| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Introduction to Evaluation Argument (Project 4)

Page history last edited by Abigail Heiniger 12 years ago

Return to Schedule of Sessions

Return to Home Page

 

Evaluation Arguments

 

Housekeeping:

  • Remember, the Writing Center is located on the SECOND FLOOR of the UGL and it is WONDERFUL resource! 
  • CITE SOURCES in Project Three (cite in-text even with links)
  • SafeAssign AND post to Roster Page
  • Author's Note 

Project Four

 

What's the Difference Between Evaluations and Proposals?

 

Strictly speaking, evaluation arguments are focused on judgments (this is how you should feel about something), whereas proposal argumets are focused on actions (this is what you should). In practice, however, a judgment about an object often suggests a particular action and suggesting a particular action implies a judgment of some sort (thus, evaluation arguments often contain proposals and vice-versa). In other words, the real difference might be one of emphasis or degree rather than kind. Proposals tend to prioritize the action that should be taken in response to a problematic issue (appropriate for situations where a problem may be clear, but the solution to it is unclear) whereas evaluations focus on whether or not a particular thing "is" problematic (or good or bad) an often what positive or negative consequences occur from this phenomena.

 

  • We are going to approach Project Four in TWO STEPS - first you are going to EVALUATE a situation THEN you will propose a solution or response. 

 

 

How do we invent Evaluation arguments?

 

Much like definitional arguments ("Is X a Y?"), evaluations usually also involve a criteria-match structure structure, but in this case you are not providing the criteria that a thing must meet to bedefined in a category, but the criteria it must meet to be evaluated as a "good" or "bad" instance of whatever category to which it already belongs. In other words, it follows the structure "X is (not) a good Y because it (fails to) meet(s) criteria Q, R, P."

  • Pick a item to be evaluated
  • Find out the stakes involved in the claim (is this evaluation controversial and/or interesting to others? Who would be opposed to this evaluation and why?)
  • Develop criteria for evaluating that item (which make it good or bad? which are most important? which are obvious and which ones do you have to argue for? Which are most likely to impact your audience?)

 

 

Categories of CriteriaAs with definition arguments, evaluation arguments usually proceed through some variation on criteria-match strategies. However, rather than creating criteria that allows you to place something inside or outside of a category, criteria for evaluation arguments provide the best methods for judging a particular thing or issue. We can typically put evaluative critieria into one of three categories:

  • Ethical
  • Aesthetic 

  • Practical

Razing Detroit - Evaluating Arguments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people in Detroit agree that something needs to be done to revitalize the city. Although different individuals/groups emphasize the dangers of abandoned urban spaces, the real challenge of these arguments is in offering solutions (proposing how the problem should be solved). On the other hand, once a proposal is made, individuals must evaluate the quality of that proposal - whether it is a good or bad idea (is it ethical, will is aesthetically benefit the city or simply eliminate the city's history, is it feasible, is it cost-effective...) - and then decide what course of action to take in order to best revitalize the city.

 

Mayor Dave Bing's project to demolition parts of the city is currently under way - see http://www.detroitmi.gov/DepartmentsandAgencies/MayorsOffice/ResidentialDemolitionProgram/tabid/2992/Default.aspx  

 


Minute Paper

 

Gut reactions! Choose ONE article from today's reading to answer the following questions (in a single sentence or less - you have 120 seconds starting... NOW): 

 

  1. Is is ETHICAL to raze Detroit? 
  2. Will it AESTHETICALLY benefit the city?
  3. Is it a PRACTICAL solution to the urban ruins?

 

Minute Paper Raze Detroit

 


Group Assignment:

  • Break into groups.

 

  • Using the conclusion to Pritchet's review (pages 47-52 http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/pritchet/workingpapers/21YaleLPolyRev1_2003.pdf), create CRITERIA for a "good" (ethical/aesthetic/practical) approach to dealing with Detroit's vacant buildings.  What constitutes a "good" strategy for dealing with urban ruins.
    • What are the stakes involved in the claim?
      • What are the ethical concerns both FOR and AGAINST razing the city?
      • What are the aesthetic concerns both FOR and AGAINST razing the city?
      • What are the practical concerns both FOR and AGAINST razing the city?
      • Is there anything else that needs to be considered in evaluating the argument?
    • List the criteria (Q, R, and P):

 

  • Use the criteria you come up with to EVALUATE one of the four articles below (refer back to the criteria-matching above):  
    • In other words: "X is (not) a good plan for dealing with Detroit's urban ruins because it (fails to) meet(s) criteria Q, R, and P."  

 

 

 


 

Project Four: Evaluation Argument  

Researching Project Four

 

Other Research Tools for Project Four

 

Comments (5)

Jacqueline Humphrey said

at 11:20 am on Mar 28, 2012

Jacqueline Humphrey, Tiara Gray, Scoot Anteau, Remi Dassouki

criiterias
does it make a positive change , is the money thought out well, is there going to be racial discrimation, is reducing detroit going to bring people together or raise crime rate, would it make detroit more energy efficient

"To save itself, Detroit is Razing itself" is not a good plan for dealing with Detriot urban ruins beecause it (fails to) meet the citeria of reducing crime rate, it offer discrimation and doesnt make it more energy efficent.

Munther Saleh said

at 11:23 am on Mar 28, 2012

Munther Saleh, Aziz Alshohati, Justin Jordan, Serena Weatherspoon

Criteria Racial segregation, not ethical to take corporations over common folk, Not practical because of the financial situation detroit is in now. gm went bankrupt tax dollars bailed them out. race of people in homes vs those who are taking down the ruins

raising detroit is (not) a good plan for dealing with Detroit's urban ruins because it (fails to) meet detroits racial segragation, financial situation, and detroit peoples concerns/fear.

Jeremy Radke said

at 11:26 am on Mar 28, 2012

Abandoned buildings are a hot spot for crime. (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/razing_houses_to_curb_crime_de.html) Based on Pritchets article, the numerous abandoned buildings are acting as cancer therefore they need to be exterminated before it continues. IN razing houses to curb crime is a good plan for dealing with Detroits urban ruins because it eliminates crime hot spots, stops the cancer from spreading and makes better use of the city.

Jeremy Radke said

at 11:27 am on Mar 28, 2012

Jeremy, Alyssa and Ahmed

Antonio Alkasmikha said

at 11:28 am on Mar 28, 2012

Antonio Alkasmikha
Chris Shallal
Nadir Hussain
Bhavdeep Singh
Monika Pathak
Jordan Garcia Daddy :)
Demolishing homes in Detroit is a good plan for dealing with Detroit's urban ruins because it meets the criteria of being aesthetically pleasing, ethical and practical. In terms of being aesthetically pleasing one can easily see that in many parts of Detroit there are blighted structures. These structures take away from the overarching beauty of the city. By taking away these buildings and areas it would create a greater sense of pride in the beauty of the city itself. Ethically, it would be beneficial due to the fact that some of these buildings in the area are being used as crack houses and allow homeless people to squat in these areas. It does provide a temporary home for these people but once again on the large scale. It allows for an increase in crime. Last but not least it is practical because a majority of these cities are torn down to the point of no return. Nothing can be saved from these buildings and or areas, and using the land instead of the structures built upon them would provide much greater economic empowerment for the areas in which these buildings are located if they are transformed into things like urban farms.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.