Name:
INTERIM ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST—The Big Gulp
1. Did you follow the suggested format of Introduction, Logical Appeals, Emotional Appeals, Ethical Appeals, and Conclusion?2. Did you begin each of the 5 paragraphs with a topic sentence?
3. Did you maintain a consistent Order of writing, first, about the LA Times editorial and, then, the CNN article within each paragraph?
4. Did you refer to the source (LA Times and CNN) in the present tense?
5. Did you clearly attribute (give credit to) the source (LA Times/CNN) so that it is clear you are paraphrasing concrete details and not writing word for word from the text?
6. Did your essay contain at least one direct quote from the texts?
7. Did you refer to the writer and the mayor the first time with first name, last name and every time after that with only the last name or title?
8. Did each of your 5 paragraphs have Unity? Explain
9. Did your paragraphs have Order? Explain
10. Did each of your paragraphs have Completeness? Explain:
11. Did each of your paragraphs have Coherence? Explan:
12. Did your Introduction contain the following: Topic Sentence, 2 FATt sentences, and your statement of which article was more disappointing?
13. Did the verbs in your two FATt sentences reflect the rhetorical purpose? Write the verbs here:
14. Did your Conclusion clearly state 2 reasons why one article is more disappointing?
15. Did you include your opinion on the topic of banning large sugary drinks? Explain:
Explain what you did in writing this essay: “I explained how the LA Times and the CNN article made their arguments. I did this by explaining that they both used various logical, emotional, and ethical appeals and I clearly stated two reasons why one article was more disappointing than the other. I did not give my opinion about the mayor’s proposal because that wasn’t the question I was asked.”