SOSC 4350A: Analysis Paper #2
The suggested submission date for this assignment has been pushed back to January 25th, 2022.
This assignment is intended as an opportunity for you to demonstrate your comprehension of
course materials and your ability to reason / present an argument about a given topic.
For Analysis Paper #2, choose one of the following questions:
1. Should we bring back “animal trials” for so-called “dangerous dogs” today? Why or why
not (and, by extension, how or how not)?
2. Can Indigenous perspectives on animals be reconciled with Western ones (in the law or
otherwise)? If so, how so? If not, how not?
3. Are “animal rights” and “cultural rights” in conflict with each other, or can they work
together? For either position, how and why?
Keep a couple things in mind when answering these questions:
– These questions do not have to be answered in absolute black-and-white terms. For
example, in the second question above, you might persuasively argue that some kinds of
animal rights and cultural rights are in conflict, whereas others are not.
– The position your paper takes does not need to correspond to your actual opinion. For
example, you may personally think the idea of “animal trials” is laughable, but you can
still posit a strong argument in favour of their applicability today.
Your answer must…
– Use at least two of the following scholarly texts:
– Katie Sykes, “Human Drama, Animal Trials”
– Lesli Bisgould, “The History of Western Ideas About Animals”
– Constance MacIntosh, “Indigenous Rights and Relations with Animals”
– Lauren Corman (and Margaret Robinson), “All My Relations”
– Maneesha Deckha, “Welfarist and Imperial”
– Lesli Bisgould, “Power and Irony”
– Use at least one of the following law reports:
– Rogier v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) (2009)
– Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) (2005)
– R. v. Ménard (1978)
– R. v. Power (2003)
Your answer can also use additional sources. When using lecture, please cite this as appropriate.
Outside research is welcome, although not required.
Stylistic Components
Your paper should be around 2 000 words (i.e. 7-8 double-spaced pages). This is a
recommendation only. Marks will not be deducted for reasons related specifically to length.
Rather, this recommendation is presented as a guideline for how much space it will likely take
for you to demonstrate your comprehension fully and lay out a multi-part argument.
You need to provide citations for words, ideas, and information that are not your own. If you are
doing this in a standard format, please include in-text citations with the author’s name and the
relevant page number. For example:
Speciesism is just like racism and sexism (Singer p. 9)
You should include something like a year of publication or the name of the publication if you
need to distinguish between sources. For example:
Animals must be understood as persons in all legal circumstances (Francione, “Animal
Rights”, p. 398). Context-based reasoning about this is inherently flawed (Francione,
“Ecofeminism”, p. 96).
Include a works cited page for standard format assignments. No specific citation style is required
on the works cited page; rather, please just be consistent in how your paper documents the
sources it has cited.
Please double-space the paper, using Times New Roman 12pt font.
Evaluation
Your assignment’s grade on each criterion below is gauged in relation to how well it meets the
“standard” of a 75%. Scoring higher than this occurs when your assignment exceeds the standard
in some way; conversely, scoring lower than this occurs when your assignment shows evidence
of needing improvement to meet the standard in some way.
Standard content comprehension is demonstrated by:
– Presenting and using concepts, ideas, and/or arguments from the specified readings in
ways corresponding to their meaning in the original reading
– Thoroughly incorporating at least one of the three required readings into the paper
Standard reasoning and argumentation is demonstrated by:
– Having a thesis statement that indicates the main thrust of the overall argument
– Having a clear introduction and conclusion
– Arranging supporting points and/or supporting arguments in ways that build upon each
other and are connected in a holistic way
– Avoiding internal contradictions and being rhetorically persuasive
– Using external sources to verify external information
Standard “style” is demonstrated by:
– Using the mechanics of writing (i.e. grammar and syntax) to facilitate ease of
understanding
– Being mostly free from typos or distracting proofreading errors
– Being consistent in its use of chosen style
Although a grading rubric will not be attached to your work, this is the rough guide the course
director will use to determine a grade on your assignment:
Content
comprehension
(marked out of 45)
Reasoning and
argumentation
(marked out of 45)
Style
(marked out of 10)
Needs significant
improvement (50-55%)
Needs much
improvement (55-65%)
Needs some
improvement (65-70%)
Standard met (75%)
Standard marginally
exceeded (75-80%)
High competence
demonstrated (80-90%)
Excellence demonstrated
(90%-100%)
Important Policies
Submission of Assignment
Assignments should be submitted through the TurnItIn portal provided on eClass. If an alternate
method of submission is necessary, it is your responsibility to ensure the assignment has been
received. In normal circumstances, your assignment will be graded on eClass and returned there,
as well.
As a general rule, late penalties will not be applied. However, note that the University has
established Dec. 7th as the last day to submit work in the fall term and Apr. 11th as the last day
to submit work in the winter term and, as such, the course director reserves the right not to accept
work submitted after these dates or to accept it with a penalty of a letter grade reduction.
Academic Honesty
In this course, we strive to maintain academic integrity to the highest extent possible. Please
familiarize yourself with the meaning of academic integrity by completing SPARK’s Academic
Integrity module at the beginning of the course. Breaches of academic integrity range from
cheating to plagiarism (i.e., the improper crediting of another’s work, the representation of
another’s ideas as your own, etc.). All instances of academic dishonesty in this course will be
reported to the appropriate university authorities, and can be punishable according to the Senate
Policy on Academic Honesty.