English Essay

profileHannah Dasha

English 1010 Researched Argument Paper – Spring 2021

Subject / Topic: This is a thesis-driven argumentative research paper. The prompt for this assignment is a separate document. Argument needs to use Toulmin Model structure.

Intended Audience: Academic audience (tone, language and style should be appropriate for an academic audience).

Purpose: To make an original argument and support it with evidence.

Source Requirements: A minimum of five academic sources are to be used for this paper. Three of the minimum five need to come from PGCC databases and / or PGCC library resources (print or electronic). Academic sources must be used (no Wikipedia, free essay, study guide, or dubious websites). When using sources in papers (whether summary, paraphrase, or direct quote), you must cite the sources using in-text citation AND a works cited page. Not doing so will be considered plagiarism and an automatic F on the paper.

Length Requirements: Minimum length requirement is six full pages. The Works Cited page does not count towards page count.

Format / Style: MLA documentation is to be used for this assignment.

Deadline / Weight: Paper 3 is being assigned Thursday, 6/10/21. A completed draft (including works cited page) is due Tuesday, 6/15/21, 11:59 pm. Peer response will be during class on Wednesday, 6/17/21. The final draft of Paper 3 is due before class begins Thursday, 6/18/21, 8:00 am.

Special Assignment Stipulations: Students will not be allowed to use first person (I, me, my, we, us, our) or second person (you / your) for this paper. This paper must be third person exclusively. You may be thinking, “how do I talk about something I think is a problem without using first person?” Everything within the paper is your opinion, so it is unnecessary to say “I think” or “I feel.” Instead of saying “I think such-and-such is a problem” you just say “Such-and-such is a problem.”

The course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

1. Write informative, analytical, and argumentative essays that demonstrate the student’s ability to

a. Formulate a restricted, unified and precise thesis statement;

b. Organize essay content into introduction, body, and conclusion paragraphs;

c. Compose restricted, unified, and precise topic sentences for paragraphs;

d. Construct and organize unified, coherent, and well-developed paragraphs;

e. Apply grammar and usage rules correctly;

f. Develop clear, concise sentences.

2. Write research-based essays using secondary sources, successfully demonstrating the characteristics listed in Course Outcome 1.

3. Demonstrate the ability to use the library and online resources to locate and evaluate material relevant to specific topic:

a. Record notes in sufficient detail and with accurate citations;

b. Synthesize several different sources into an essay to support its thesis;

c. Demonstrate an understanding of the concept of plagiarism by correctly summarizing, quoting, paraphrasing, citing, and acknowledging sources through in-text parenthetical and end-of-text bibliographic documentation according to MLA, APA, or Chicago format.

You have to choose between these cases

Fall 2020 Researched Argument Prompts (all cases are current or future Supreme Court of the United States cases):

Case Group 1: U.S. v. Briggs and U.S. v. Collins - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.

Question: Do you feel citizens serving in the military should have a different set of laws and from citizens not serving in the military?

Case 2: California v. Texas and Texas v. California - (1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum-coverage provision in Section 5000A(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); (2) whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum-coverage provision unconstitutional; and (3) if so, whether the minimum-coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.

(1) Whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and (2) whether the district court properly declared the ACA invalid in its entirety and unenforceable anywhere.

Question: In order for the Affordable Care Act to work and cover everyone, everyone must participate. If a person chooses not to participate, they are penalized with a fine assessed during filing taxes. Do you feel the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, as it requires universal compliance?

Case Group 3: Nestlé USA v. Doe I and Cargill v. Doe I - (1) Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations.

(1) Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country; and (2) whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.

Question: Do you feel American companies operating in foreign countries should be held responsible to the foreign countries’ laws while conducting business or American laws, or both?

Case 4: Trump v. New York - (1) Whether a group of states and local governments have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a July 21, 2020, memorandum by President Donald Trump instructing the secretary of commerce to include in his report on the 2020 census information enabling the president to exclude noncitizens from the base population number for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives; and (2) whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment.

Question: Do you feel that non-citizens (those that are not naturalized, so illegal immigrants and those without documentation) should be included in the US Census?

Case 6: Jones v. Mississippi - Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

Question: Do you feel minors who commit capital offences (murder, treason, espionage, and terrorism) should be given life in prison without the possibility of parole if they are considered “permanently incorrigible”?

This link is about our last class maybe it can help you understand the assignment