For this essay, revise Paper 3 based on my feedback and several new requirements for this assignment.
This essay will be a revision of the essay included called Nature of the Death Penalty.
Functionally, a proposal is similar to an argumentative essay. You are still taking a stance on a debatable topic and arguing your position on the topic, seeking to persuade an interested but skeptical reader of the validity of your claim using facts, quotes, statistics, explanations, examples, and/or debunked counterarguments. However, the problem being discussed must be fixable, and the essay must synthesize other researchers’ ideas for fixing the problem and argue for what you think is the most practically-minded and persuasive proposal.
This re-imagining of the argumentative essay will require substantial information regarding what others have proposed to combat this problem in the past, what solutions or solutions you support, and why your chosen solution will work. While integrating that supporting evidence, you must also provide details about the researcher or study to prove their credibility. Further, you must include a real-world case study using narrative techniques to demonstrate how this problem has negatively affected a real person or group of people.
Consequently, this assignment will require a significant amount of research from credible sources. You will need a minimum of six library or library database sources integrated into your argument. It does not matter if you quote from them or paraphrase them. That’s up to you.
Other requirements
As with the other papers, this essay must also be in MLA format with a works cited page. Your works cited page does not count toward the page minimum. Dictionary definitions will not count as library sources.
Failing to include a works cited page will result in five points deducted from the final grade. Using less than the required number of sources will result in five points from the final grade. Falling short of the page minimum will result in one point deducted per page. Using information from unreliable sources such as wikis, forums, discussion boards, blogs, or other places where information is unfiltered and unedited will result in one point deducted per instance.
Criteria on Previous Essay:
Avoid phrases like “Studies show” or “Research shows” unless you are going to describe those studies or that research.
Supporting evidence is needed for each argumentative point (e.g., “which makes Black and Latino individuals more likely to be put to death if they are convicted of a serious crime”). This issue continues in the paper.
The topic sentence of each body paragraph should show how the points are building on one another.
Additional supporting research/evidence would strengthen the persuasive power of the good points you’re making.
No comma is necessary in the in-text citations.
The sources need to be put in conversation with one another.
Some in-text citations are missing (e.g., “As per the recent Gallup poll…”).
The works cited page should start at the top of its own page.
The title should be “Works Cited.”
Publication titles get italics.
The hanging indents should be uniform.
No additional spacing is needed on top of the double-spacing.
Some phrasing issues are present (e.g., “The development of a democracy has gone through…”). This issue continues in the paper. At times, these issues are significant enough to disrupt the intended meaning.
Some pronoun reference problems are present (e.g., “Yes, his studies repeatedly show…” when we don’t know who “he” is).
Some capitalization issues are present.
