Posted: April 20th, 2022

RESEARCH PROJECT: SOURCE ANALYSIS “the importance of lowering the divorce rate to keep families together.”

RESEARCH PROJECT: SOURCE ANALYSIS “the importance of lowering the divorce rate to keep families collectively.”

Function
The aim of this project is to each discover sources that enable you reply your analysis questions and
discover the differing types of sources which can be on the market. As well as, you’ll analyze these sources to make
positive they’re acceptable sources on your Analysis Challenge.

Method
It’s best to have 4 sources to enable you study extra about your social challenge. No less than two of these
sources will want to be scholarly. (Our class studying and in-class work mentioned scholarly versus
standard sources, in addition to authoritative.)

There are FOUR STEPS for every Supply Assessment:

1. SCHOLARY, AUTHORITATIVE, OR POPULAR SOURCE: Point out in case your supply is a Scholarly,
Authoritative, or Fashionable Supply and clarify how you realize.

2. SOURCE CITATION: Present a breakdown of the quotation, as proven under, after which put the elements
collectively right into a full quotation. (Should you use a CLC database, the quotation is offered, however you continue to will want to
present that you realize what every half of the quotation is.)
◦ Writer(s):
◦ Title of the Supply:
◦ Title of the Publication (title of the journal, web site, ebook, and many others.):
◦ Different Contributors (e.g. editor, narrator, director, and many others.):
◦ Model/Version/Quantity:
◦ Quantity (if half of a sequence):
◦ Writer (firm or group accountable for publishing the supply):
◦ Publication Date:
◦ Location (URL, web page numbers, and many others.):
◦ Full Supply Quotation: Now, present the full supply quotation.

Three. SOURCE SUMMARY (one or two paragraphs):
 The primary sentence of the abstract ought to embrace the kind of supply (might embrace publication), the
creator(s) of the supply, and the thesis or foremost level of the supply.
 In the relaxation of the abstract, you need to embrace the supporting factors for the creator’s thesis (foremost level).
What proof does the creator use to show their foremost level? How is logos, pathos, and ethos utilized by
the creator?
 Your abstract ought to present that you’ve a powerful understanding of your supply.

four. SOURCE Assessment
For the analysis, make certain to reference the CRAP rating sheet. You’ll need to handle the following:

CURRENCY (rank from the CRAP rating sheet Three-Zero):
◦ When was the supply written?
◦ Is there a copyright date or date of publication?
◦ Is it present sufficient on your work?
RELIABILITY (rank from the CRAP rating sheet Three-Zero):
◦ The place did the creator get the info?
◦ Does the creator present sources for info both in the textual content or in an inventory at the finish?
◦ Is the info correct and error free?
◦ Can the info be corroborated with one other supply?
AUTHORITY OR AUTHOR/ORGANIZATION (rank from the CRAP rating sheet Three-Zero):
◦ Who’s accountable for the info? Are they dependable?
◦ Is there an individual or group listed as the creator?
◦ Lookup (or Google) the creator to study extra about them.
◦ Can you determine what makes the creator an skilled or valued opinion (credentials – training, profession
discipline, school/college college in the discipline, expertise)?
◦ If no particular person(s) is the creator, is that this group credible?
PURPOSE/POINT OF VIEW (rank from the CRAP rating sheet Three-Zero):
◦ Does the info appear pretty represented or is it biased?
◦ Scan the contents – Why was it written? (e.g. info, recommendation, advocacy, propaganda, opinion,
leisure, gross sales, or one more reason)
◦ Have the opportunity to spot level of view – Is the supply or web site truthful? Is it affiliated with a company that has a
explicit level of view?
◦ Is the supply balanced or biased? Does that matter on your functions?

FINAL CRAP RANKING: Present the whole crap rating quantity right here. (If the rating falls decrease than 10,
you will need to justify why you’ll use the supply.)

Submitting Your Supply Analyses
Create one Microsoft Phrase doc for the two supply analyses due. For instance, create one Phrase
doc and embrace each Supply Assessment #1 and Supply Assessment #2 in the Phrase doc. For Supply
Assessment #Three and Supply Assessment #four, you’ll embrace each of them in a single Phrase doc. These paperwork
are submitted in Canvas.

Scroll down for an instance of a Supply Assessment

Scholar Title
Course Quantity
Task Title
Date

SAMPLE SOURCE ANALYSIS
SOURCE #1
1. SCHOLARLY SOURCE — This supply is peer reviewed, properly sourced (checklist of references), and the
authors are consultants.

2. SOURCE CITATION:
◦ Writer(s): Dennis A. Johnson, Ed.D. and John Acquaviva, Ph.D.
◦ Title of the Supply: “Level/Counterpoint: Paying Faculty Athletes.”
◦ Title of the Publication (journal, web site, ebook, and many others.): The Sports activities Journal
◦ Different Contributors (e.g. editor, narrator, director, and many others.): n/a
◦ Model/Version/Quantity: quantity 16
◦ Quantity (if half of a sequence): quantity 5
◦ Writer (firm or group accountable for publishing the supply): n/a
◦ Publication Date: 2015
◦ Location (particular location of the info – URL, web page numbers, and many others.):

Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes

Full Supply Quotation:
Johnson, Dennis A. Ed.D. and John Acquaviva, Ph.D. “Level/Counterpoint: Paying Faculty Athletes.” The
Sports activities Journal, vol. 16, no. 5, 2015. http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-college-
athletes/

Three. SOURCE SUMMARY:
In the The Sports activities Journal article “Level/Counterpoint: Paying Faculty Athletes,” authors Dennis A.
Johnson and John Acquaviva, each professors of Sport Sciences at Wingate College, focus on the professionals
and cons of paying school athletes to play. The article begins by describing how the NCAA turned a
league and offers historical past from the mid-1900s when faculties recruited gamers that weren’t college students to
pay to play. Subsequent, Acquaviva presents a number of causes as to why school athletes shouldn’t be paid
primarily based on quite a few details: training is cash, there are issues with cost, universities provide
greater than an training, the athletic division has its position, and, athletes know the deal that they’re
going into.
Johnson offers causes as to why faculties needs to be paying school athletes to play. The
creator describes 4 details to the argument: athletic scholarships present a “free training” just isn’t
right, athletes don’t know the “actual” deal, the college gives greater than training – it’s potential – however
not possible, and income sharing proposals from TV. In these factors, quite a few options are supplied as
to how the gamers might be compensated for his or her play. Some examples of the proposals are to improve
scholarships to $2,000 extra so as to present living-expense cash and one other one is to pay every
participant $300 per sport.

four. SOURCE Assessment:
Foreign money (2): The article was written in 2015, which makes this a reasonably present supply for my analysis, however
this debate appears to change typically proper now about school athletes getting paid. This can be a little dated for
such a present subject, which is why I gave the supply a “2” for Foreign money.
Reliability (2): The article features a “References” web page at the finish of the article with 9 sources listed.
Inside the article, the two authors cite the analysis they discovered. Three of these sources are from 2011 &
2012, which dates the info, however six others are from 2014 and early 2015. Some of the info
that I discovered on this supply is comparable to my Sports activities Illustrated article by Deborah Krause.
Authority of Writer/Group (Three): The authors are Dennis A. Johnson and John Acquaviva, each
professors of Sport Sciences at Wingate College. These authors have additionally written three different articles
collectively for this journal associated to the subject of paying school athletes. Johnson has been at the college
instructing on this discipline for 11 years, whereas John Acquaviva has been instructing on this discipline for 15 years with
4 of the final years at Wingate College. The 2 authors offered at two conferences on this topic
in 2013 and 2014.
Function/Level of View (Three): This text was written for details about the paying school athlete debate
and exhibiting the professionals and cons of this subject. The publication is a peer-reviewed journal and never affiliated
with any “sides” of the debate. The knowledge is offered pretty by the professors.

FINAL CRAP RANKING: 10

RUBRICS FOR SOURCE ANALYSIS FOR FAMILY AND DIVORCE ESSAY

Supply #1 TYPE OF SOURCE
Appropriately identifies kind of supply: standard, authoritative, or scholarly 2 to >1.Zero pts
Meets Standards 1 to >Zero.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #1 CITATION
Appropriately offers a breakdown of the supply quotation and the full quotation 5 to >Three.Zero pts
Meets Standards Three to >1.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards 1 to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #1 SUMMARY
Abstract is written in your personal phrases. First sentence contains kind of supply, creator(s) of the supply, and the foremost level / thesis of the supply. Abstract contains the Help and proof for the foremost level of the supply. Abstract exhibits how logos, pathos, and ethos are addressed by the creator(s). Abstract demonstrates a powerful understanding of the supply, 6 to >four.Zero pts
Meets Standards four to >1.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards 1 to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #1 CRAP RANKING
Every immediate on the project sheet addressed for Foreign money, Reliability, Authority or Writer/Group, and Function/Level of View. 12 to >eight.Zero pts
Meets Standards eight to >four.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards four to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
12 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #2 TYPE OF SOURCE
Appropriately identifies kind of supply: standard, authoritative, or scholarly 2 to >1.Zero pts
Meets Standards 1 to >Zero.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #2 CITATION
Appropriately offers a breakdown of the supply quotation and the full quotation 5 to >Three.Zero pts
Meets Standards Three to >1.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards 1 to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #2 SUMMARY
Abstract is written in your personal phrases. First sentence contains kind of supply, creator(s) of the supply, and the foremost level / thesis of the supply. Abstract contains the Help and proof for the foremost level of the supply. Abstract exhibits how logos, pathos, and ethos are addressed by the creator(s). Abstract demonstrates a powerful understanding of the supply, 6 to >four.Zero pts
Meets Standards four to >1.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards 1 to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSource #2 CRAP RANKING
Every immediate on the project sheet addressed for Foreign money, Reliability, Authority or Writer/Group, and Function/Level of View. 12 to >eight.Zero pts
Meets Standards eight to >four.Zero pts
Meets Most Standards four to >Zero pts
Meets Few Standards
12 pts

Rhetorical Assessment Essay- PSA Rubrics
Rhetorical Assessment Essay
Standards Rankings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeAssignment Necessities 20 to >17.Zero pts
Superior
Addresses all points of the project totally. Follows MLA format. 17 to >13.Zero pts
Proficient
Addresses most points of the project. Follows MLA format largely. 13 to >9.Zero pts
Progressing
Addresses some points of the project. Some MLA format. 9 to >Zero pts
Starting
Doesn’t handle the project. Little MLA format.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeLanguage Conventions 20 to >17.Zero pts
Superior
Incorporates no errors that restrict understanding. Provides superior selection in sentence construction. Employs efficient and fascinating phrase alternative. 17 to >13.Zero pts
Proficient
Incorporates few errors that restrict understanding. Provides selection in sentence construction. Employs efficient phrase alternative. 13 to >9.Zero pts
Progressing
Incorporates errors that restrict understanding. Provides some selection in sentence construction. Employs fundamental phrase alternative. 9 to >Zero pts
Starting
Incorporates quite a few errors that restrict understanding and ineffective sentence construction and/or phrase alternative.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeAudience, Function, and Argument 40 to >34.Zero pts
Superior
Exactly identifies and gives thorough Help for audience, goal, and argument for one PSA. 34 to >27.Zero pts
Proficient
Identifies and gives Help for audience, goal, and argument for one PSA. 27 to >19.Zero pts
Progressing
Tries to establish and gives some Help for audience, goal, and/or argument for one PSA. 19 to >Zero pts
Starting
Doesn’t precisely establish audience, goal and/or argument.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeSupport: Logos, Pathos, Ethos, & Bigger Context 40 to >34.Zero pts
Superior
Gives quite a few examples for every attraction and an in depth clarification of how the PSA illustrates the appeals. The connection to society is clearly articulated. 34 to >27.Zero pts
Proficient
Gives enough examples for every attraction and a transparent clarification of how the PSA illustrates the appeals. The connection to society is properly defined. 27 to >19.Zero pts
Proficient
Gives some examples for every attraction and makes an attempt to clarify how the PSA illustrates the appeals. The connection to society is weak. 19 to >Zero pts
Starting
Gives few examples and/or particulars from the PSA. The connection to society is inaccurate or lacking.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeStrengths, Weaknesses, and Total Success/Lack of Success 40 to >34.Zero pts
Superior
Gives quite a few strengths and/or weaknesses. Consists of particular examples from the Assessment and/or PSA as Help. Success or lack of success is properly articulated. 34 to >27.Zero pts
Proficient
Gives satisfactory strengths and/or weaknesses. Consists of examples from the Assessment and/or PSA as Help. Success or lack of success is clarified. 27 to >19.Zero pts
Progressing
Gives restricted strengths and/or weaknesses. Lacking Help from the Assessment and/or PSA. Success or lack of success just isn’t clear. 19 to >Zero pts
Starting
Strengths and/or weaknesses are scarce or not clear, and little Help from the Assessment and/or PSA is obtainable. Dialogue of success is incomplete.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Studying OutcomeOrganization 40 to >34.Zero pts
Superior
Buildings writing as a logical circulation of concepts utilizing well- developed and tightly unified paragraphs linked along with easy and clear transitions that improve which means. 34 to >27.Zero pts
Proficient
Buildings writing right into a logical circulation of concepts utilizing developed and unified paragraphs linked along with transitions that Help which means. 27 to >19.Zero pts
Progressing
Buildings concepts in a disjointed development of thought. Paragraphs usually are not unified and/or not associated to one another particularly. 19 to >Zero pts
Starting
Reveals a construction with restricted logic and development of thought. Paragraphs are underdeveloped and unrelated.
40 pts
Whole Factors: 200

————–

RESEARCH PROJECT: SOURCE ANALYSIS “the significance of lowering divorce charges so as to keep families collectively.”

Function

The purpose of this project is to discover sources that may enable you reply your analysis questions in addition to to discover sources that may enable you reply your analysis questions.

discover the differing types of sources which can be on the market. As well as, you’ll analyze these sources to make

positive they’re acceptable sources on your Analysis Challenge.

Method

It’s best to have 4 sources to enable you study extra about your social challenge. No less than two of these

sources will want to be scholarly. (Our class studying and in-class work mentioned scholarly versus

standard sources, in addition to authoritative.)

There are FOUR STEPS for every Supply Assessment:

1. SCHOLARY, AUTHORITATIVE, OR POPULAR SOURCE: Point out in case your supply is a Scholarly,

Authoritative
PreviousNext

Order | Check Discount

Tags: write my essay free, Write my thesis proposal, Write my thesis paper for me, Write my research paper proposal for me, Write my research paper free