After reading the Nicomachean Ethics reflect on the ideas, arguments, conceptions, and perspectives Aristotle offers. Consider one of them that you find intriguing, compelling, or important to your understanding of the reading. In doing so, ponder the specific reasons for why you find it intriguing, compelling, or important. Possible considerations to contemplate is the strength of an argument in terms of its validity, its truthfulness in terms of evidence that can support it, its coherence with other ideas presented in the reading, its relatability to your own life (especially the specific values and beliefs you hold–not just a story about how one time…), and how it compares with other philosophical perspectives you have encountered elsewhere. Be sure to explain the argument you choose, define philosophical concepts that you use, and provide examples to support your points. Your explanation should include textual support with citations; any citation style can be used so long as the page number of the quote or paraphrase is provided. To earn full credit and have appropriate philosophical depth, your response should be at least 400 words.

 

Reading Response Journal Rubric

Reading Response Journal Rubric

CriteriaRatingsPts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUnderstandingThe reading response entry contains an accurate, precise description of the specific argument, conception, idea, or perspective being focused on in the journal entry.

9.0 ptsExcellent
The entry contains highly accurate and precise summarization, description and/or paraphrasing of the argument, conception, idea, or perspective. The entry uses appropriate textual support for these.

8.0 ptsGood
The summarization, description and/or paraphrasing of the argument, conception, idea, or perspective is fairly accurate and precise and has textual support, but other passages may have been better choices.

7.0 ptsNeeds Improvement
The summarization, description and/or paraphrasing of the argument, conception, idea, or perspective is fairly accurate, but not precise, and the textual support is inappropriate.

6.0 ptsUnacceptable
The summarization, description and/or paraphrasing of the argument, conception, idea, or perspective is inaccurate and/or has no textual support.

9.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluationEvaluation of the argument, conception, idea, or perspective being considered in the journal entry.

9.0 ptsExcellent
The entry evaluates the argument, conception, idea, or perspective in question by checking for adherence to various standards (validity, soundness, etc.), for how it is supported by evidence, and internal consistency. The entry suggests how the argument, conception, idea, or perspective could be made better according to the appropriate standard and by exploring unmentioned plausible alternatives.

8.0 ptsGood
The entry evaluates the argument, conception, idea, or perspective in question by checking for adherence to various standards (validity, soundness, etc.), for how it is supported by evidence, and internal consistency.

7.0 ptsNeeds Improvement
The entry evaluates the argument, conception, idea, or perspective by superficially considering its plausibility. Evaluation needs more development with respect to the standard used, suggestions for improving the argument, and/or exploration of unmentioned plausible alternatives.

6.0 ptsUnacceptable
The entry evaluates the position in question by whether the author agrees or disagrees with it.

9.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength

2.0 ptsFull Marks
Journal entry is 400 words or more.

0.0 ptsNo Marks
Journal entry is 399 words or less.

2.0 pts

Total Points: 20

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *