CIE100: Common Intellectual Experience - Essay 2 (100 Points)

Purpose, Task, and Criteria

Purpose: To bring texts from different traditions and centuries into real conversation about what we owe the people, faiths, and institutions that shape us.

Task: Write a 1200-1500 word MLA essay advancing an arguable thesis that engages at least two of Sappho, the Islamic mystic poets, Euthyphro, and Coates, built through the draft-and-revision process.

Criteria: I assess your thesis, how you develop the argument, how you synthesize at least two texts, your organization, and your citations. The revision itself carries real weight; the rubric below has the full breakdown.

Assignment Goals

The goals of this assignment are:
  1. To formulate a clear, arguable thesis statement about questions of justice, obligation, and community
  2. To support a thesis with carefully chosen quotes from primary sources
  3. To bring texts from different traditions and centuries into substantive conversation
  4. To engage substantively with the drafting and revision process

Background Reading and References

Please refer to the following readings and examples offering templates to help get you started:

The Assignment

In this second essay of 1200 to 1500 words, please construct an argument that brings at least two of our recent texts into conversation. You have Sappho, the Islamic mystic poets, Plato’s Euthyphro, and Coates’ Between the World and Me to work with. The essay takes up the second core question of the course, how should we live together, by asking what we owe the people, traditions, and institutions that shape us.

Prompt

Choose one of the following options. Whichever option you choose, your essay must advance a specific, arguable thesis and support it with carefully selected quotations from the texts, cited in MLA format.

  1. Euthyphro confidently prosecutes his own father in the name of piety, while Coates writes to his son about a Dream his country refuses to question. Construct an argument about when loyalty to inherited frameworks (family, faith, nation, or culture) should yield to questioning, engaging both texts. What does Socratic questioning look like when the stakes are as embodied as Coates insists they are?

  2. Sappho and the Islamic mystic poets write longing in the language of the body, and Coates writes fear and love through the body as well. Construct an argument about how embodiment shapes what we owe one another, engaging at least two of these texts. Does taking the body seriously change what justice or care requires?

  3. Apply the Socratic method of Euthyphro to a value at the center of Between the World and Me, such as the Dream, safety, or hope. Construct an argument about what that value turns out to mean when subjected to the kind of definitional pressure Socrates applies, and whether it survives the examination.

Scaffolded Deliverables

You will build this essay in three stages, and those stages together make up the 100 points. The thesis statement, quote list, and rough outline are worth 10 points, the complete first draft is worth 30 points, and the revised final draft is worth 60 points. You must meet in person with our Writing Fellow between the first and final drafts, and your final draft has to respond substantively to that conversation. Cosmetic edits don’t count as revision. That meeting carries 10 of the 100 points, all or nothing, so meeting without revising earns zero on that row, and so does revising without meeting. Please name the change the conference produced in your revision memo. Book your conference early, because the whole section shares one Writing Fellow.

  1. Thesis Statement, Quote List, and Rough Outline. A one to two sentence working thesis, a list of four to six quotations (with page numbers) drawn from at least two texts, and a paragraph-level outline.
  2. First Draft. A complete draft of the full 1200 to 1500 words, and not a partial sketch.
  3. Final Draft. The revised essay, accompanied by a brief (one paragraph) revision memo describing what you changed and why.

Submission Instructions

Please submit each deliverable through Canvas before the start of class on its due date, as listed on the course schedule. If you consulted a generative AI tool for a purpose the course policy permits, please disclose that use in your Acknowledgements section. The writing itself has to be entirely your own.

If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work? Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you.

Submission

Please submit a word processed or PDF document through Canvas before the start of class on each due date.

Assignment Rubric

Description Pre-Emerging (< 50%) Beginning (50%) Progressing (85%) Proficient (100%)
Thesis: A Claim Someone Could Reject (15%) No thesis, or a topic statement about Coates where an argument about him should be. A thesis is present, but it is one Coates states himself, or one no reader of the book would contest. The essay has nothing to defend. The thesis takes a position a serious reader could argue against, and it is specific to particular passages instead of to the book in general. The thesis takes a position that a reader of the same book could reasonably hold otherwise, it is sized to fit this essay, and it engages the course's second core question (how should we live together) as a live question and not as a slogan.
Counterargument and Concession (20%) No counterargument. The essay proceeds as though no reasonable person disagrees. A counterargument is mentioned and then dismissed, or built weak on purpose so it can be knocked down. Your reader can tell the opposing view has not been taken seriously. A real counterargument is stated in terms its holder would accept, and then answered instead of waved away. The essay may concede too little, or concede so much that its own claim weakens. The essay steelmans the strongest objection, stating it well enough that someone who holds it would say yes, that is what I think, and then either answers it or concedes precisely what has to be conceded and shows why the thesis survives anyway. The concession leaves the argument stronger, not more apologetic.
Evidence That Survives the Objection (15%) Little or no textual evidence, or quotations that do not bear on the claim they follow. Evidence is present, but you selected it only from passages that agree with you. The passages that complicate your claim are nowhere in the essay. Evidence is well chosen and analyzed, and the essay engages at least one passage that resists its own reading. The warrant is usually explicit. The essay chooses evidence that would still count for a skeptical reader, engages the passages that cut against it instead of avoiding them, and says in each case why the passage supports the claim. Quotations are trimmed to the words doing the work, and the analysis does work the quotation cannot do alone.
Structure and Movement (10%) Paragraphs appear in no discernible order; the counterargument, if present, is bolted on at the end. There is an order, but the reader reconstructs it. The counterargument sits in its own paragraph with no connection to what surrounds it. Each paragraph does one job, the transitions connect ideas instead of announcing them, and the counterargument sits where it does the most work. The paragraphs are ordered so that each earns the next, the objection arrives at the point where your reader is most likely to raise it, and the conclusion says something the introduction could not have said.
MLA Citation and Quotation Mechanics (10%) Citations are absent, or quoted material is not marked as quoted. Citations are present but inconsistent in format, or page references are missing. MLA in-text citations and the Works Cited are correct apart from minor slips, and quotations fit grammatically into your own sentences. MLA format is correct throughout, quotations are integrated so the sentence reads naturally, and alterations and ellipses are marked honestly.
Writing Fellow Conference and Response (all or nothing) (10%) No conference took place. 0 of 10 points, because this row carries no partial credit. No conference took place, or one was scheduled and missed. 0 of 10 points. The conference took place, but the final draft does not respond to what was said in it. 0 of 10 points, since attending is necessary and not sufficient. You met in person with our Writing Fellow between the first and final drafts, and the final draft visibly responds to that conversation, with a change you can point to and name in your revision memo. Full 10 points.
Revision (Substantive Change Between Drafts) (20%) The final draft is the first draft with the typos corrected. There is no revision memo, or the memo describes edits where it should describe changes. Sentence-level changes only. The argument, the evidence, and the structure are unchanged, and you acknowledge the Writing Fellow feedback without acting on it. The final draft changes something that matters, and the memo explains what you changed and why. At least one change responds to the Writing Fellow conference. The revision reconsiders the essay instead of repairing it, most often by strengthening the objection until it forces a change in the claim. The memo names the specific feedback and the specific change, and it can say what the essay now argues that the draft could not.

Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.