Would changing the drinking age have an impact on society? For better or for worse?

Write a formal essay of 5-6 pages (excluding the Work Cited page) that focuses on a specific argument or makes apparent why your ideas are important to interpreting the selected subject matter. At least six (6) additional sources are required, and ALL secondary sources should be academic (scholarly journals, theory, etc.) in nature and effectively support your critically formed thoughts about a college-level topic. Further instruction should be taken from comments in the weekly responses and with your professor. Students are expected to at least meet the minimum essay requirements outlined by The Research Paper Scoring Rubric in order to earn a passing grade. NOTE: To be considered a full page, text must reach ¾ the length down a standard sheet of paper. The creation of the Rogerian Essay stems from your experience vetting ideas, arguments, and sources, but theorist and psychologist, Karl Rogers, felt that in order to build ‘common ground’ one must also identify with their audience’s values, concerns, and constraints, rather than simply present those elements in isolation. Thus, your Rogerian essay must conform to the criteria below. Basic Essay Structure: See Danah Boyd essay, “Why America is Self-Segregating,” as an example (p. 387). Section 1: Introduction and Thesis—outline the constraints of your argument: time, place, space, position, etc. Include a thesis statement that makes a clear, limited, and descriptive assertion and explains why your stance benefits all parties involved. Thus, when answering the “who cares question?,” ensure you do so as a type of clear compromise or collaboration. It should NOT indicate a clear cut winner or loser. (You should then be able to expand on that compromise in Section 4). Section 2: Present the perspective that you disagree with the most. Make sure you do so with unbiased language, and fully develop the perspective from the constraints in which the stance is valid. Remember, no one is wrong all the time. Section 3: Present the most valid perspective, using logic, credibility, and ample evidence. Your research should guide you in the creation of this section. And, again, do not use bias language or unbalanced development. Section 4: Elaborate on your Rogerian solution (compromise or collaboration). This section should convince your audience that the opposing perspective will benefit from your stance. The key here is not to point out why the opposing perspective is faulty or completely concede your position, but why a compromise or collaboration serves the greater good or is more logical in newly defined constraints. Conclusion: A wrap up and continuation of your Rogerian solution. It should also include direction for your audience. No argument is ever solved. You are simply trying to redefine the baseline for the beginning of a future discussion/argument. Therefore, you should work towards plausible solutions, rather than “absolute” remedies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *