Short Essay 3
1. What political and social challenges
does Canada face in meeting its Paris Agreement climate targets?
Guidelines
A grading rubric for the short
essays is available . Please read
it closely and
follow the guidelines for an “A” paper.
Essays should
adhere to the following technical requirements:
• A title that
succinctly captures the main argument
•
7 to 8 pages long, with a half-page
tolerance either way (so between 6.5
and 8.5 pages is acceptable),
excluding bibliography page.
• 12 point font
• 1 inch margins
• Double spaced
• Page numbers
• A minimum
of 10 scholarly sources
cited
• In-text
citations (no footnotes or endnotes please) in the following style: (Last name,
Year, Page), e.g. (Snider, 2021, p.123) please, use APA 7th
SEE NEXT PAGE
• Bibliographies formatted according to Chicago author-date style
These short essays are argumentative, meaning that they should advance a single,
clear argument. This argument should
not be based on your opinion
or intuition; it should be based
on evidence that you synthesize
from scholarly sources. Each essay should cite at least five (5) such scholarly sources. Non-scholarly sources (e.g. newspaper articles, polling
data, think-tank reports) can also be used,
but will not count toward this minimum number.
Essays should include
a thesis statement, a roadmap, and signposts. A
roadmap is a sentence or series of sentences following the thesis statement
that tell the reader what main steps the essay will take to prove its argument. You can also think of these as the main
sections of the essay. Signposts are
topic sentences at the beginning of paragraphs, spread throughout the essay, that refer back to the roadmap,
and signal to the reader that you are now transitioning to the step or section
that you identified in the roadmap. There should be the same number of signpost sentences in your essay
as steps/sections you identify in the roadmap. A
separate document illustrating clear thesis statements, roadmaps, and signposts
is posted to paper.
It is imperative that you clearly
define key
terms. This is important for the clarity of
your essay, but also for how persuasive or unpersuasive your argument is to the reader. For example,
if you argue that something
is “undemocratic,” your reader cannot
assess that argument
without knowing how you define
“democracy.”
We will aim to return
graded essays with feedback to you within two weeks
of submission.
Thesis Statements, Roadmaps, and Signposts
Here is the first
page of a hypothetical essay, exemplifying the use of a clear
thesis statement, roadmap, and signposts. The hypothetical essay
question is: Should
Canada adopt the
polar bear as its official animal? Notice the following:
•
The essay uses
direct language (“This
paper will argue”)
to begin the
thesis statement. This
sends a clear signal to the reader
about which sentence
is the thesis.
• The thesis statement gives a direct
and clear answer
to the essay question.
• The essay uses
direct language to organize the roadmap (“First,” “Next,” etc.).
•
The
order of the
sections listed in the roadmap
matches exactly the
order of those
sections in the
body of the paper.
•
The
essay repeats some of the same language
and phrasing from the roadmap
in the corresponding signpost. Again, this
sends a clear
signal to the reader that the paper
is now transitioning to the given section
indicated in the roadmap.
•
The essay uses
the first person
pronoun (“I”) to make appropriate authorial statements (“I
argue,” “I define”). The
first person should not be used to insert opinions (“I think,” “I
believe”) but neither do you have to hide the fact that you, a human being, are writing the essay. The first
person, used appropriately, is fine.
• The details
in the essay
are made up. Canada in fact already
has an official animal: the beaver.
🙂
On Symbols: Why Canada
Should Not Adopt the Polar Bear as its Official Animal
Meghan Snider 1000099999
June 30,
2021
In May 2021,
the Canadian government launched a national contest
to choose an official animal.
It is common for
countries to have an official animal,
and for these
animals to become
important symbols both for
citizens of the
country and for
the international community. For example, the official animal
of Australia is the kangaroo, a symbol of pride and identity for Australians and synonymous with Australia
in the international mind. After a tweet from Canadian comedy
site The Beaverton noting that Canada did not have an official
animal went viral in early 2021, the federal
Liberal government launched a contest to choose one. Citizens were invited to submit nominations, and then to vote on a shortlist of finalists. Though voting
will remain open
until the end
of 2021, polling
from the firm
EKOS indicates that the polar bear is the current frontrunner, with the support
of 45 percent of Canadians
(EKOS 2021). This paper will
argue that Canada
should not adopt
the polar bear
as its official animal, because
the polar bear is not a suitable
symbol of Canada.The paper will proceed
in the following sections.
First, I will introduce the two criteria that an official
animal should meet in order to be considered a suitable national symbol:
that its habitat encompasses Canada’s vast and
diverse geography, and that it is safe to humans. Second,
I will show
how the polar bear
fails to meet
the habitat criterion. Next, I will show how the polar bear fails to meet the safeness criterion. Finally, I will conclude
by summarizing my argument that, because the
polar bear neither
lives across Canada
nor is safe
to humans, it is not a
suitable choice for Canada’s official animal.
In order to advance my argument
that the polar bear is not a suitable symbol of Canada, and therefore not a suitable
official animal, it is necessary to first identify
the criteria according to which
suitableness will be measured. I argue that an animal
must have two characteristics in order to be considered a suitable official
animal. First, its habitat must encompass the vast and diverse
geography of Canada. An animal that lives in only one small part
of the country will not inspire pride in all Canadians. Nova Scotians, for example, will
not feel themselves represented by an animal
that lives only in British Columbia. For this reason, a national animal
must be found in all parts
of the country. Second, an official
animal must be safe to humans.
An animal that is dangerous to humans will inspire
fear, and not pride, in Canadians. Canadians who have personally been imperiled by
a dangerous species will feel especially alienated, perhaps even traumatized, if that species
was selected as the national animal. For these reasons,
only those animals
that meet these
two criteria should be selected as Canada’s official animal.
Polar bears, whose
natural habitat is confined strictly
to the far north, plainly
fail to meet
the cri- terion that suitable national
animals must live in all parts of the country’s vast and diverse geography.
Polar bears in Canada live only in the northern
reaches of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the three
northern territories. They are especially concentrated in Churchill, Mani- toba. Stereotypes notwithstanding, the majority of
Canada’s land mass and people are located in
more temperate, southerly climates, where polar bears
cannot live. A resident of any major Canadian
city, like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax, will never encounter a polar bear in the wild.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|