ASSIGNMENT: Review the in-text comments and summary feedback you received on your Touchstone 3.2 draft to enhance your writing. You will then submit a revision of your Touchstone 3.2 draft that reflects the evaluator’s feedback. Make sure to include a copy of your Touchstone 3.2 draft below the reflection questions for this unit.

As this assignment builds on Touchstone 3.2: Draft an Argumentative Research Essay, that Touchstone must be graded before you can submit your final research essay.

A. Final Draft Guidelines

DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.

1. Editing and Revising

❒ Have you significantly revised the essay by adjusting areas like organization, focus, and clarity?❒ Have you made comprehensive edits to word choice, sentence variety, and style?❒ Have your edits and revisions addressed the feedback provided by your evaluator?

2. Cohesion and Source Integration

❒ Is the information presented in a logical order that is easy for the reader to follow?❒ Have you included smooth transitions between sentences and paragraphs?❒ Have you introduced your sources clearly and in a way that demonstrates their validity to the reader?

3. Conventions and Proofreading

❒ Have you double-checked for correct formatting, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization?❒ Have you ensured that any quoted material is represented accurately?

4. Reflection

❒ Have you displayed a clear understanding of the revision process?❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses?❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the composition?

B. Reflection Questions

DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions.

1. How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)
2. List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity, cohesion, rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive feedback. (4-5 sentences)
3. What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this course? (2-3 sentences)

Touchstone 3.2 feedback and sample of the review draft is attached below

AI SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND THE FUTURE 1

AI SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND THE FUTURE 5

Abel Simorangkir Comment by Barbara Lewis:

Abel,

I look forward to reading your essay.

English Compostion 2

February 8, 2021

AI Systems Development and the Future

Introduction

Artificial intelligence and robotics are continuously being developed. The development of AI systems does not look like it is about to slow down anytime soon. Powerful individuals and institutions with the resources are increasingly and heavenly investing in the development of these systems because they stand to gain the most from the same. Artificial intelligence and robotics not only make daily activities easier through automation but also allow individuals and groups in power positions to manipulate situations to fit their desires and agenda.

 

Comment by Barbara Lewis: You need to define AI before using it. Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is your source? Comment by Barbara Lewis: Is this your thesis statement?

It is such occurrences in the present world that cause critics to question the impact the development of artificial systems will have on the future of humans and the planet. Progress in AI and robotics spells doom for the future of humanity because it is bound to put people out of jobs, rendering them jobless and purposeless. Additionally, the unchecked development of artificial systems puts humanity at risk because intelligent technology will be in the hands of people who can decide to make malicious use of it. Comment by Barbara Lewis: This seems to be a counter argument against AI? How does this support the thesis? Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is your source?

 Powerful individuals or countries may use AI and robotics in the future to suppress other people and/or countries. These people or nations may take advantage of weapons made using artificial systems to annihilate the human race. While it is true that artificial systems are beneficial in the way they promote environmental sustainability and improve functions in the workplace, the true impact of the development of these systems without considerations for ethics is damning for the future. This paper provides an analysis of the negative impacts of improvements and advancements made in the field of AI and robotics on the outlook of the future. (274) Comment by Barbara Lewis: Is your thesis against AI? Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is your citation? There was no mention of a citation before this. Comment by Barbara Lewis: Eliminate extra line.

 

AI and robotics have already attained a considerable level of intelligence. However, the developers of these artificial systems are aiming for a higher level of intelligence- possibly one that surpasses that of humans (Zheng, 2019). While this goal may be beneficial for further automation and ease of work, the risk it poses for the human race cannot be overlooked. Zheng (2019) indicates that the research and development of AI and robotics lack human visual and audio cognition mechanisms. What this statement means is that when super-intelligence is reached for artificial systems, the well-being of people will be at stake because the systems may fail to recognize humans as their ‘creators’ and may act aggressively against them.  Comment by Barbara Lewis: This is a good supportive paragraph against AI.

  Barrat (2013) states that the development of artificial systems receives support and funding from corporations and government agencies around the globe. This support may stem from the fact that these systems make work easier for people. Indeed, artificial intelligence has reached a point where it helps people with choosing what to purchase and even who to get acquainted with. It only makes sense to want to invest more into these systems to gain more out of them.  Comment by Barbara Lewis: This paragraph supports AI.

However, these investments are a risk to the future of humanity in the way they overlook the ethical challenges that the development of AI and robotics pose. The current development of these systems lacks the relevant ethical considerations that would ensure the lives of humans are protected in case it reaches a point of the creation of a thinking machine Bostrom and Yudkowsky, 2014). The scenes in movies where robotics take over the world by getting rid of humans might become a reality in the future if the goal for super-intelligence for machines stands unchecked. Comment by Barbara Lewis: What investments?

       One of the areas that artificial systems have had a positive impact on is military technology. Through artificial intelligence, the weapons in place today are more advanced than during any time in history. Artificial systems have enhanced ballistics by facilitating the creation of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), which have been ranked as the third revolution in warfare ((Russell, 2015). These weapon systems are unique in the way they can operate without human intervention, choosing and engaging targets on their own. Comment by Barbara Lewis: This is a good supportive paragraph for AI.

Russell (2015) indicates that an example of LAWS is armed quadcopters, which can carry out urban-search-and-destroy missions. According to Buktus (2020), developers of AI and robotics can develop an artificial moral agency that has consideration for ethical methodologies. However, since there is no assurance of the same, what is the fate of human beings in a future where weapons are made using artificial systems? Furthermore, what will safeguard humanity from extinction in a world where no guidelines or ethics are governing the military applications of Artificial intelligence? Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is the purpose of this paragraph? it is not clear. Is this for or against AI?

A look back at history reveals that powerful countries like America, China, and Russia have been willing and reticent in the development of weapons using AI for the battlefield (Morgan et al, 2020). These countries have not shown consideration for the ethical implications of employing such weapons in war and peace. The continuing application of AI in military technology points to a changing character of war and increased risk to the existence of mankind in the future. Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is the purpose of this paragraph? it is not clear. Is this for or against AI?

        Even without the risk of annihilation of the human race development of artificial systems still pose a risk to the future social and financial systems. The rate of socio-economic inequality is bound to be at its highest in the future because of the development of AI and robotics. As stated earlier, there are no ethics in place to guide the development and use of artificial systems. For instance, it is only the rich and powerful countries that can afford to use AI in the development of advanced weapons (Morgan et al., 2020). The poor nations in the world cannot afford the same and therefore have to cope with the weapons they can afford.  Comment by Barbara Lewis: This paragraph should be supporting the risks to social and financial systems. Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is the purpose of this sentence? How does it support the risk to social and financial systems?

This difference in the kind of weapons they own makes the poor countries vulnerable and open to serious attacks from the rich nations. In the future, the powerful nations may launch uncalled-for attacks on the poor countries using the advanced weaponry at their disposal to promote their agendas that can only be achieved by further suppressing the poor nations. The development of AI and robotics may give powerful nations the ability to get rid of a part of the population if they wish. 

The development of artificial systems will promote socio-economic inequality by increasing job and other earning opportunities for a select few while massively decreasing the same for a huge part of the population. Many people will be out of work in the future because of the impact of AI and robotics on work processes (Wisskirchen et al., 2017). These systems will eliminate the need for human labor leaving many without a source of income and a few with more money because of the elimination of wages. Developers and programmers will benefit from the development of artificial systems since their skills and knowledge will always be in demand (Thomas, 2019). The losers will be the average person and this way, socio-economic inequality will characterize the future.  Comment by Barbara Lewis: What is your source?

       The development of AI and robotics will cause people to lead meaningless and purposeless lives in the future. Although people may support the development of artificial systems now because of automation and ease of work, they will regret supporting and will oppose the same in the future. The state of automation will be more intense in the future because the artificial systems will be more intelligent and capable (Kaplan, 2015).  Comment by Barbara Lewis: What supports do you have for this statement?

           Thomas (2019) indicates that over 70% of people will lose their jobs because of the state of automation in the future resulting from the development of AI and robotics. The average person will be out of work unless he/she learns the skills relating to AI and robotics. These people will be at home and still lack something to do because of the state of automation in their homes.  Comment by Barbara Lewis: This paragraph should go with the one above that talks about jobs.

           According to Rainie and Luchsinger (2018), the essence of life will be lost to many. Many people will become depressed and lose their psych for life. Moreover, many people will become obese and the rate of occurrence of cardiovascular diseases will be high. Comment by Barbara Lewis: This seems out of place.

               Supporters of the development of AI and robotics argue that not only do artificial systems enhance automation and ease of work but they also promote environmental sustainability. These systems offer an advanced technique of countering environmental destruction. According to Russell (2015), AI has the potential to speed scientific discovery by offering scientists new ways to make sense of different types of data. Through artificial systems, health care can be transformed through the definition of new syndromes to separate diseases that were thought to be the same and to unify others that had been wrongly separated. While is it true that like many other areas, AI is bound to improve the health care sector in the future; however, doing this, it will serve to promote socio-economic inequality.

The condition in the future will be such that the people who benefit from the advanced decision-making systems in health care are only the special groups that can afford it and not the poor. Furthermore, the systems may be so advanced to the point where health care professionals are unable to comprehend their outputs. Others may argue that the development of AI and robotics will enhance the workplace in the future. Already, artificial systems are promoting ease of work by enhancing communications (Wisskirchen et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that the main impact of AI and robotics in the workplace in the future will be automation and as stated earlier, this will translate to high rates of unemployment. Comment by Barbara Lewis: Afford what?

               The development of AI and robotics may have positive impacts through the ease of work, promoting environmental protection, and enhancing health care. However, the risks that the development of artificial systems poses to the future are cause for worry. The future of humanity is at risk since their no ethics governing the application of the systems. Furthermore, there are no measures in place to ensure that highly-intelligence do not turn on humans in the future. Human beings risk losing their sources of income and leading meaningless lives because of the development of artificial systems. There is a need to ensure that there are ethical considerations during such developments. Comment by Barbara Lewis: Conclusion needs to recap thesis and main points.

References

Anderson, J., Rainie, L., & Luchsinger, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of humans. Pew Research Center, 10.

Barrat, J. (2013). Our final invention: Artificial intelligence and the end of the human era. Macmillan.

Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence, 1, 316-334.

Butkus, M. A. (2020). The human side of artificial intelligence. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2427-2437.

Kaplan, J. (2015). Humans need not apply: A guide to wealth and work in the age of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

Morgan, F. E., Boudreaux, B., Lohn, A. J., Ashby, M., Curriden, C., Klima, K., & Grossman, D. (2020). Military applications of artificial intelligence: ethical concerns in an uncertain world. RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE SANTA MONICA CA SANTA MONICA United States.

Russell, S. (2015). Ethics of artificial intelligence. Nature, 521(7553), 415-416.

Thomas, M. (2019, January 14). Six dangerous risks of artificial intelligence. Built In.

https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/risks-of-artificial-intelligence

Wisskirchen, G., Biacabe, B. T., Bormann, U., Muntz, A., Niehaus, G., Soler, G. J., & von Brauchitsch, B. (2017). Artificial intelligence and robotics and their impact on the workplace. IBA Global Employment Institute, 11(5), 49-67.

Zheng, N. (2019). The new era of artificial intelligence. Chinese journal of intelligent science and technologies, 1(1), 1.

Reflection Questions

1. Provide one example of a place where you have used rhetorical appeals or source material to support your argument. How does this enhance your essay?

I used rhetorical appeal in the paper by offering statistics on the possible rate of job loss in the future because of the development of AI and robotics. The use of this rhetorical appeal makes my arguments credible thus enhancing my essay.

2. Touchstone 4 is a revision of this draft. What kind of feedback would be helpful for you as you revise? Are there parts of your draft that you’re uncertain of?

I would like feedback on the layout of my arguments, that is, is there a way I could have organized them to make them more relevant? Feedback on the entire paper will be appreciated to ensure that I revise properly when the time comes.

4/5
Proficient

Touchstone 3.2 Rubric and Feedback
Rubric Category	Feedback	Score (acceptable, needs improvement etc.)
Argument Development and Support	You need to identify a thesis statement. It is not clear how all of your supporting information connects back to a thesis statement. At one point, you are against AI, then for AI, and then against AI. The development of your argument can be significantly strengthened by adjusting the organization of your document, as noted below.	20/40 Needs improvement
Research	You have some helpful source information in your text. Make sure to review APA-style in-text citations. The sources in this document are not cited properly. See my notes directly on your text.	23/30 Acceptable
Organization	The most important way to revise this document will be to adjust your approach to organizing the essay. At times, paragraphs become very long and other paragraphs repeat similar themes to previous paragraphs. Break down your supporting information by topic and explore one topic at a time.	8/15 Needs improvement
Style	The style of writing in this document is generally clear with some room for improvement in word usage.	4/5 Proficient
Conventions	There are a few errors in grammar, punctuation and usage. You need to use commas then dashes.		4/5 Proficient
Reflection	You answer all of the questions thoroughly, providing insights, observations, and examples in your responses. You consistently exceed the length guidelines for your responses.
Overall Score and Feedback: 63/100 Abel, This is a good start. When building an argumentative essay, you will begin with a strong thesis statement. The thesis statement will be the base of the essay. The rest of the essay will be the main points that support the thesis statement. At the end of the essay, a good counter argument will strengthen the essay. The conclusion paragraph will recap the thesis statement and main points. I would suggest reworking the essay. The essay seems to be heavily dependent on quotes. I would rephrase the quotes into your own words so that the information flows within the paragraph. Take the material you’ve written in this essay and begin to organize it. Brainstorm the reasons for why AI should not be used and identify them clearly. Then, group related evidence with each reason. See the example structure of an argument essay here: https://depts.washington.edu/owrc/Handouts/Argumentative%20Paper%20Format Dr. Lewis

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Logan Stevens

English Composition II

December 22, 2019

Where’s the Beef?: Ethics and the Beef Industry

Americans love their beef. According to a 2005 study on beef consumption, between

1994 and 1998, Americans consumed an average of 67 pounds of beef per year, the equivalent of

approximately three ounces of beef per day (Davis & Lin, 2005). Despite this high rate of

consumption, in recent years people in the United States have grown increasingly concerned

about where their food comes from, how it is produced, and what environmental and health

impacts result from its production. These concerns can be distilled into two ethical questions: is

the treatment of cattle humane and is there a negative environmental impact of beef production?

For many, the current methods of industrial beef production and consumption do not meet

personal ethical or environmental standards. Therefore, for ethical and environmental reasons,

people should limit their beef consumption, and the beef that they do eat should be humanely

raised, locally sourced, and grass-fed.

The first ethical question to consider is the humane treatment of domesticated cattle. It

has been demonstrated in multiple scientific studies that animals feel physical pain as well as

emotional states such as fear (Grandin & Smith, 2004, para. 2). In Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (CAFOs), better known as “factory farms” due to their industrialized attitude toward

Comment [SL1]: Hi Logan! This is a great title.

Comment [SL2]: Good use of data as an effective hook
statement.

Comment [SL3]: This is a very strong, well-formed thesis
statement that takes a clear stance on a debatable topic.
Well done.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

cattle production, cattle are often confined to unnaturally small areas; fed a fattening, grain-based

diet; and given a constant stream of antibiotics to help combat disease and infection. In his essay,

“An Animal’s Place,” Michael Pollan (2002) states that beef cattle often live “standing ankle

deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick” (para. 40). Pollan not only describes

Americans’ discomfort with this aspect of meat production. He also notes that they are removed

from and uncomfortable with the physical and psychological aspects of killing animals for food

as well. He simplifies the actions chosen by many Americans: “we either look away—or stop

eating animals” (para. 32). This decision to look away has enabled companies to treat and

slaughter their animals in ways that cause true suffering for the animals. If Americans want to

continue to eat beef, alternative, ethical methods of cattle production must be considered.

In addition to the inhumane treatment of animals, CAFOs also raise ethical questions in

terms of the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Because cattle raised on factory

farms are primarily “grain-fed,” meaning that their diet largely consists of corn and/or soy rather

than grass or other forage, huge amounts of grain are required to provide the necessary feed. This

grain comes primarily from “monocropping,” an agricultural practice that involves planting the

same crop year after year in the same field. Although rotating crops to different fields each

season helps to retain the natural balance of nutrients in the soil, mono-cropping is considered to

be more efficient on an industrial scale, providing larger yields of grain even though it also

requires the use of more chemical fertilizers to provide adequate nutrients for the plants.

According to Palmer (2010), these chemicals can leach into the groundwater, polluting both the

surrounding land and the water supply.

The emphasis on a grain-based diet, and therefore a reliance on mono-cropping, also

contributes to the inefficient use of available land. The vast majority of grain production (75-

Comment [SL4]: This is a much better way to connect your
ideas regarding the physical and psychological aspects of
killing animals and how Americans deal with them.

Comment [SL5]: Yes!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

90% depending on whether corn or soy) goes to feeding animals rather than humans, and cattle

alone account for a significant share. As a result, a majority of land available for agriculture also

goes to producing livestock, whether actually housing the animals or growing grain to feed them

(Lappé, 2010, p. 22). This inefficiency means that a disproportionate amount of agricultural,

food, and monetary resources are poured into a type of cattle production which has been

demonstrated to be inhumane and to have negative environmental

consequences.

Other environmental issues include the amount of manure produced by factory farmed

cattle. Traditionally, cattle graze a large area and distribute their waste accordingly. In contained

situations such as CAFOs, however, animal waste builds up in a relatively small area and the

runoff from rainstorms can potentially contaminate the groundwater (Sager, 2008, para. 7).

Furthermore, because closely contained animals are more prone to disease, factory-farmed cattle

are routinely treated with antibiotics, which can also leach into the local ground and water,

potentially affecting humans. According to Brian Palmer, a man who has done extensive

research on the topic (2010), “Based on some estimates, we spend more than $4 billion annually

trying to clean up CAFO manure runoff. In addition, the long-term, low-dose antibiotics CAFOs

give livestock can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, further undermining our dwindling supply

of useful medicines” (para. 12). The negative impacts of antibiotic runoff, manure

contamination, fossil fuel use, and mono-cropping indicate that sourcing beef from CAFOs is

neither an ethically responsible nor an environmentally sustainable decision.

An alternative to the grain-fed cattle raised in CAFOs is cattle which are allowed to range

and forage for grass and other greenery as their primary form of nourishment. This “grass-fed”

beef is, almost by definition, more humane than grain-fed beef because the animals are allowed

to move freely and eat a more natural diet. There is also some evidence that grass-fed beef is

Comment [SL6]: Great job tying these ideas together here.

Comment [SL7]: Much better.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

healthier than grain-fed beef for the humans who consume it: it is higher in cancer fighting,

vitamin-A producing beta-carotene; it is much lower in fat, including having half the saturated

fat as grain-fed beef; and it contains many more omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid

(CLA), which prevents cancer growth, and vitamin E, which prevents cancer as well as heart

disease (Ruechel, 2006, p. 235). Due to the benefits of a grass-based diet, as well as the benefits

of being raised in pastures rather than feedlots, grass-fed cattle themselves tend to be healthier.

Taken altogether, grass-fed cattle production is better physically for both the cows and humans.

It is important to note that grass-fed does not inherently mean organic, which is a

separate, legal category with its own requirements. It is possible to find grain-fed beef from

cattle raised or slaughtered in inhumane conditions that is labeled “organic” because the cattle

were fed organic grain, whereas grass-fed beef may come from cattle that have been raised on

land that does not meet the requirements for organic labeling (Sager, 2008, paras.10-15).

However, in a guide to raising grass-fed cattle, Julius Ruechel (2006), notes that “Raising [cattle]

in a pasture reduces or even eliminates the use of toxic pharmaceutical pesticides to control

parasites and all but eliminates residues of high doses of antibiotics used on cattle in feedlot

conditions” (p. 236). Even though it may not always be organic, choosing grass-fed beef reduces

or eliminates many of the environmental and ethical concerns raised by factory farming.

Grass-fed beef also comes with some benefits to the environment. As noted earlier, most

grain-fed beef relies on environmentally damaging mono-cropping. This problem is not an issue

with grass-fed beef, which relies primarily on forage and does not require the same crop to be

planted year after year. Further, if the grass-fed beef that one eats comes from local farms and

ranches, it lessens the environmental impact, whereas the long-distance shipping required by

factory farming practices consumes fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming. Lappé

Comment [SL8]: Interesting!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

(2010) explains the massive effects that industrial food production has on the environment,

noting that throughout the life cycle of production, processing, distribution, consumption, and

waste, our food chain may be responsible for as much as a third of the factors causing global

climate change (p. 11). However, as Pollan (2002) argues by the end of his essay, farms which

focus on traditional agricultural practices are both more humane and more environmentally

friendly than CAFOs. Ultimately, food decisions should be made with an eye to sustainability

and humane treatment, ethical stances that are both supported by local farms focused on

sustainable diversity.

Despite grass-fed beef scoring better on an environmental impact level than grain-fed

beef, it is still not perfect, a fact that highlights the problems of eating beef at all if one is

concerned with environmental ethics. Most notably, to assuage Americans’ rapacious appetites

for beef, landowners in South America often clear cut rainforest in order to create grazing land.

“The realities of the global market are a great temptation to many: Where land is cheap and the

demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local economy may respond by cutting down a

forest to create pasture or by planting grass where millet or rice has been grown” (Sager, 2008,

para. 21). This practice has negative environmental impacts on the local landscape and the planet

as a whole, since losing vast swathes of rainforest increases the amount of carbon dioxide in our

atmosphere, contributing to ozone depletion. In their article for Science magazine, scholars

Molly Brown and Christopher Funk (2008) examine how climate change will affect food

security and find that people in the developing world are at particular risk for a lack of food due

to climate change. Mono-cropping and mono-grazing practices, designed to snag American

dollars in the short term and not to sustain the local population in the long term, will only

exacerbate these effects (p. 580–81). Furthermore, the rise in the market for grass-fed beef has

Comment [SL9]: Great use of signal phrasing here.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

meant that much grass-fed beef is shipped to the U.S. from South America and Australia. Even if

these animals are raised in a humane and sustainable manner, the long distances they travel to

reach American bellies has significant, negative environmental impact, again due to the use of

fossil fuels (Sager, 2008, para. 21). This reinforces the importance of buying beef which has

been locally produced, reducing the impact of long-distance shipping and potential mono-grazing

in other countries.

No matter how ethically sourced, one can still identify some serious ethical problems

with the raising and slaughter of beef, and those ethical quandaries are passed on to consumers.

While grass-fed beef is clearly an ethical improvement over grain-fed beef in terms of humane

treatment and potentially in terms of environmental impact, “No matter how you slice it, eating

beef will never be the greenest thing you do in a day. Scientists at Japan’s National Institute of

Livestock and Grassland Science estimate that producing 1 kilogram of beef emits more

greenhouse gas than driving 155 miles” (Palmer, 2010, para. 2). A kilogram of beef is about the

equivalent of two generously sized rib-eye steaks. Multiply this by the amount of beef consumed

by Americans in a year and the impact of these greenhouse gasses cannot be ignored. However,

as compelling as this argument is, it is not reasonable to expect that Americans will stop eating

beef altogether. In the short term, it is more practical to encourage Americans to eat humanely

raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, which will ultimately lessen the ethical and environmental

consequences.

If consumers are truly concerned about the ethical treatment of animals and the

environmental impact of agricultural production, then the logical action is to stop eating meat

altogether. If Americans are not willing to do this, then the next best action is to focus on

humanely raised, locally sourced, grass-fed beef, while acknowledging that this may affect our

Comment [SL10]: Great concluding sentence.

Comment [SL11]: Good. You’re not dismissing the counter-
arguments, but you’re indicating that your argument is
more persuasive. Well done.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

beef consumption at many levels. Pollan (2002) concludes his essay by acknowledging that more

humane treatment of animals would likely cause higher prices and lower consumption. However,

he states, “maybe when we did eat animals, we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and

respect they deserve” (para. 82). This emphasis on the respect for and well-being of the animals

cultivated for food benefits both the animals and the consumer, acknowledging the desire to be

true omnivores while satisfying our need for ethical clarity.

Comment [SL12]: Very good concluding statement!

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

References

Brown, M., & Funk, C. (2008). Food security under climate change. Science, 319

(5863), 580-581. doi: 10.1126/science.1154102

Cook, C. (2004). Diet for a dead planet: How the food industry is killing us. New York,

NY: New Press.

Davis, C., & Lin, B.H. (2005). Factors affecting U.S. beef consumption. Retrieved from

https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=37389.

Grandin, T. & Smith. G. (2004). Animal welfare and humane slaughter. Grandin.com.

Retrieved from http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html

Lappé, A. (2010). Diet for a hot planet: The climate crisis at the end of your fork. New

York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Palmer, B. (2010, December 21). Pass on grass: Is grass-fed beef better for the

environment? Slate. Retrieved from

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/12/pa

ss_ on_grass.htm

Pollan, M. (2002, November 10). An animal’s place. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html

Ruechel, J. (2006). Grass-fed Cattle: How to produce and market natural beef. North

Adams, MA. Storey Publishing.

Sager, G. (2008). Where’s your beef from?: Grass-fed Beef: Is it green, humane and

healthful? Natural Life Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0812/grass-fed_beef_green_humane_healthful.htm

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Reflection Questions:

1. How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you
use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)

I spent about an hour and a half revising my draft. I spent a lot of time going over each of the
critiques I was given, and thinking about how I can implement those in a way that will truly
make my essay better. Creating unity and coherence was the most satisfying to me, because
it allowed me to put everything together in a way that made me proud.

2. List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What

problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity, cohesion,
rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive
feedback. (4-5 sentences)

One I came up with was moving the paragraph on how the production of meat can raise
questions in terms of environmental impacts. This helped increase the flow and effectiveness
of how the information was being presented. Another critique I made was including a more
focused thesis statement. This helped include all of the points I made. Another revision I
made was adding more appeals to my claim that chemicals can leach into the groundwater,
polluting both the surrounding land and the water supply. This helped add legitimacy to my
argument.

3. What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your

understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this course? (2-3
sentences)

I learned that writing a truly good Argumentative Essay is way more than just writing and
research. You need to dig deep into your sources, and really learn about both sides of the
arguments are you taking on. The entire process is important to make your argument a solid
and supported one.

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING

Final Research Essay Rubric and Feedback

Rubric
Category

Feedback Score
(acceptable, needs
improvement etc.)

Revising

There was a clear effort to adjust your previous
draft. You effectively revised the organization of
your essay to gain a better focus on the
argument being presented.

35/40

Editing

You did a great job strengthening your
arguments by editing some of the word choices
throughout your essay.

38/40

Source
Integration

You were able to introduce your sources
effectively and seamlessly using a variety of
different types of citation.

19/20

Cohesion

Updating the flow of your argument throughout
your essay has really made it a more effective
argumentative essay. Well done!

18/20

Conventions
and
Proofreading

You have done a great job ensuring there are no
major convention errors.

19/20

Reflection You demonstrate thoughtful reflection,

consistently including insights, observations, and
examples in your responses.

10/10

Overall Score and Feedback: 139/150
Logan – You have written a very thought-provoking and well-researched essay. You use
relevant information from credible sources in order to support your argument. You
strike a good balance between these sources and your own discussion, allowing the
reader to see how you are using this information to further your own, unique
argument. You write very clearly, linking your ideas and paragraphs together in a very
logical and smooth manner. You remain consistently focused on your argument
throughout. I really enjoyed reading your essay! Nicely done!