The document provides a comprehensive guide for writing a 1000-1500 word argumentative essay on whether putting oneself first is a beneficial approach to life, detailing steps for brainstorming, constructing a thesis, and supporting arguments. It emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and personal responsibility, with rubrics for grading based on the depth of analysis and understanding of ethical choices and consequences. Additional resources and citation guidelines are also mentioned to support effective research and argument development.

1. 1000 - 1500 word argumentative essay
PROMPT: Is putting yourself first a good approach to life?
FAQ
· How should I get started?
· Have the Personal Responsibility and Critical Thinking
Rubrics open in front of you. Your grade will be assessed
according to these two rubrics. Scroll down for these rubrics.
· Some questions to ask yourself as you are brainstorming: What
does "putting yourself first" mean as you see it? What are the
consequences of living this way? How would you describe the
opposite of "putting yourself first"? If you had to choose
between them, which way of life is better? Do you have to
choose between them? If you disagree with your friend who
thinks life is about putting oneself first as much as possible
whenever possible, how would you persuade your friend that
life is not a selfish or self-indulgent pursuit? How do you
justify that your own actions are altruistic, and to what end do
you pursue acts in the interest of others? Do you do so with the
same passion as you do endeavors that fulfill a want or a need
in your own life? Once you have entertained the above
questions, carve out a thesis statement that states clearly
whether or not "put yourself first" is a good approach to life and
why.
· Early in your essay, describe how you understand "putting
yourself first". It's important to define how you view this way
of life before either advocating for it or rejecting it.
· Look up any information that you may need to check your

2. biases. Suppose you intend to argue that rich people get ahead
because they do not donate to charity. You might first explore
studies to verify whether or not this is true. Who gives more to
charity, the rich or the poor?
Have the facts.
· Argue for your thesis throughout your essay.
· Address objections to your position.
· How should this essay relate to Chapter 2?
· When writing this essay, you are not required to discuss the
theories of meaning from Chapter 2 unless you find them
relevant to "put yourself first". Focus the entirety of your essay
on "put yourself first" and direct alternatives to this way of life
as you draw upon the "big picture" from Chapter 2, that is the
consequences of having a theory of meaning at all.
· In drafting this essay, I recommend that you also read section
8-3 of The Big Questions and the 1000 Word Philosophy link
that I have posted below. Scroll, scroll.
· How many sources do I need to cite?
· You
must site some sources. See the Evidence component of
the Critical Thinking Rubric. Though there is no minimum
number of cited sources beyond our textbook, sometimes you
need to refer to other source material in making your argument.
Whenever you discuss content that should be backed up with a
source, be sure to incorporate accurate sources and cite them.
· What format and style of citation should I use?
Use MLA. Academic philosophers use Chicago Manual. If you
continue studies in philosophy, you will learn Chicago Manual;

3. however, for most introductory students, it is not practical to
learn it. MLA is fine for the purposes of this course
· Do I need to meet the minimum word count?
Yes. Points will be deducted for essays under 1000 words in
proportion to how far the word count falls short of this
minimum requirement.
CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC
for more information, please contact [email protected]
The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts
representing colleges and universities across the United States
through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics
and related documents for each learning outcome and
incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics
articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with
performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more
sophisticated levels of attainment. The rubrics are intended for
institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student
learning, not for grading. The core expectations articulated in
all 15 of the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into
the language of individual campuses, disciplines, and even
courses. The utility of the VALUE rubrics is to position
learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of
expectations such that evidence of learning can by shared
nationally through a common dialog and understanding of
student success.Definition
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the
comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events
before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.
Framing Language

4. This rubric is designed to be transdisciplinary, reflecting the
recognition that success in all disciplines requires habits of
inquiry and analysis that share common attributes. Further,
research suggests that successful critical thinkers from all
disciplines increasingly need to be able to apply those habits in
various and changing situations encountered in all walks of life.
This rubric is designed for use with many different types of
assignments and the suggestions here are not an exhaustive list
of possibilities. Critical thinking can be demonstrated in
assignments that require students to complete analyses of text,
data, or issues. Assignments that cut across presentation mode
might be especially useful in some fields. If insight into the
process components of critical thinking (e.g., how information
sources were evaluated regardless of whether they were
included in the product) is important, assignments focused on
student reflection might be especially illuminating.
Glossary
The definitions that follow were developed to clarify terms and
concepts used in this rubric only.
· Ambiguity: Information that may be interpreted in more than
one way.
· Assumptions: Ideas, conditions, or beliefs (often implicit or
unstated) that are "taken for granted or accepted as true without
proof." (quoted from
www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumptions)
· Context: The historical, ethical. political, cultural,
environmental, or circumstantial settings or conditions that
influence and complicate the consideration of any issues, ideas,
artifacts, and events.
· Literal meaning: Interpretation of information exactly as
stated. For example, "she was green with envy" would be
interpreted to mean that her skin was green.
· Metaphor: Information that is (intended to be) interpreted in a
non-literal way. For example, "she was green with envy" is
intended to convey an intensity of emotion, not a skin color.

5. CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC
for more information, please contact [email protected]
Definition
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the
comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events
before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.
Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample
or collection of work that does not meet benchmark (cell one)
level performance.
Capstone
4
Milestones
3 2
Benchmark
1
Explanation of issues
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and
described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information
necessary for full understanding.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described,
and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by
omissions.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but
description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds
unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without
clarification or description.
Evidence
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view
or conclusion
Information is taken from source(s) with enough

6. interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis
or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
Information is taken from source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or
synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
Information is taken from source(s) with some
interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent
analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little
questioning.
Information is taken from source(s) without any
interpretation/evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as
fact, without question.
Influence of context and assumptions
Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and
others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of
contexts when presenting a position.
Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant
contexts when presenting a position.
Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant
contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of
others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).
Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions
(sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify
some contexts when presenting a position.
Student's position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is
imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue.
Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are
acknowledged.
Others' points of view are synthesized within position
(perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into
account the complexities of an issue.
Others' points of view are acknowledged
within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

7. Specific position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but
is simplistic and obvious.
Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and
consequences)
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and
implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed
evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives
discussed in priority
order.
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including
opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and
implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information
is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes
(consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information
discussed; related outcomes
(consequences and implications) are oversimplified.
Personal Responsibility Rubric
Formatted by the DCCCD in alignment with the AAC&U
VALUE rubrics.
Definition
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board describes
Personal Responsibility to include “the ability to connect
choices, actions and consequences to ethical decision-making.”
Framing Language
This rubric is designed to assess the Core Objective (Personal
Responsibility) as described by the THECB in the Texas Core
Curriculum. In past attempts to assess Personal Responsibility,
different faculty have focused on factors ranging from
understanding and avoiding plagiarism to being on time for
class. When the THECB defined the new core objectives, the

8. DCCCD decided to use the five VALUE rubrics created by the
AAC&U for the assessment of Personal and Social
Responsibility. These rubrics were determined to be ineffective
for assessing Personal and Social Responsibility as they are
defined by the THECB. A team of representatives from each of
the Colleges of the DCCCD met several times over the summer
of 2016 to develop two new rubrics for assessing these two
objectives in the next cycle of assessment.
The focus of our discussions were centered on the definition of
Personal Responsibility as described by the THECB. We also
researched other colleges around the country with varying
results. Ultimately, we wanted to create a rubric that would
assess a student’s ability to work through an ethical decision
making process. The ideal assignment will be a written essay
that is long enough to address all three criteria. This rubric was
created to fit well in a signature assignment that assesses more
than one core objective simultaneously.
Glossary – the definitions that follow were developed to clarify
terms and concepts used in this rubric only.
·
Understanding Ethical Choices – The student is able to
thoroughly discuss at least two sides of an ethical choice to be
made.
·
Decision-Making – The student is able to state a
position on the issue with more detailed explanation and/or
reasons for the position and addresses objections to their
position.
·
Consequences – The student is able to identify
consequences and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of
the scope, complexity and/or magnitude of the consequences.

9. Personal Responsibility (PR) – ability to connect choices,
actions and consequences to ethical decision-making
Capstone
Milestones
Benchmark
Below Benchmark
4
3
2
1
0
Understanding Ethical Choices
Student thoroughly discusses at least two sides of an ethical
choice to be made.
Student thoroughly discusses one side and partially describes
another side of an ethical choice to be made.
Student partially explains two sides of an ethical choice to be
made.
Student attempts to explain only one side of an ethical choice to
be made.
Student is unable to articulate an ethical choice to be made.
Decision-Making
Student states a position on the issue with more detailed
explanation and/or reasons for the position
and addresses objections to their position.

10. Student states a position on the issue with more detailed
explanation and/or reasons for the position.
Student states a position on the issue, but only provides limited
explanation and/or reasons for the position.
Student states a position on the issue without providing any
reasons for the position.
Student does not take a clear ethical position on the issue.
Consequences
Student identifies consequences and demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding of the scope, complexity and/or
magnitude of the consequences.
Student identifies consequences and demonstrates a moderate
understanding of the scope, complexity and/or magnitude of the
consequences.
Student identifies consequences of the choices, but
demonstrates a limited understanding of the scope, complexity
and/or magnitude of the consequences.
Student identifies the obvious consequences of each choice.
Student does not identify any consequences of the choices
available