Analysis Paper

Analysis papers. You will answer all questions prompts and each question takes about
350-450 words to answer. Each question includes a detailed rubric for scoring. Please
read the rubric to know exactly what is being asked of your answer and
you must follow APA formate. At the end, I shared a sample student paper that
received a perfect score on a similar assignment in a different class. Note how
Johnson responds to each part of the question, includes evidence from the
debate or article, and includes good citation.
Question 1
Taking the example of Haka performance by Māori people, explain three
characteristics of primary oral cultures aka orality-based thoughts of expression.
Add, why the oral cultures like this continue to be significant in a society
dominated by literate cultures.
Unforgettable Emotional War Dance Wedding Ceremony – The HAKA, New Zealand
Grading Rubric
○ The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of
oral cultures. The characteristics are relevant and provides sufficient
explanation. The discussion of significance of oral cultures is clear and
concise and well supported by the analysis from the lecture.
○ The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of
oral cultures. Most of the discussion of the characteristics is adequate, with
one needing more support and/or clarification. The discussion of the
significance needs more substance from the lecture.
○ The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of
oral cultures, but the relevance could be better explained. Most of the
discussion of the characteristics need more support and/or clarification. The
discussion of the significance needs more substance from the lecture.
○ The answer doesn’t describe the characteristics of oral cultures correctly. The
relevance of most of the characteristics is inadequate, lacking almost any
support and/or clarification. The discussion of the significance is unclear and
needs significantly more development from the lecture.
Question 2
Taking an example of Donald Trump’s speech from the lecture, explain three
characteristics of primary oral cultures aka orality-based thoughts of expression. Also,
drawing from the analysis that we discussed in the lecture, provide a possible
rationale why his speeches may not make sense to some but make perfect sense
to others.
Donald Trump’s Rambling Sentence on July 21, 2015

MASH-UP: Trump’s al-Baghdadi Speech & Obama’s Bin Laden Speech

Grading Rubric
The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of oral
cultures. The characteristics are relevant and provides sufficient explanation. The
discussion of rationale is clear and concise and well supported by the analysis
from the lecture.
The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of oral
cultures. Most of the discussion of the characteristics is adequate, with one
needing more support and/or clarification. The discussion of the significance
needs more substance from the lecture.
The answer provides a correct and concise description of characteristics of oral
cultures, but the relevance could be better explained. Most of the discussion of
the characteristics need more support and/or clarification. The discussion of the
significance needs more substance from the lecture.
The answer doesn’t describe the characteristics of oral cultures correctly. The
relevance of most of the characteristics is inadequate, lacking almost any support
and/or clarification. The discussion of the significance is unclear and needs
significantly more development from the lecture.
Question 3
Define high uncertainty to low uncertainty of a relationship and provide an example of a
relationship that moved from high uncertainty to low uncertainty because of
self-disclosure. In your example, explain how the relationship existed during high
uncertainty, how disclosure occurred along the dimensions discussed, and how the
relationship existed in low uncertainty.
○ The answer provides a clear and concise description of the high
uncertainty relationship. The application of each dimension is
correct and provides sufficient discussion. The discussion of the
low uncertainty relationship is clear and concise.
○ The answer describes the high uncertainty relationship, but could
explain it more. Most of the discussion of the dimensions is
adequate and provides appropriate and sufficient examples from
the study, with one or two needing more support and/or
clarification. The discussion of the low uncertainty relationship
needs more discussion.
○ The answer describes the high uncertainty relationship, but could
explain it more. Some of the discussion of the dimensions is
adequate and provides appropriate and sufficient examples from
the study, with a few needing more support and/or clarification. The
discussion of the low uncertainty relationship needs more
discussion.
○ The answer doesn’t describe the high uncertainty relationship
clearly. The application of most of the dimensions is inadequate,
lacking almost any support and/or clarification. The discussion of
the low uncertainty relationship is unclear and needs significantly
more development.
Perfect Example for analytic paper who got perfect score
Questions
1. Both articles assigned for 2/11 argue for policy action. Pick one article from
2/11and discuss it in terms of the policy topoi discussed in lecture and the
textbook (2/9 and 2/11). Next, evaluate the policy case as strong or weak.
Explain your evaluation by referencing the lectures and the textbook (2/9 and
2/11).
In the article written by Hans A. von Spakovsky titled “”Remain-in-Mexico” Policy Is
Needed to Reduce Illegal Immigration”, Spakovsky discusses the Remain in Mexico
policy created by former President Trump. He states that the policy helped stop
undocumented immigrants from disappearing into the United States after being
apprehended, instead being returned to their home country until their case can be
processed. The government has blocked this program and is reverting back to the old
ways of ‘catch and release’. According to Spakovsky, the problem is that the US is
taking too weak of a stance on undocumented immigrants entering the country and are
choosing to turn a blind eye, allowing undocumented immigrants into the country and
then releasing them into the United States. He states that Trump’s policies broke the
status quo, and now we are reverting to old policies that are inefficient. He is also
categorizing it as a quantitative and a qualitative issue, meaning that a lot of
undocumented immigrants do not cross the border through ports of entry and never
return back for their court hearings, as well as that it is a bad issue because is just
continues the process of undocumented immigrants getting away with illegal actions.
Spakovsky puts the blame on liberal courts who are far too lenient towards
undocumented immigrants because they struck down the “Remain-in-Mexico” policy in
exchange for pre-Trump era policies. The causes of the problem are both formal and
informal; according to Spakovsky the court should not have been able to insert it’s
opinion into US foreign policy and completely get rid of the “Remain-in-Mexico” policy,
as well as the attitudes surrounding immigration need to change because some want
“open borders and no enforcement of our immigration laws”. The plan put forth by
Trump did solve part of the problem and deter many from immigrating illegally to the US,
while the plan from the Obama era encouraged many undocumented immigrants to
come to the US because of the lenient policies in place. The plan does put forth
advantages (discouraging illegal immigration, allowing for more efficient processing of
applicants) but it also has disadvantages (could cause desperate immigrants to reach
for more drastic measures, not allowing deserving people of citizenship).
I believe the policy case is strong, as presented. Through reading the opposing side in
the Hallett article, showing the widespread abuse in detention centers, taking away
peoples right to asylum, and limiting legal immigration so much so that it was inefficient.
I believe that if Spakovsky would have addressed concerns of the other side and really
emphasized his points in comparison to others, it would have been a much more
compelling argument. In my mind it is a prima facie case, it makes great sense until the
other side brings up all the places where the argument is lagging. There was no
statistics or evidence provided regarding any of the benefits of the “Remain-in-Mexico”
policy, meaning that he was asking the audience to basically take his word for it. I
believe the argument was comprehendible but weak.
2. Identify, describe, and classify (using the types of attack in Zarefsky) an
attack in the debate. Next, evaluate the attack as strong or weak. Explain
your evaluation by referencing the lectures and the textbook.
One argument offered in the opening statements by the affirmative side (Angela Kelley)
is that a pathway to citizenship would be successful if citizenship was only given to
those who qualify, with background checks and fees as well as teaching the incoming
immigrants English. The negative side directly attacked that claim made by the
affirmative side by saying that if we had an easier pathway to citizenship there would be
way too many immigrants, using evidence from the immigration reform that occurred in
1986 which provided a path to citizenship for 3 million Americans, which made the
problem of illegal immigration even worse. The negative side then says that the best
way to go about immigration is to have stricter border policies, as well as stopping
employers from hiring cheap undocumented labor, which stops the magnet effect for
more undocumented immigrants to cross the border illegally.
The negative side introduced their own plan regarding a pathway to citizenship and
made their position clear, also called making a counter argument. They directly
confronted the proposition by the affirmative side by giving evidence regarding the bad
outcomes of the plan, citing 1986 immigration reform, and then offered their own plan.
They denied the claim made by the affirmative side with an argument in direct clash,
forcing the audience to choose between the two. Obviously, these arguments do relate
strongly to the main question of the debate, but they also dive into specific evidence
regarding what exactly immigration should look like to be successful in the future.
I believe this attack was very strong. It was to the point and the clash could be directly
seen between the specifics of the future of immigration. The attack addressed a large
portion of the affirmative sides argument through stating that making it easier for
undocumented immigrants to get citizenship was actually going to cause way more
undocumented immigrants to travel to the United States, making the issue worse. By
offering an alternative plan that would stop the immigration of undocumented
immigrants at the source through stricter border policies and stopping employers from
hiring undocumented immigrants, they made the solution seem very easy and simple.
They specifically said that enforcement of our current laws is much more efficient then
trying to allow many undocumented immigrants from obtaining citizenship and clearly
highlighted how their attack hurt the affirmative sides argument. The impact of the
attack was highlighted because of the dismantling of the case through evidence and the
counterplan offered.
3. Identify, describe, and classify (using the options for defense in Zarefsky) a
defense in the debate. Next, evaluate the defense as strong or weak. Explain
your evaluation by referencing the lectures and the textbook.
One argument and attack that was made by the negative side in the opening statements
stated that citizenship in the US is precious and in order to be able to obtain that
citizenship they need to be able to abide by the laws. By stating this they implied that
the affirmative side was valuing citizenship less than it should be. They stated that
seeing American citizenship as a prize possession is dangerous and has been seen in
history, citing the denial of voting rights to African Americans and women, as well as
discrimination against African Americans seen in history. They also added on that
Americans are already complicit in making the dysfunctional immigration system we
have today. This defense upheld the argument that citizenship should be available to all
and showed that the attack is weak because of the dangers in treating citizenship so
highly, as well as the role Americans have played in the creation of the immigration
system.
The defense type used by the affirmative side is called reductio ad absurdum. Reductio
ad absurdum is when one side states that the claim that the opposing side is making
should be rejected because of the unacceptable consequences that would occur if
accepted. The affirmative side is stating in their defense that if one were to accept the
argument that citizenship is a precious thing to obtain, there would be many
consequences such as the denial of rights to certain groups and the unequal treatment
of many. They cited these consequences as seen in history. Another way to classify the
defense would be to say that they are denying that citizenship in the US is precious
through citing the dangers of thinking that way, as well as rebuilding their own reasoning
as to why all people deserve a path to citizenship through comparing the case to other
underrepresented communities.
I believe this defense was strong in a sense that they did respond to the claim at hand,
but I feel that they twisted the words of the negative side somewhat. The main message
that the negative side was trying to convey was that giving someone citizenship is a big
deal and we need to treat it as such. I feel that the affirmative side twisted their words
so they were easier to attack by saying that they were somehow trying to withhold a
right that undocumented immigrants already have, even though they cited examples of
the oppression of Americans. The defense provided did respond to the important
challenges of the case by addressing the consequences of treating citizenship as
precious, but also the examples of danger they warned of were not fully relevant to the
case at hand. They did a great job at highlighting the impact of their defense by saying
that Congress acted then on those issues so they should act now, bringing it back to the
main issue of immigration while also highlighting the action that should be taken.
4. Identify and refute an argument in the articles (2/11, 2/16, and 2/18) using
four-step refutation.
Part 1: In the article written by Felipe De La Hoz titled “America Owes More to It’s
‘Essential’ Immigrant Workers”, De La Hoz makes the claim that many undocumented
workers are essential and are working very important jobs especially during a
pandemic, therefore they should be able to have an easier path to citizenship.
Part 2: Undocumented workers do in fact work different jobs across the US, but they
also increase the competition and take jobs that many low income Americans
need/could use. Unskilled jobs can be really beneficial to low income and disabled
Americans, but instead the jobs are being outsourced and given to undocumented
workers.
Part 3: Undocumented workers on average have an equivalent of a high school
education when entering the US, which causes an enormous fiscal drain (about
$150,000 per undocumented immigrant throughout their lifetime). The most vulnerable
in the United States, high school dropouts and disabled, have about a 42% employment
rate and usually can only obtain an entry level, low skilled job.
Part 4: If the statistics discussed from the negative side of the debate are true, lower
income Americans with a small amount of education and the disabled community are
competing with undocumented immigrants to get entry level jobs. Therefore, yes they
are working American jobs that are essential during a pandemic, but they are also
working jobs that many Americans need in a time like this and are taking jobs that could
help citizens.
5. Which side do you think made better case in the debate? Justify your answer
in 2-4 arguments. In your answer, explain why one team was better than the
other. This question is not asking about which side you agree with. You are
evaluating their debate performance.
I feel that the negative side had a better debate performance than the affirmative side,
although I personally agree with the affirmative side. The negative side did a great job at
showing the statistics of the economic downfalls that come with allowing more
undocumented immigrants into the country, as well as the immense pressure it would
put on our immigration system that is already fragile. They also did a great job at
explaining the different policies that are not being enforced at the moment, making it
seem as if the immigration system is failing now when in fact a lot of policies are not
being followed. The affirmative side talked a lot about what ifs, such as the great
benefits on the economy that undocumented immigrants would cause, as well as relying
heavily on stories of specific immigrants, but overall, I felt that the downfalls provided by
the negative side were more compelling.
The affirmative side also discussed a lot along the lines of values, meaning in certain
areas of the debate they emphasized how the “right” thing to do is create a path to
citizenship because it aligns with American values. I feel like that argument was not
compelling in the slightest because of the disarray the US is in regarding politics and
unity at the moment. In my opinion, the argument that was the most compelling from the
negative side was in regards to American jobs and how many jobs were taken by
undocumented workers instead of Americans who are unemployed. I had previously
believed that America needed undocumented workers to fill those spots and that many
industries such as agriculture would not function without immigrants, which may be true,
but I had also never looked at it from the standpoint of those being jobs for citizens.
Finally, the affirmative side talked a lot about turning the immigration system from
broken to controlled, and how many benefits would reap from that. They did not
however talk about how to overcome certain obstacles regarding logistics and were
mainly talking about the benefits of providing a pathway, not the problems that may
come with it and how America would overcome those. If they had addressed obstacles
that may come with allowing a pathway and how to address those, I would most likely
say the affirmative side had a stronger argument. They only talked about benefits now,
not how the future would look with a different system.
Reference:
Zarefsky, D. (2019). The practice of argumentation effective reasoning in
communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spakovsky, H. (2020, March 3). “Remain-in-Mexico” policy is needed to reduce illegal
immigration. Retrieved February 21, 2021, from
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/remain-mexico-policy-needed-reduce
-illegal-immigration (Links to an external site.)
Links to an external site.
Hoz, F. (2020, June 19). America owes more to ITS “essential” immigrant workers.
Retrieved February 21, 2021, from
https://newrepublic.com/article/158230/america-owes-essential-immigrant-workers
Links to an external site.