Step 1: MAKE A CLAIM (in 4 sub-steps)

1. Make a straightforward claim:  State that Your Topic is:  good/bad/the best/worst/unfair/inadequate/irresponsible/ etc. 
1. Though you are not proposing solutions yet, you may be arguing that a particular solution already in place is not enough to solve the problem.  In such cases you are saying: solution X is (unfair/inadequate/irresponsible) because...
2. Put your item in a 'category'.  For example: are you evaluating one type of 'economic recovery plan' or one type of 'teaching strategy' or one 'environmental action plan' or one kind of 'business venture'? etc.  
3. State what types of criteria you will use to judge your topic (these criteria typically categorized under PRACTICAL, ETHICAL, or AESTHETIC judgements) 
1. i.e. Google Maps is the best mapping program because it is easy to use (practical), it is accurate (practical/ethical), and it provides entertaining and educational features such as Google Earth (practical/aesthetic).  
4. 'First draft' this claim in your own words (that's right, 'first draft' is a sweet verb).  Remember, similar to using flexible rhetorical tools like ETHOS, LOGOS, PATHOS, you need to think through these and connect them with more particular ideas, and do so IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
1. i.e. Detroit's demolition policy is shortsighted because it leaves environmental much of the cleanup to future generations (ethical), destroys numerous historic sites (ethical/aesthetic/practical), and outsourced its work to several disreputable companies (economic/practical).  
2. i.e. From sample paper in GR: "The policy is neither forthcoming, safe, nor compassionate toward those directly impacted -- the soliders and their families"  

FORMULATE YOUR draft of your CLAIM, (post it on your team's wiki page):

Step 2:  THE EXIGENCIES: Think about what's at stake

Answer the invention questions:

• Does nearly everyone agree with you? Then your claim probably isnt' interesting or important.  If you can think of people who disagree, then something is at stake.
• Who argues the opposite of your claim above?
• Why do they make a different evaluation?
• (not in the book) What discourse communities have a stake in your evaluation? (what academic fields, organizations, political groups, neighborhoods, etc.need to examine/evaluate this issue)

CONNECT A STATEMENT ABOUT EXIGENCIES AND DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES TO THE BEGINNING OF YOUR ABOVE CLAIM (post it on your team's wiki page):

i.e.: _Issue X is crucial for (members of discourse community X/Y/Z) to examine because ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Step 3: INQUIRE further into a list of CRITERIA:

Evaluations are often a matter of personal taste, but when we begin probing the reasons for making evaluations,

we often discover that different people use similar criteria to make evaluations.

All evaluations depend on criteria (whether conscious or tacit/unconscious), and establishing criteria (then effectively arguing some) will be key 

to developing your logos and part of your structure/arrangement for an evaluation paper.  

Sometimes it will be necessary to argue for the validity of the criteria that you think your readers should consider.  If your readers accept your criteria, it's likely they will agree with your conclusions.

Brainstorm a LONGER list of your criteria for evaluating.  Consider the following sample list, then come up with one of your own. 

For example, when evaluating the new bridge crossing project, we need to consider: 

1. cost of long-term development
2. sticker price (short term price)
3. efficiency
4. fairness to neighborhoods
5. comes at a "social cost" 
6. environmental impact
7. "improved aesthetic experience" 
8. "unethical" business practices

1. Now list your Criteria, as best as you can.  Then own Categorize your criteria as you think through the following quetions:
1. Which criteria make X either good or bad?  
2. Which criteria are the most important?
3. Which might be grouped together? 
4. Which criteria are obvious?
5. Which need careful definition?
6. Which do you have to argue for?  

(post your list on your team's wiki page) 

Step 4: Create a Planning Guide:

On your teams wiki page post an entry for each of the following three steps to a planning guide:

1)  At the top of your page, write your first heading: "Introduction Plan"

1.  State/paste your evaluation claim from Tuesday.  Make sure it is in one or two sentences (this is your tentative thesis)
2. Paste this link to introduction strategies above the claim
3. In one or two sentences, introduce a potential audience for the essay (make one suggestion about how you might look into this potential audience)

2) Then paste a second heading: "Tips on researching and drafting a Background section"

1. break your team up into two groups: a planning team and a research team (communication between both teams is key)
1. the first group should offer one or two ideas that make sense in a background section.
1. tips might include: "the author should start by exploring the breadth or scope of the the issue/problem/proposal" by...  
2. or: "the author should offer several competing perspectives on the topic, such as...." 
2. the second group should find 3-5 seemingly valuable sources that will help explore this background section and post properly formatted sources

3) Then add a third heading: "Tips on organizing and drafting body paragraphs" 

1. Come up with a first draft of an outline (use step 5 in our textbook for help), include at least 4 paragraph and a statement of their goals
1. Several paragraphs should address your criteria for your evaluation claim
2. One or two paragraphs might work through definitions (and their criteria), i.e.: Example from Categorical Arguments: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because the Greek system is elitist."
3.  One or two might offer a key resemblance: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because other schools that have eliminated the Greek system have produced good results."
4. One or two might inquire into Cause/Consequence: "WSU should abolish fraternities and sororities because eliminating the Greek system would improve our school's academic reputation."  
5. Several paragraphs might address counter-arguments 

BACK TO STEPS