Skip to content

Analysis

Due: Nov 3, 2024 by 11:59 p.m. Points: 120

Write the "Analysis" section of your perspective article, articulating and defending your unique viewpoint on your chosen topic.

Instructions

  1. Length: Approximately 1 to 1.5 pages.
  2. Content Requirements:
    • Clearly articulate your perspective or argument
    • Provide evidence and reasoning to support your viewpoint
    • Address potential counterarguments or limitations
    • Discuss the implications and significance of your perspective
  3. Writing Style:
    • Use clear, precise language appropriate for an academic audience
    • Maintain an objective tone while presenting your argument
    • Use proper citations in APA format

Rubric

Your analysis section will be evaluated based on the following criteria.

Criterion Points Description
Clarity of Perspective 30 Clear articulation of a specific, debatable perspective relevant to computational biology
Evidence and Reasoning 25 Strong support for the perspective with relevant research, logical arguments, and examples
Counterarguments 20 Thoughtful consideration and address of potential counterarguments or limitations
Implications and Significance 15 Insightful discussion of the potential impact and importance of the perspective
Organization and Flow 15 Logical structure and smooth transitions between ideas
Writing Quality 10 Clear, concise prose with appropriate academic tone and minimal errors
Use of Sources 5 Appropriate integration and citation of relevant, peer-reviewed sources

Detailed Rubric Breakdown

  1. Clarity of Perspective (30 points)
    • 30-25: Perspective is exceptionally clear, specific, and relevant to computational biology
    • 24-19: Perspective is clear and relevant, with minor areas for improvement in specificity
    • 18-13: Perspective is somewhat clear but may lack specificity or relevance
    • 12-0: Perspective is unclear, overly broad, or not relevant to computational biology
  2. Evidence and Reasoning (25 points)
    • 25-21: Exceptional use of evidence and reasoning, with a strong connection to the perspective
    • 20-16: Good use of evidence and reasoning, with clear connections to the perspective
    • 15-11: Adequate evidence and reasoning, but connections to the perspective may be weak
    • 10-0: Insufficient or irrelevant evidence, poor reasoning
  3. Counterarguments (20 points)
    • 20-17: Thorough and thoughtful address of potential counterarguments or limitations
    • 16-13: Good consideration of counterarguments, with minor areas for improvement
    • 12-9: Some counterarguments addressed, but treatment may be superficial
    • 8-0: Counterarguments ignored or inadequately addressed
  4. Implications and Significance (15 points)
    • 15-13: Insightful and comprehensive discussion of implications and significance
    • 12-10: Good discussion of implications and significance, with some depth
    • 9-7: Basic discussion of implications and significance, lacking depth
    • 6-0: Little or no discussion of implications and significance
  5. Organization and Flow (15 points)
    • 15-13: Exceptional organization with seamless flow between ideas
    • 12-10: Good organization and flow, with minor issues
    • 9-7: Adequate organization, but flow between ideas may be choppy
    • 6-0: Poor organization and flow, ideas are difficult to follow
  6. Writing Quality (10 points)
    • 10-9: Excellent writing quality with clear, concise prose and appropriate academic tone
    • 8-7: Good writing quality with minor errors or awkward phrasing
    • 6-5: Adequate writing quality, but with noticeable errors or inconsistencies in tone
    • 4-0: Poor writing quality with numerous errors or inappropriate tone
  7. Use of Sources (5 points)
    • 5: Excellent integration of relevant, peer-reviewed sources with proper citations
    • 4: Good use of sources with minor issues in integration or citation
    • 3: Adequate use of sources, but may rely too heavily on a single source or have citation errors
    • 2-0: Poor use of sources, lack of peer-reviewed sources, or major citation errors

Tips for Success

Remember, the goal is not just to state your viewpoint, but to persuade your readers of its validity and importance through careful argumentation and evidence.

  • Start by clearly defining your perspective before diving into supporting evidence
  • Use topic sentences to guide your reader through your argument
  • Ensure each paragraph contributes directly to supporting your main perspective
  • When addressing counterarguments, be fair in your representation of opposing views
  • Use concrete examples or case studies to illustrate your points
  • Review and revise your work, paying attention to the logical flow of your argument