The rubric( attached below ) covers six grading areas. Review your draft (attached below) using this grading rubric.

For each of the six grading areas, complete the following:

1. Indicate the level – Outstanding, Competent, Adequate, Developing, or Inadequate – that applies to your draft. You might find that your score is borderline – that it meets criteria for two levels/scores. If this is the case, you can indicate more than one, but provide a clear explanation for this in step two.
2. Referencing specific examples from your draft, provide a clear explanation for why your draft fits this category.
3. After completing the first two steps on this worksheet, return to your draft, and devise a detailed revision plan for the areas that scored the lowest.

See Example:

IDEAS: Analytical Response to Beck’s Text

Grade: Developing

Explanation: I gave my essay this score because [    ]. For this score, the rubric says [   ], and my essay [does this].

AUDIENCE AND STYLE:

Grade: Between Adequate and Competent

Explanation: While my essay meets [these criteria] for adequate because it [does this], it also meets [these criteria] for competent [in this way].

(And so on for each category.

Al Balushi 2

Abdallah Al Balushi

ENGL 100B

Jenny Bass

April 7, 2021

Julie Becks “This Article Won’t Change You”

‘This Article Won’t Change Your Mind,’ by Julie Beck is a magnificent outline of people’s convictions and their firm purpose to maintain them paying little heed to ethical quality (Beck, 2017). People specially and constantly pick convictions over realities. Beck clarifies this wonder through a few ideas which involve speculations and studies done on human conduct, interactions and relationships. She presents her contentions on this point in a fair-minded and astute style.

Pre-existing beliefs profoundly shape what people see and how we respond when we see things that don’t affirm them. Basically, we will in general excuse all that isn’t in concurrence with our perspective, regardless of proof in actuality. It’s a cycle that is difficult to break. Individuals see proof that can’t help contradicting them as more fragile, in light of the fact that at last, they’re asking themselves in a general sense various inquiry while assessing that proof, contingent upon if they need to accept what it proposes (Beck, 2017). If it’s unethical or somewhat unimportant, on the grounds that individuals will be off-base and they will accept things on lacking proof. Also, their understandings of the things they accept are regularly going to be deficient regardless of whether they’re right. What number of individuals who (properly) accept environmental change is genuine could really clarify how it functions?

Individuals will in general stay with the individuals who concur with them. Despite the fact that individuals hear different sides, we intermittently turn away from this and stick with the individuals who concur with us. We are particular about the news we devour, and home base with those with certain political or philosophical likenesses. Online media impacts us, and like the creator expressed, what our companions offer might be undeniably more impressive than the substance of information. Web-based media has expanded this social and political separation. Trump for instance lauds the individuals who concur with him, yet disgraces the individuals who can’t help contradicting him. The expression “Counterfeit News” is then spread around. We are extremely specific of those we tune in to, which the creator called “Particular openness”.

False information is all over, and it doesn’t make any difference in the event that we are genuinely right or not. The case of this would-be environmental change. The author referenced how despite the fact that environmental change is genuine, we might not have total information over it. Not every person can broadly expound on it, and therefor there is still obliviousness, and stiff-necked obliviousness. Realities and truth are additionally not all that matters.

In our daily lives, we have different opinions on different aspects of life and the factors that affect us. Our cultural beliefs and heritage are stronger than the information that we get from other people. For example, I was born and raised in a Christian family and the beliefs and the teachings of my religion are what drives my morality in the society. I believe that some things are a sin and not worth committing according to my religion like stealing and lying. Stealing is not only forbidden but has its own consequences form the ten commandments. I believe that evil doers will all go to hell and those who do not believe in God as well. This is a strong belief that I have had since my childhood and according to Julie Becks, people will always stand their grounds no matter the situation. Despite the fact that some people argue that hell is not real, I strongly believe that it is there and no one can ever convince me otherwise.

“This Article Won’t Change Your Mind,” is generally compelling in consolidating the two types of multimodality it uses for the articles content (Beck, 2017). These structures are two advanced delineations and two charts. The main outline portrays non-descript individuals strolling over a paper. With none of them looking at the news paper’s substance and proceeding with their strolling, this visual message introduces the article’s conversation of spurred thinking to the reader and may force them to keep reading.

The subsequent picture redirects from the underlying, more uncertain picture, focusing on a particular gathering, Donald Trump allies. A concealed and coloured demonstration of a youngster wearing Trump gear unquestionably focuses to what in particular is ventured to be a photograph of Barack Obama’s initiation, while a hidden sketch of them is shown considering, apparently, a photograph of Trump’s introduction. This effectively associates with the articles notice of an overview of Trump allies who asserted a photograph of Obama’s introduction was of Trump’s, giving a visual illustration of such a situation. Nonetheless, this likewise accentuates the negative spotlights on Trump allies in the article, outwardly portraying inclination inside it, confining the article to a particular, non-Trump-supporting, crowd.

Multimodality is appropriately included as intends to prove and assert the articles contentions that individuals are inclined to inspired thinking. While one representation acts in a charged style, the others are more suggestive of the substance and exhibit it outwardly. The modes powerful help to the article increment its opportunity to persuade the crowd of its introduced thoughts and ideas (Johnson, 2017). So, individuals who are high on the most particularized-trust scale would be bound to accept data that comes from others in their gatherings, and if those gatherings are philosophical, individuals sharing that data presumably as of now concur with them.

Individuals with great data are esteemed. Be that as it may, ability includes some major disadvantages it requires time and work. On the off chance that you can get individuals to accept you’re a decent source without really being one, you get the advantages without placing in the work. Liars flourish, as such, if individuals trust them. So, a few analysts have proposed spurred thinking may have created as a “safeguard against control.” An inclination to stay with what they as of now accept could help shield individuals from being reserved in by each shill with a persuading story who tags along (Taylor, 2019).

In conclusion, Julie Beck’s article is a very important text to the present text. She highlights the factors affecting the society and how people perceive them. People are affected a lot by what they believe and they trust more their allies and people supporting them rather than the people telling them the truth. Thus, beliefs on people have more weight on people compared to the truth. Also, social media is another thing that has confused people in the society. It has become hard to trust sources from the social media since most information is corrupt.

Work Cited

“Waiting for the Redirectiron…” Waiting for the Redirectiron.., 5 Sept. 2017, rampages.us/taubenbergehk/2017/09/05/this-article-wont-change-your-mind-authors-argument-sketch/.

Beck, Julie. “This article won’t change your mind.” The Atlantic 13 (2017).

Davidson, Richard J. “Change Your Brain by Transforming Your Mind.” PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2011.

Taylor, J. (2019, July 13). This article won’t change your mind. Essay Typing. https://www.essaytyping.com/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/

GRADINGRUBRIC: RESEARCH ESSAY

IDEAS: Analytical Response to Beck’s Text
• OUTSTANDING: Ideas are clear, insightful, thought-provoking, and focused so that they consistently support the topic, thesis and

audience for the paper. This essay tackles the topic of tribalism in an innovative way, either presenting a new way of looking at the

topic or Beck’s text or challenging major ideas within.

• COMPETENT: A clear thesis is presented that provides an interesting and/or thoughtful response to the text or assignment. The
application of Beck’s ideas to real-world contexts has clear relevance for readers (i.e. the questions “So what?” and “Who cares?” are
thoughtfully answered).

• ADEQUATE: The thesis is clear but conventional. Tribalism is applied to a real-world context purposefully and there is some
indication that this application has relevance for you and/or your readers.

• DEVELOPING: Ideas are unclear or clichéd and demonstrate a lack of focus in support of the topic or a central idea, which may be
vague or missing. It may have a general or implied thesis; but the idea may be too broad, vague, or obvious.

• INADEQUATE: It may be an attempt to meet the requirements of the assignment, but it may have no apparent thesis or a self-
contradictory one, or the essay’s point is so general or obvious as to suggest little thinking-through of the topic.

AUDIENCE AND STYLE:
• OUTSTANDING: Both development and organization anticipate the needs and expectations of the reading audience. The writer

effectively conveys the significance of the subject matter to the reader, and all reasonable concerns and/or objections are addressed.

The paper has an introduction that draws the reader in, and a conclusion that does more than just repeat the introduction or body
paragraphs. Creative elements such as particularly vivid descriptions, figurative language, and/or humor (when appropriate) are

present and are used in ways that add to the piece.

• COMPETENT: Development and organization suggest awareness of the needs and expectations of the reading audience. A
reasonable number of concerns/objections are addressed. The author’s tone is appropriate for the topic, assignment, and target

audience. The application of Beck’s ideas to real-world contexts has clear relevance for readers (i.e., the questions “So what?” and

“Who cares?” are thoughtfully answered).

• ADEQUATE: Development and organization may suggest an awareness of audience but may not show awareness of specific concerns
to the same degree as the “A” or “B” essay. The introduction could be too general and the conclusion too repetitive. Tribalism is

applied to a real-world context purposely and there is some indication that this application has relevance for you and/or your readers.

• DEVELOPING: Development and organization may suggest only occasional or superficial awareness of the needs and expectations of
the reading audience. Style may be incoherent, inconsistent, or inappropriate in tone.

• INADEQUATE: Development and organization suggest little or no awareness of the needs and expectations of the reading audience.

ORGANIZATION:
• OUTSTANDING: Organization is coherent, unified, and effective in support of the paper’s purpose/plan and consistently

demonstrates effective and appropriate rhetorical transitions between ideas and paragraphs. The logical relationships between ideas are
abundantly clear and readers are pulled through the essay with a clear sense of progression.

• COMPETENT: Organization is coherent, unified and effective in support of the paper’s purpose/plan and usually demonstrates
effective and appropriate rhetorical transitions between ideas and paragraphs. Sufficient transitions allow readers to infer logical

connections between ideas.

• ADEQUATE: Organization is coherent and unified overall in support of the essay’s purpose/ plan but is ineffective at times and may
demonstrate abrupt or weak transitions between ideas or paragraphs. Clear, but perhaps generic (next, another reason, etc.) transitions

are used.

• DEVELOPING: Organization is confused and fragmented in support of the essay’s purpose/ plan and demonstrates a lack of structure
or coherence that negatively affects readability.

• INADEQUATE: It may display little or no apparent sense of organization (e.g., the paragraphs lack a sense of progression).

SUPPORT: Applying to a Real-World Context
• OUTSTANDING: Development is fresh, with abundant details and examples that arouse audience interest and provide relevant,

concrete, specific and insightful evidence in support of sound logic. Nuanced comprehension of all cited sources evident. (This is

perhaps shown through purposeful inclusion of material beyond thorough definitions of Beck’s key terms, such as the potential
causes of or solutions for tribalism, the contributions of media outlets, etc.). Beck’s ideas about tribalism are applied to a real-world

context that is clearly described in abundant detail. A sufficient number of key terms is applied to the real-world context to allow

readers to fully understand the concept of tribalism and easily connect it to the real-world context.

• COMPETENT: Development is adequate, but may lack depth, with details and examples that arouse audience interest and provide
relevant, concrete, specific evidence in support of sound logic. This essay has a more complex narrative, displaying a thoughtful

analysis of the ways aspects of tribalism can be seen in real-world situations.

• ADEQUATE: Development is sufficient but general, providing adequate but perhaps not interesting details, examples, and evidence
that include no logical fallacies or unsupported claims. Enough key terms are clearly defined to reasonably allow a new reader to
understand the concept of tribalism (as used in Beck’s article).

• DEVELOPING: Development is insufficient, providing scarce or inappropriate details, evidence, and examples that may include
logical fallacies or unsupported claims. The paper may contain a list of examples placed in context with key terms but with little or

no explanation of how these connections relate to the thesis. The examples may be underdeveloped or may not accurately illustrate

key terms.

• INADEQUATE: Evidence may be inappropriate and/or off-topic or may consist of generalizations, faulty assumptions, or errors of
fact. The paper makes little or no mention of how tribalism is present in real-world contexts and/or key aspects of tribalism are
inaccurately applied.

TEXTUAL EVIDENCE: Comprehension and Presentation of Beck’s Text
• OUTSTANDING: Nuanced comprehension of all cited sources evident. (This is perhaps shown through purposeful inclusion of

material beyond thorough definitions of Beck’s key terms, such as the potential causes of or solutions for tribalism, the contributions
of media outlets, etc.).

• COMPETENT: All cited texts are introduced clearly, accurately, and thoroughly. Definitions of the concepts associated with tribalism
taken from Beck are supplemented with further examples/illustrations, as much needed to be thoroughly understood by readers who

are unfamiliar with Beck’s text.

• ADEQUATE: The concepts associated with tribalism are defined clearly and accurately, and in a way that is easily accessible to
readers who are not familiar with Beck’s text. Concepts are introduced/defined before they are referenced or discussed. Errors in

punctuation and mechanics of source citation at times create clarity errors (e.g. the combination of a signal phrase and direct quote
create a run-on), but do not create confusion about ownership of ideas.

• DEVELOPING: Concepts from outside sources are presented with some contextualization, but perhaps not enough for clarity.
Readers familiar with these texts may be able to grasp meaning, but it will be inaccessible to new readers. The connection between a

point and its supporting textual example may not always be clear, but the essay demonstrates that the writer understands the purposes

and mechanics of source citation. The argument will be unconvincing, inconsistent, or superficial, e.g., because the author
concentrates on one specific passage rather than a text as a whole.

• INADEQUATE: Concepts from one or more texts are presented inaccurately, or with sparse context, making concepts
incomprehensible to new readers. The essay demonstrates little understanding of the purpose of textual evidence and/or the mechanics
of source integration. The paper indicates that further instruction and/or practice is needed. This essay may fail to handle borrowed

material responsibly and/or to document appropriately.

SENTENCE SKILLS:
• OUTSTANDING: The sentence structure is varied, and the words are carefully chosen. There is evidence of careful editing since the

essay contains few grammatical and/or mechanical errors. How the writer says things is as excellent as what the writer says. The style

is energetic, confident, and precise.

• COMPETENT: The essay shows strong evidence of editing since there are relatively few grammatical and/or mechanical errors. Style
is readable and rhetorically effective in tone, incorporating varied sentence structure and effective word choice.

• ADEQUATE: Even in the “C” essay, there should be relatively few grammatical or mechanical errors–not enough to interfere with
readability; the writer has done some editing, even though it may be superficial. Style is readable, but unremarkable in tone,

sometimes including a lack of sentence variety and/or effective word choice.

• DEVELOPING: The style may be compromised by repetitive or flawed sentence patterns and/or inappropriate diction and confusing
syntax. Grammatical and mechanical errors may interfere with readability and indicate a less-than-adequate attempt at editing or
unfamiliarity with some aspects of Standard Written English.

• INADEQUATE: The style suggests serious difficulties with fluency which may be revealed in short, simple sentences and ineffective
diction. Grammatical/mechanical errors may interfere with reader comprehension or indicate problems with basic literacy or a lack of

understanding of Standard English usage.