Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

IT.

8 - Standards Proposal Sheet


-Student Name:
Isaiah Brindamour
-Standard (write it out):
Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of
the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

-List the artifacts you would like me to consider in grading this standard. (Keep in mind,
poor choice of artifacts could count against you, so it’s not really about the number of
artifacts as much as the quality of the artifacts you’ve chosen.):

Russel Means Speech Close Read

Emma Gonzalez Speech Close Read

-Explain in detail why you think you’ve met this standard (I suggest a separate
paragraph for each artifact you are using):
For this standard I have chosen to use the Emma Gonzalez and Russel Means
close read and speech analysis assignments. In them I was tasked with answering the
questions of what arguments were presented in a speech, the effectiveness of the
arguments, how I knew the evidence was sound and if there was enough evidence to
mean anything. I showed my ability to differentiate arguments and claims over the
course of a speech in the assignment by answering the questions asked. This meant
reading through the speech to locate a main argument the speaker focuses on and
supplying evidence to prove why it was a main argument. I stated what I thought was a
main argument by keeping it general and not too specific then giving evidence from the
speech as to why that is a main argument. This reasoning was simply words from the
speaker on the argument I had previously presented supplied with the claim to prove
that it in fact was a main argument. In proving if the reasoning was valid I looked for
evidence supplied with the reasoning to show support for the reasonings validity. If
there was evidence supplied with the reasoning I could confirm that the reasoning is
valid and presented it with the claim and argument. Not all evidence presented is
relevant however and finding irrelevant evidence can debunk a whole argument. To
show I knew what evidence was relative or not I had to manually fact check the
evidence stated and then still if it was factual I also had to look for specifics of the
evidence. These specifics include date and time gathered, who it was gathered by, and
why they gathered the evidence. If I found that the evidence was factual at one point but
its not recent enough or was gathered by someone who isn’t professional or qualified for
a different reason I decided that evidence shouldn’t be used and thus didn't use them or
got rid of an argument that used them in my analysis. To know what evidence was
enough to prove a point I took what was stated and looked at it from the point of view of
someone with no background knowledge. If I could draw a conclusion about the
evidence without having to look anything up or gain any outside knowledge that means
there is enough evidence in the speech to prove a good point. To show my
understanding of what is and isn't enough evidence I restated the evidence previously
stated by the speaker and presented it into the Logos category of my analysis. By
presenting good evidence that anyone can understand I showed I could understand and
demonstrate what is and isn't enough evidence in a speech. That is how I effectively
analyzed different arguments and claims and proved what was good and sufficient
reasoning and evidence.