This is a B

If you came to this page directly, be sure you read the "Before you begin" page. Otherwise, download the entire sample paper in Word format.

Here's the introduction and the first body paragraph of a B paper. Note that the introduction is unusual in that the texts are not referred to directly until the fourth paragraph. The student is responding to Ellen Dissanayake’s essay on the function of art as a process of "Making Special," selections from Frans de Waal’s "The Ape and the Sushi Master," and Annie Dillard’s "The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century’s Measure."

The Soul

The continuing endeavor to understand human behavior is driven by our need for a solution to societal problems such as violence, crime, discrimination and political injustice. In our various attempts as a society to understand human nature, a growing emphasis has been placed upon the field of sociobiology. Sociobiology holds that there is a biological explanation behind all human behavior. At the core of this thinking is the assertion that human behavior is primarily driven by the desire to perpetuate the gene pool. The ultimate goal of existence is survival of the species. Sociobiology attempts to provide a universal explanation of our actions based on the single common unifying factor of our species: which is our species.

This paints a fairly bleak and simplistic picture, as the basis for all of our actions – no matter how seemingly altruistic – is the selfish goal of mere survival. Perhaps there is a factor missing. If sociobiology claims survival is the ultimate goal, what, then, explains the purpose of our existence in the first place? Why would it be necessary to survive at all? Where does this instinct or inner drive come from? This is where sociobiology falls short, as does science in general. As science is based on the human pursuit of knowledge, it can only go as far as the current maximum of human capability. If human capability limits our knowledge, then it can be said that there is still much to be learned or known. How, then, can we be opposed to the unknown, such as the idea that there is a reason for our existence or, furthermore, that we are more than just what sociobiology claims?

The answer to this question is the soul. The problem with proposing a concept of a soul is that it cannot be proven; it is not a measurable or calculable unit. To accept that a soul exists, and, furthermore, is the purpose behind our most basic tendency to proliferate life, requires faith. In a culture based on knowledge, science and fact, there is no qualifying data to support the soul’s existence. Human knowledge may not be able to prove the soul’s existence, but the gaps that still exist in what we do know of human behavior certainly suggest its possibility. Science may claim that we are nothing more than atoms, molecules, genes, chromosomes, or whatever the biological basis intends to rest on, but can we really know this to be true? After all, "truth" and "knowledge," as the goals of science, are still subjective human concepts. Since nothing can truly be proven, all "knowledge" is nothing more than commonly accepted belief. In other words, we choose to accept as fact the scientific concepts that we find most credible. Belief in a soul is more difficult because there is no tangible evidence to substantiate its existence and therefore, belief here requires blind faith. But acknowledging this spiritual side of our being may be the reason we need to recognize and believe in in order to solve some of the concerns we face.

Authors Ellen Dissanayake, "The Core of Art: Making Special," Frans de Waal, "The Ape and the Sushi Master," and Annie Dillard, "The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century’s Measure," each examine the subject of human behavior. Dissanayake and Dillard both address issues of societal inequity. In their search for answers to the problems faced by our evolving culture both suggest that there is something more to life than basic survival; there is a specialness to celebrate and a sacredness to protect. Additionally, De Waal, in his efforts to create a deeper understanding of human nature, shows us that science and all of its so-called "knowledge" can be fallible.

The soul, or spiritual essence of an individual, is perhaps most evident in artistic expression. Dissanayake examines the ethological behavior of the arts, asserting that art is more than aesthetics; it is a necessary function of human behavior, a survival tool. Again, this is a sociobiological view, however, it is in Dissanayake’s attempt to validate art as essential human behavior that we find evidence of life’s sacredness (i.e. the possibility of a "soul"). As Dissanayake writes of the origins of "making special:"

The principal evolutionary context for the origin and development of the arts was in activities concerned with survival. As we look back through the eons, we see abundant evidence of humans making things or experience special. Overwhelmingly what was chosen to be made special was what was considered important: objects and activities that were parts of ceremonies having to do with important transitions, such as birth puberty, marriage, and death… (242).

The important events of are those concerned with life. Again, why would life be so special considering its commonality and abundance? Making special denotes a quality of sacredness. Life is something to celebrate and to protect due to this characteristic.

Download the Entirie Paper

Here's how we read the opening of this paper:

• The introduction: From the start this paper is distinguished from a C, because the student has a project that does not simply derive from the three texts in play in the paper. The project of the "soul" cuts across the readings in an interesting way, and the student's independence as a writer is clearly evident in the area of the project. As becomes apparent in the body of the essay, it is a relatively complex project, particularly in the way it uses the three texts as "evidence" for the possibility that there is a soul. This paper isn't a proof of the soul, it is an intimation of possibility through art, biology, and tragedy. Although the introduction runs across four paragraphs, as it is not until the fourth paragraph that the writer refers directly to the texts that will be discussed, she has used this time to set up her project. The student’s work with the texts, however, prevents this paper from being an ‘A’.
  
• The body: In the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the student writer uses the first essay to argue that the "soul, or spiritual essence of an individual, is perhaps most evident in artistic expression." She refers to Dissanayake’s account of the role of survival in the evolutionary context of the development of art, and relates the practice of "making special" to the sacredness of life. In the next paragraph, de Waal is used to provide "evidence of science’s fallibility," a broad point that might have been developed further or discussed in further detail. The student writer also notes that the "question can still be posed of the relevance of the soul’s existence," indicating an ability to problematize her own position. If taken further, this ability might have led to setting up less of a dichotomy between science and faith. The last three paragraphs of the body of the essay use Dillard to support the observation that "the aspect of faith and spirituality [is] being replaced by technology and science," and the suggestion or thesis, that perhaps "this is where our problems arise."

The paper, overall, is well organized. The student writer has a strong grasp of paragraph structure, without turning paragraphs into descriptions of particular texts. A stronger paper might improve on the transitions, and might actually bring the texts into closer conversation within some paragraphs. The block quotes go under-examined. The student writer would appear to use the texts with more confidence and authority had she broken some of the block quotes down into small citations and paraphrase. This work with text, what we call the use of textual protocols, may suggest C+, yet it is clearly in the service of the project. The student writer clearly comprehends the readings, and does not distort them to force her point. A weaker paper (C+) would likely struggle to keep the context within which the readings matter in such clear view throughout, a stronger paper would work with the texts in a more nuanced way.

• Other observations: Because this writer has tended to place science and faith in opposition to each other, she has been less able to explore the implications of her own position. So, while her project is thoughtful and original, it is also important to note that she has not created an "action horizon" where her ideas might be tried out. The readings of de Waal and Dillard tend to have a good guy/bad guy quality: science is reductive, faith is the answer. A paper that moved beyond this binary would be more exciting. Thus, as was the case with the C sample paper, here too we see the student writer drawing on the assigned materials solely for support. The texts do not, in other words, help to extend, challenge, or redirect the position that the student writer is constructing in her essay.

Applying the grading criteria:

In order to better understand the following final assessment of this paper, please refer to the section of the grading criteria that discusses B papers.

Despite the long time the paper takes to arrive at a direct discussion of the texts, this paper qualifies as a B because:

it has "a sustained and meaningful structure and/or a project that is often more complex than what one finds in a C-range paper," a project that allows the student writer to put forth her own theory about the source of social disturbance.

The paper does not rise to the B+ level for the following reasons:

the work with the texts might be developed by relying less on block quotations and by developing a discussion of the connections between the texts within the paragraphs; the writer has not explored the "action horizon" for her position, with the result that one is left with the impression that the conflict between science and faith may be irreducible.

While the use of textual protocols is at times more the style of a C-range paper, this is a solid B paper: it makes room for the student writer's voice to be an active and equal partner in the discussion of the essay topic along with the assigned readings; and it has a clear and unmistakable sense of a project that is explained and expanded throughout the course of the paper. And an A? Let's look at one

main Gradatorium page | next >>