22 Jun Argument – Is there a thesis? Is A
Argument – Is there a thesis? Is Argument – Is there a thesis? Is it original/sophisticated? Clear, nuanced – not just ‘yes or ‘no Fairly clear, has a thesis No thesis or unclear
Logic – is there a well-developed argument? Excellent, >3 relevant supporting reasons Some leaps/gaps in logic Repeated leaps in logic
Organization – Is the organization clear and logical? Well-organized Some digressions but clear Poorly organized
Visual analysis – Does the visual evidence support the argument? Critical and thorough demonstration of close looking Some relevant visual analysis Insufficient attention to objectConsider your academic studies, and personal and professional experiences to address the following two questions:
-What information do you think should be provided to a surgical patient prior to a surgical procedure?
-Do you healthcare professionals harm patients by causing anxiety and stress when they tell them about the risks associated with a surgical procedure? Why or why not?
Remember, your response to the SPARK should be posted by itself, and does not require any of the readings. However, external sources as additional support are welcome.
To prepare for this weeks Discussion, review this weeks Learning Resources, paying particular attention to the Emanuel article, “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?”
Also, review the Macklin article from Week 1, “Applying the Four Priniciples” before preparing and posting your discussion response.
By Day 4, respond to the following Park 2: PROMPT:
Post an explanation of how informed consent for medical research (clinical trials) differs from the patients consent to treat used in health care practice (e.g., medical treatment or surgery). Explain why you think this difference exists? Provide at least one clear example of how informed consent could be used in medical research and one example of how it is used in health care practice. Then provide an example of each of the four ethical principals in action in research. Use your textbook, the articles in the Learning Resources, and/or other credible resour
Textual evidence – How thorough was the research? Does the evidence support the argument? Relevant quotes from primary materials, demonstrate knowledge, critical reading of key secondary sources Some relevant citations of primary and secondary sources Insufficient textual evidence
Mechanics and clarity – Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? Are ideas expressed clearly and elegantly? No errors, clear and elegant word choice, sentence structure Minor errors, clear expression ideas Repeated errors and unclear expression ideas
Acknowledges counter-arguments Acknowledges and responds to potential objections Doesnt do this Doesnt do this
Five questions to ask yourself:
1. Does the paper have a thesis – a clearly defined argument/point or problem that it presents? Is this thesis clearly defined and specific?
2. Does the paper make sufficient use of visual evidence?
3. Are there gaps in the argument? Is the paper well-structured? Are there enough signposts and transition sentences to help the reader know Argument – Is there a thesis? Is it original/sophisticated? Clear, nuanced – not just ‘yes or ‘no Fairly clear, has a thesis No thesis or unclear
Logic – is there a well-developed argument? Excellent, >3 relevant supporting reasons Some leaps/gaps in logic Repeated leaps in logic
Organization – Is the organization clear and logical? Well-organized Some digressions but clear Poorly organized
Visual analysis – Does the visual evidence support the argument? Critical and thorough demonstration of close looking Some relevant visual analysis Insufficient attention to object
Textual evidence – How thorough was the research? Does the evidence support the argument? Relevant quotes from primary materials, demonstrate knowledge, critical reading of key secondary sources Some relevant citations of primary and secondary sources Insufficient textual evidence
Mechanics and clarity – Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? Are ideas expressed clearly and elegantly? No errors, clear and elegant word choice, sentence structure Minor errors, clear expression ideas Repeated errors and unclear expression ideas
Acknowledges counter-arguments Acknowledges and responds to potential objections Doesnt do this Doesnt do this
Five questions to ask yourself:
1. Does the paper have a thesis – a clearly defined argument/point or problem that it presents? Is this thesis clearly defined and specific?
2. Does the paper make sufficient use of visual evidence?
3. Are there gaps in the argument? Is the paper well-structured? Are there enough signposts and transition sentences to help the reader know Argument – Is there a thesis? Is it original/sophisticated? Clear, nuanced – not just ‘yes or ‘no Fairly clear, has a thesis No thesis or unclear
Logic – is there a well-developed argument? Excellent, >3 relevant supporting reasons Some leaps/gaps in logic Repeated leaps in logic
Organization – Is the organization clear and logical? Well-organized Some digressions but clear Poorly organized
Visual analysis – Does the visual evidence support the argument? Critical and thorough demonstration of close looking Some relevant visual analysis Insufficient attention to object
Textual evidence – How thorough was the research? Does the evidence support the argument? Relevant quotes from primary materials, demonstrate knowledge, critical reading of key secondary sources Some relevant citations of primary and secondary sources Insufficient textual evidence
Mechanics and clarity – Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? Are ideas expressed clearly and elegantly? No errors, clear and elegant word choice, sentence structure Minor errors, clear expression ideas Repeated errors and unclear expression ideas
Acknowledges counter-arguments Acknowledges and responds to potential objections Doesnt do this Doesnt do this
Five questions to ask yourself:
1. Does the paper have a thesis – a clearly defined argument/point or problem that it presents? Is this thesis clearly defined and specific?
2. Does the paper make sufficient use of visual evidence?
3. Are there gaps in the argument? Is the paper well-structured? Are there enough signposts and transition sentences to help the reader know what to expect?
4. Do you hear the authors voice and opinions? (Note: this does NOT mean you give your opinion about quality OR use the first person. I dont care whether you think the painting is beautiful or a masterpiece, show me you can analyze the painting!)
5. Does the paper present a foregone conclusion – is it intellectually rigorous enough? Stating something is a “masterpiece” is NOT a thesis.
Formatting
Use a 12-point font, double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. As long as you are consistent, I dont mind what style of citation you use. Just make sure you give me the authors name, title and date of work and the page number you are referencing. Remember it is better to rephrase a secondary source and footnote it, integrating it into your own prose then the present a ‘collage of direct quotes. This assignment is about your analysis so footnotes should reflect research done on context but let your own analysis drive the paper. All works cited should also be listed at the end of your paper in alphabetical order. You should include images of any work discussed – labeled with the artist, title, medium and year.
Sample footnote / works cited.
Simon Schama, The Embarassment of Riches, London: Fontana, 1993: 223.
Schama, Simon. The Embarassment of Riches. London: Fontana, 1993.
Sample illustration label:
Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on canvas, 1610/11.Argument – Is there a thesis? Is it original/sophisticated? Clear, nuanced – not just ‘yes or ‘no Fairly clear, has a thesis No thesis or unclear
Logic – is there a well-developed argument? Excellent, >3 relevant supporting reasons Some leaps/gaps in logic Repeated leaps in logic
Organization – Is the organization clear and logical? Well-organized Some digressions but clear Poorly organized
Visual analysis – Does the visual evidence support the argument? Critical and thorough demonstration of close looking Some relevant visual analysis Insufficient attention to object
Textual evidence – How thorough was the research? Does the evidence support the argument? Relevant quotes from primary materials, demonstrate knowledge, critical reading of key secondary sources Some relevant citations of primary and secondary sources Insufficient textual evidence
Mechanics and clarity – Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? Are ideas expressed clearly and elegantly? No errors, clear and elegant word choice, sentence structure Minor errors, clear expression ideas Repeated errors and unclear expression ideas
Acknowledges counter-arguments Acknowledges and responds to potential objections Doesnt do this Doesnt do this
Five questions to ask yourself:
1. Does the paper have a thesis – a clearly defined argument/point or problem that it presents? Is this thesis clearly defined and specific?
2. Does the paper make sufficient use of visual evidence?
3. Are there gaps in the argument? Is the paper well-structured? Are there enough signposts and transition sentences to help the reader know what to expect?
4. Do you hear the authors voice and opinions? (Note: this does NOT mean you give your opinion about quality OR use the first person. I dont care whether you think the painting is beautiful or a masterpiece, show me you can analyze the painting!)
5. Does the paper present a foregone conclusion – is it intellectually rigorous enough? Stating something is a “masterpiece” is NOT a thesis.
Formatting
Use a 12-point font, double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. As long as you are consistent, I dont mind what style of citation you use. Just make sure you give me the authors name, title and date of work and the page number you are referencing. Remember it is better to rephrase a secondary source and footnote it, integrating it into your own prose then the present a ‘collage of direct quotes. This assignment is about your analysis so footnotes should reflect research done on context but let your own analysis drive the paper. All works cited should also be listed at the end of your paper in alphabetical order. You should include images of any work discussed – labeled with the artist, title, medium and year.
Sample footnote / works cited.
Simon Schama, The Embarassment of Riches, London: Fontana, 1993: 223.
Schama, Simon. The Embarassment of Riches. London: Fontana, 1993.
Sample illustration label:
Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on canvas, 1610/11.what to expect?
4. Do you hear the authors voice and opinions? (Note: this does NOT mean you give your opinion about quality OR use the first person. I dont care whether you think the painting is beautiful or a masterpiece, show me you can analyze the painting!)
5. Does the paper present a foregone conclusion – is it intellectually rigorous enough? Stating something is a “masterpiece” is NOT a thesis.
Formatting
Use a 12-point font, double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. As long as you are consistent, I dont mind what style of citation you use. Just make sure you give me the authors name, title and date of work and the page number you are referencing. Remember it is better to rephrase a secondary source and footnote it, integrating it into your own prose then the present a ‘collage of direct quotes. This assignment is about your analysis so footnotes should reflect research done on context but let your own analysis drive the paper. All works cited should also be listed at the end of your paper in alphabetical order. You should include images of any work discussed – labeled with the artist, title, medium and year.
Sample footnote / works cited.
Simon Schama, The Embarassment of Riches, London: Fontana, 1993: 223.
Schama, Simon. The Embarassment of Riches. London: Fontana, 1993.
Sample illustration label:
Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on canvas, 1610/11.what to expect?
4. Do you hear the authors voice and opinions? (Note: this does NOT mean you give your opinion about quality OR use the first person. I dont care whether you think the painting is beautiful or a masterpiece, show me you can analyze the painting!)
5. Does the paper present a foregone conclusion – is it intellectually rigorous enough? Stating something is a “masterpiece” is NOT a thesis.
Formatting
Use a 12-point font, double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. As long as you are consistent, I dont mind what style of citation you use. Just make sure you give me the authors name, title and date of work and the page number you are referencing. Remember it is better to rephrase a secondary source and footnote it, integrating it into your own prose then the present a ‘collage of direct quotes. This assignment is about your analysis so footnotes should reflect research done on context but let your own analysis drive the paper. All works cited should also be listed at the end of your paper in alphabetical order. You should include images of any work discussed – labeled with the artist, title, medium and year.
Sample footnote / works cited.
Simon Schama, The Embarassment of Riches, London: Fontana, 1993: 223.
Schama, Simon. The Embarassment of Riches. London: Fontana, 1993.
Sample illustration label:
Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on canvas, 1610/11.it original/sophisticated? Clear, nuanced – not just ‘yes or ‘no Fairly clear, has a thesis No thesis or unclear
Logic – is there a well-developed argument? Excellent, >3 relevant supporting reasons Some leaps/gaps in logic Repeated leaps in logic
Organization – Is the organization clear and logical? Well-organized Some digressions but clear Poorly organized
Visual analysis – Does the visual evidence support the argument? Critical and thorough demonstration of close looking Some relevant visual analysis Insufficient attention to object
Textual evidence – How thorough was the research? Does the evidence support the argument? Relevant quotes from primary materials, demonstrate knowledge, critical reading of key secondary sources Some relevant citations of primary and secondary sources Insufficient textual evidence
Mechanics and clarity – Are spelling, grammar and punctuation correct? Are ideas expressed clearly and elegantly? No errors, clear and elegant word choice, sentence structure Minor errors, clear expression ideas Repeated errors and unclear expression ideas
Acknowledges counter-arguments Acknowledges and responds to potential objections Doesnt do this Doesnt do this
Five questions to ask yourself:
1. Does the paper have a thesis – a clearly defined argument/point or problem that it presents? Is this thesis clearly defined and specific?
2. Does the paper make sufficient use of visual evidence?
3. Are there gaps in the argument? Is the paper well-structured? Are there enough signposts and transition sentences to help the reader know what to expect?
4. Do you hear the authors voice and opinions? (Note: this does NOT mean you give your opinion about quality OR use the first person. I dont care whether you think the painting is beautiful or a masterpiece, show me you can analyze the painting!)
5. Does the paper present a foregone conclusion – is it intellectually rigorous enough? Stating something is a “masterpiece” is NOT a thesis.
Formatting
Use a 12-point font, double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. As long as you are consistent, I dont mind what style of citation you use. Just make sure you give me the authors name, title and date of work and the page number you are referencing. Remember it is better to rephrase a secondary source and footnote it, integrating it into your own prose then the present a ‘collage of direct quotes. This assignment is about your analysis so footnotes should reflect research done on context but let your own analysis drive the paper. All works cited should also be listed at the end of your paper in alphabetical order. You should include images of any work discussed – labeled with the artist, title, medium and year.
Sample footnote / works cited.
Simon Schama, The Embarassment of Riches, London: Fontana, 1993: 223.
Schama, Simon. The Embarassment of Riches. London: Fontana, 1993.
Sample illustration label:
Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on canvas, 1610/11.
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.