Raising the Minimum Wage in The United States Essay

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Theory Paper Revision

Read comments/edits. Make all of the suggested changes that are appropriate. Read over paper yourself. Fix awkward sentences, grammatical errors, incorrect descriptions of theorists, etc.
Choose another theorist to incorporate into the paper. Choose a theorist whose theories and concepts can be used to further explain your story and analyze the story from their perspective. Remember, this does not necessarily mean that you need to guess what the theorist’s opinion is. Rather, use their perspective/theories/concepts to examine the story that you chose. You should add this section to the section following Weber.
Incorporate this theorist into the comparisons section of the paper. Remember, you are not comparing them generally to Marx and Weber, but rather in relation to your news story.
Be sure to adjust your introduction and your conclusion accordingly. This means that both should have some mention of this new theorist (and by that I do not mean one sentence tacked on at the end of the introductory and concluding paragraphs!).
Make sure to add the new theorist to the bibliography.

So just to be clear, you need to revise the paper but not that much because i already got an A. And you need to add an additional 3-4 pages including some of the new readings i attached.
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.