Construct a Rogerian Argument Rogerian argument is one that presents two sides of a debate and argues for a solution that will satisfy both sides. Given two articles presenting opposing sides of an issue (mandatory uniforms in schools), construct your own 2-3 page Rogerian argument essay in which you attempt to arrive at a workable solution or "middle ground." Article 1: "School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies" Article 2: "Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms" Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions. 1. How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better understand the topic that’s being discussed? Why is it a good practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4 sentences) 2. Will you use the Rogerian Approach in your own argumentative essay? Why or why not? (2-3 sentences) Guidelines Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines. 1. Summary of Positions ❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 1? ❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented in Article 1? ❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 2? ❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented Article 2? 2. Thesis/Claim ❒ Does you claim address both sides of the issue, including specific points raised in the articles? ❒ Does your claim present a clear, workable solution that could be viewed as a "middle ground" between the two sides? 3. Analysis ❒ Have you backed up your claim using facts from both sides of the argument? ❒ When using direct quotations, have you supplemented them with your own explanation of their relevance? 4. Reflection ❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses? ❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main assignment? Applying the Four Principles: Case StudyPart 1: Chart (60 points) Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible. Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Patient Preferences Autonomy Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness ©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Part 2: Evaluation Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied: 1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be specified and weighted in this case? Explain why. (45 points) 2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian balance each of the four principles in this case? Expl.

1. Construct a Rogerian Argument
Rogerian argument is one that presents two sides of a debate
and argues for a solution that will satisfy both sides. Given two
articles presenting opposing sides of an issue (mandatory
uniforms in schools), construct your own 2-3 page Rogerian
argument essay in which you attempt to arrive at a workable
solution or "middle ground."
Article 1: "School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies"
Article 2: "Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the
Case of School Uniforms"
Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following
reflection questions.
1. How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better
understand the topic that’s being discussed? Why is it a good
practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4
sentences)
2. Will you use the Rogerian Approach in your own
argumentative essay? Why or why not? (2-3 sentences)
Guidelines
Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not
submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Summary of Positions
❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication
context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 1?
❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented in
Article 1?
❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication
context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 2?
❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented Article
2?
2. Thesis/Claim
❒ Does you claim address both sides of the issue, including
specific points raised in the articles?
❒ Does your claim present a clear, workable solution that could

2. be viewed as a "middle ground" between the two sides?
3. Analysis
❒ Have you backed up your claim using facts from both sides of
the argument?
❒ When using direct quotations, have you supplemented them
with your own explanation of their relevance?
4. Reflection
❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and
included insights, observations, and/or examples in all
responses?
❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main
assignment?
Applying the Four Principles: Case StudyPart 1: Chart (60
points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all
the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of
bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather
as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how the four

3. principles and four boxes approach would be applied:
1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the
Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be
specified and weighted in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the
Christian worldview, how might a Christian balance each of the
four principles in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
References:
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical
twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute
glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally
brought into the hospital for complications associated with a
strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus
infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition
was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases
of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to
improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James
also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that
required temporary dialysis to relieve.
The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After
some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the

4. physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place
their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a
sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had
witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed
over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it
more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing
service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of
dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital
after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes
that James would be healed by then.
Two days later the family returned and was forced to place
James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt
perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James
earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or
James? To make matters worse, James's kidneys had
deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary
matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and
desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one
of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible
donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of
dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also
offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them
were tissue matches.
James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment
with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular
dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year.
Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike
and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of
yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.
Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have
his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to
do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real
testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time
around it is a matter of life and death. What could require
greater faith than that?”

5. © 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.