 points
Offers some recommendations for addressing the fallacy or inappropriately used rhetoric, and proposes some alternative strategies for presenting the information or arguments more effectively.
0.55 points
Offers limited recommendations for addressing the fallacy or inappropriately used rhetoric, and proposes limited alternative strategies for presenting the information or arguments more effectively.
0 points
Offers no recommendations for addressing the fallacies or inappropriately used rhetoric, and proposes no alternative strategies for presenting the information or arguments more effectively.
Score of Recommendations for legitimate argumentation,/ 1
*Sources and citations
0.5 points
Reflects an exceptional ability to identify and select appropriate sources for examples that demonstrate how fallacies and rhetorical devices function across current forms of media. Applies a wide range of media literacy skills and knowledge to creatively choose relevant and effective sources. Skillfully integrates sources into the analysis, using them to illustrate and support the explanations in innovative ways. Provides complete and accurate citations for all sources used, demonstrating a strong understanding of citation conventions and academic integrity. Appropriately evaluates the credibility and reliability of sources and makes thoughtful choices in selecting examples that are relevant and effective.
0.4 points
Shows a solid ability to identify and select appropriate sources for examples that demonstrate how fallacies and rhetorical devices function across current forms of media. Applies media literacy skills and knowledge to choose relevant and effective sources. Integrates sources into the analysis, using them to illustrate and support the explanations in effective ways. Provides accurate citations for all sources used, demonstrating an understanding of citation conventions and academic integrity. Evaluates the credibility and reliability of sources and makes appropriate choices in selecting examples that are relevant and effective.
0.35 points
Exhibits a basic ability to identify and select appropriate sources for examples that demonstrate how fallacies and rhetorical devices function across current forms of media. Applies some media literacy skills and knowledge to choose sources. Attempts to integrate sources into the analysis, but may not always use them to illustrate and support the explanations effectively. Provides citations for sources used, but may have some inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Demonstrates some consideration of the credibility and reliability of sources, but may not always make optimal choices in selecting examples.
0.275 points
Struggles to identify and select appropriate sources for examples that demonstrate how fallacies and rhetorical devices function across current forms of media. Lacks sufficient media literacy skills and knowledge to choose relevant and effective sources and
Has difficulty integrating sources into the analysis, and may not use them to illustrate and support the explanations effectively. Provides incomplete or inaccurate citations for sources used, demonstrating limited understanding of citation conventions and academic integrity. Displays limited consideration of the credibility and reliability of sources, and may not always make appropriate choices in selecting examples.
0 points
Fails to identify and select appropriate sources for examples that demonstrate how fallacies and rhetorical devices function across current forms of media. Lacks media literacy skills and knowledge, choosing sources that are irrelevant, unreliable, or biased. Fails to integrate sources into the analysis, or uses them in ways that do not illustrate or support the explanations effectively. Provides no citations for sources used or fails to follow citation conventions, demonstrating a lack of understanding of academic integrity. Fails to consider the credibility and reliability of sources, or uses sources that are not appropriate or reliable.
Score of Sources and citations,/ 0.5
*Peer Comments
1 point
Author provides thoughtful, insightful, and constructive feedback to at least two peers’ posts. Author not only agrees or disagrees with their peers’ analyses but also offers additional insights or challenges the explanations with well-reasoned critical discourse. Author’s replies demonstrate a thorough understanding of the media samples and an ability to integrate multiple perspectives, and they contribute significantly to the discussion by asking thought-provoking questions or offering creative solutions.
0.8 points
Author engages with their peers’ posts, offers some feedback, and shares their own experience with browsing media samples. Author’s replies demonstrate a good understanding of the media samples, and they make an effort to engage in a constructive and respectful dialogue with their peers. Author may miss some opportunities to offer critiques or ask more challenging questions, but overall their contributions are valuable and enhance the discussion.
0.7 points
Author engages with their peers’ posts and offers some feedback, but their replies lack depth or originality. Author may agree or disagree with their peers’ analyses without offering additional insights or critiques. Author’s replies demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the media samples, but they may not fully engage with the topic or make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
0.55 points
Author engages with their peers’ posts but their feedback is superficial or unclear. Author may only provide general remarks or fail to offer any insights or critiques of their peers’ analyses. Author’s replies demonstrate a limited understanding of the media samples, and they may not fully engage with the topic or offer a valuable contribution to the discussion.
0 points
Author does not engage with their peers’ posts or provides irrelevant or inappropriate feedback. Author may fail to offer any insights or critiques, or their replies may be disrespectful or offensive. Author’s replies demonstrate a lack of understanding of the media samples, and they do not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way
Score of Peer Comments,/ 1
*Total
Score of PHL238: Argument Forum Rubric: Discussion 2,/ 5
Overall Score
Exemplary
4.5 points minimum
Proficient
4 points minimum
Competent
3.5 points minimum
Developing
2.75 points minimum
Unsatisfactory
0 points minimum