BOOK from:Budziszewski, J. 2011. The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute**In your review of this work, be sure to mention the Natural Law theories of the thinkers covered in the first two weeks (Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero) and include a discussion of their relationship to universal citizenship and active statesmanship.**The papers must each be 5 pages long (not including the title page and bibliography), in current Turabian format, with default margins and in 12-pt Times New Roman font. Your papers must include citations to at least 5 scholarly sources, such as academic journal articles or books published by university presses, supporting and/or illustrating your positions. Your papers must include a title page and bibliography, also in current Turabian format.**The goal of the papers is not merely to offer unfounded opinion or subjective discussion of the topics, but rather to provide a concise, well-reasoned analysis of the topics presented.**This is an open research project, meaning that you are expected to locate, use, and cite support outside of the course readings. Better papers will demonstrate that you sufficiently pondered the ideas at issue to understand them, recognize them, and develop a well-reasoned approach to them.**Be sure to read closely the grading rubric for the assignment and note that at least 5 scholarly sources (peer-reviewed academic journal articles or books published by university presses) are required.**Scriptural excerpts with citations are required in all written assignmentsJan 21st, 2019ATTACHMENTSbook_review_instructions_plcy_701.docxbook_review_grading_rubric__1__plcy_701.docxREQUIREMENTSschool Aristotle school Natural Law theories school Natural Law theories of the thinkers covered in the first two weeks (Plato school and Cicero school include a discussion of their relationship to universal citizenship and active statesmanship.
book_review_instructions_plcy_701.docx

book_review_grading_rubric__1__plcy_701.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Book Review 1
For Book Review 1, review the following:
Budziszewski, J. 2011. The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign
of Contradiction. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
In your review of this work, be sure to mention the Natural Law theories of the thinkers covered
in the first two weeks (Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero) and include a discussion of their relationship
to universal citizenship and active statesmanship.
The papers must each be 5 pages long (not including the title page and bibliography), in
current Turabian format, with default margins and in 12-pt Times New Roman font. Your
papers must include citations to at least 5 scholarly sources, such as academic journal
articles or books published by university presses, supporting and/or illustrating your
positions. Your papers must include a title page and bibliography, also in current Turabian
format.
The goal of the papers is not merely to offer unfounded opinion or subjective discussion of the
topics, but rather to provide a concise, well-reasoned analysis of the topics presented.
This is an open research project, meaning that you are expected to locate, use, and cite support
outside of the course readings. Better papers will demonstrate that you sufficiently pondered the
ideas at issue to understand them, recognize them, and develop a well-reasoned approach to
them.
Be sure to read closely the grading rubric for the assignment and note that at least 5 scholarly
sources (peer-reviewed academic journal articles or books published by university presses) are
required.
Scriptural excerpts with citations are required in all written assignments
PLCY 701
BOOK REVIEW GRADING RUBRIC
Criteria
Content
(70%)
Content
Master
Clarity and
Coherence
Evidence and
Detail
Structure
(30%)
Advanced
92-100%
38 to 41 points
The review displays clear
content mastery while
critically analyzing /
evaluating each of the
assignment prompts.
Levels of Achievement
Proficient
Developing
84-91%
1-83%
34.5 to 37.5 points
1 to 34 points
The review addresses each
of the assignment prompts
yet with modest evidence of
subject mastery or critical
analysis.
38 to 41 points
34.5 to 37.5 points
The review is critical in its
approach to each of the
assignment prompts,
providing evidence of
coherent reasoning, analytical
insight, and relevant research.
The review is satisfactory,
but it does not provide
strong evidence of coherent
reasoning, clear writing, or
critical analysis based on
careful research or current
literature.
21 to 23 points
19 to 20.5 points
The review provides evidence
that is sufficiently detailed,
defined, or explained, and
highly relevant to the
assignment prompts.
The review contains
satisfactory evidence yet is
insufficiently detailed,
defined, or explained,
and/or questionably
relevant to the assignment
prompts.
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Not Present
Total
0 points
The review loosely
The review does not
relates to or neglects 1 display evidence of
or more of the
subject mastery.
assigned prompts, and
does not effectively
develop the
discussion beyond
minimal or superficial
understanding of the
topic.
1 to 34 points
0 points
The review
demonstrates a clear
bias or does not
provide a clearly
discernible position
on the issue. Evidence
of research is not
present.
1 to 18.5 points
The review does not
display evidence of
individual thought or
topical research.
0 points
Evidence in the
Contributions to the
review is
discussion are
insufficiently detailed, nominal.
defined, or explained,
and is marginally
relevant to the
assignment prompts,
if at all.
Developing
Not Present
1-83%
Total
PLCY 701
Organization,
Writing
Mechanics,
Grammar,
and Spelling
Current
Turabian
Format
Compliance
and
Assignment
Requirements
Professor
Comments:
27.5 to 30 points
25 to 27 points
1 to 24.5 points
0 points
The argument, evidence, and
conclusion of the review are
coherently written and
organized with fewer than 2
errors in grammar or spelling.
The argument, evidence,
and conclusion of the
review are relatively clear,
yet partially obscured by
poor organization, writing
mechanics, and/or fewer
than 5 errors in grammar or
spelling.
The review is
disorganized, poorly
written, and contains
more than 8 errors in
grammar or spelling
that distract the
reader from the
content.
14 to 15 points
12.5 to 13.5 points
The argument,
evidence, and
conclusion of the
review are disrupted
by poor organization,
writing mechanics,
and/or fewer than 8
errors in grammar or
spelling.
1 to 12 points
There are minimal errors (1–
2) noted in current Turabian
formatting. The review is at
least 5 pages, and at least 5
scholarly sources are used, as
well as at least 1 Scripture
reference.
There are a few errors (3–4)
noted in current Turabian
formatting. The review may
not meet the length
requirement and may not
incorporate the required
number of sources.
There are numerous
errors (5+) noted in
current Turabian
formatting and/or
word count
requirements. The
review does not meet
the length
requirement and does
not incorporate the
required number of
sources.
There are notable
absences in current
Turabian formatting
elements, such as the
title page, running
head, font type, font
size, line spacing,
and headings. The
length is not within
20% of the length
requirement. No
outside references
are provided.
0 points
Total:
/150

Purchase answer to see full
attachment