Please follow the marking criteria i.e.HD criteria and answer the questions and referencing should be intext and APA referencing style. Use the links to understand how to create the structured diagram. For your ease the other example files which is in PDF format has been attached with the email.
https://www.rationaleonline.com/editor/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-Du6xkW28&feature=youtu.be
http://argumentative.sourceforge.net/index.html
Assessment item 3
Rational Argument
Value: 20%
Due date: 24-Sep-2015
Return date: 09-Oct-2015
Length: 1300 words
Submission method options
Alternative submission method
Task
Your lecturer will place several links in Interact to a number of relevant articles and/or case studies. These will be available to you just after your second assignment has been submitted.
1. Choose one of the media articles or case studies listed by the lecturer in your Interact 2 subject site.
2. Use the title of the article/case study provided in interact 2 as the title of your essay, so that the lecturer knows which article you are analysing.
3. Undertake further research about your chosen case, to assist you in analysing and discussing it in your essay.
You are required to complete the following:
Step 1. Construct a diagram to map the arguments about a moral claim that you have identified in the article/case study:
• Include all supporting and objecting claims. These claims should include facts collated from your own research and classical ethical theories that support or object to the claim
• You are expected to 'finish off' the case's arguments, turning it into a valid and properly structured argument.
• You should use information from the article/case study, other sources discovered during your research, and your own reasoned arguments. A balanced and impartial argument is the objective.
• The main claim/conclusion must be an ethical claim.
Step 2. Write an essay, which maps closely to the diagram that you constructed in Step 1.
• The word limit for the essay is 1300 words ± 10%. Headings, citations and references do not count towards the word limit, but quotations do.
• All the claims shown on the diagram must appear in the essay, and all claims made in the essay must appear on the diagram. The essay must present all the detailed information that the diagram cannot.
• Remember to analyse the article/case study from the perspective of at least two different classical ethical theories and present well reasoned arguments for your assessments and recommendations.
Step 3. Write an overall conclusion that justifies your recommendations made in your essay.
Step 4. Reference list
• Include a Reference list at the end of your work, in the correct APA referencing style, corresponding to in-text citations.
• You must include at least FIVE (5) quality academic references from different sources. Please note that these five references are in addition to those provided to you through this subject (for example, you still must reference, Tavani, the Interact subject lecture notes etc BUT these references cannot be used as one of your five quality academic references from different sources).
• Only use references that have been cited in the body of your assignment and ones that support what you have presented in your assignment.
NOTE: Format your assignment according to the instructions given in the Assessment Information, Presentation section.
Online submission via Turnitin is required for this assignment. Details will be provided by your subject lecturer in the class or by notification in the subject site.
Rationale
This assessment extends the skills practiced in Assessment item 1 and 2, to help you to achieve all the learning objectives.
In addition to identifying a contentious situation in ICT and dissecting the argument(s) about it, you must also now demonstrate the ability to convert an argument into proper form and evaluate the elements of the argument by introducing classical ethical principles where appropriate.
Since Assessment item 1 and 2, your knowledge will have grown, and you will now realize that almost all ICT ethical dilemmas can be classified under one of the main ICT ethical issues that are discussed in this subject; for instance, surveillance is a sub-issue of privacy, harmful software is a sub-issue of ICT professionalism, and piracy is a sub-issue of intellectual property.
In ICT, the main ethical issues are taken to be:
• ICT professionalism
• Privacy
• Security
• Cyber-crime
• Intellectual property
• Regulation on the internet
• Social inclusion
• Community and identity
• Pervasive and convergent computing.
The assessment item is designed to help you to build skills towards achieving the learning objectives, by requiring you to:
• identify an ICT-related ethical issue from a media article or case study;
• using a critical analysis technique, analyse the detailed logical structure of the arguments given in the media article/case study and convert the overall argument into a valid and well-structured argument that supports or refutes an ethical position;
• apply classical ethical theory to the analysis of an ethically questionable situation to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions/decisions made therein;
• derive logical and justifiable conclusions to resolve the ethical issue(s);
• develop structured, coherent and logical arguments to support or refute claims; and
• apply proper academic referencing.
Marking criteria
The following marking sheet will be used to assess students' submissions.
Please check that you have met all the criteria before you submit your assignment.
Criteria Standards
High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DI) Credit (CR) Pass (PS) Fail (FL)
Classical Ethical Theory Demonstrates an excellent ability at applying ethical theories to the ethical issues.
Demonstrates a good ability at applying ethical theories to the ethical issues. Makes a genuine attempt at applying the ethical theories to the ethical issues. The ethical theories do not link well with the ethical issues. The ethical theories are not properly applied to the ethical issues.
Diagram Evidence of outstanding level of understanding of logical argument structure.

Highly developed skills in expression & presentation
of claims. Evidence of very high standard of understanding of logical argument structure.

Well developed skills in expression & presentation of claims. Evidence of high standard of understanding of logical argument structure.

Good skills in expression & presentation of claims. Demonstrates a rudimentary level of understanding of logical argument structure.

Some skills in expressing and presenting claims. Fails to satisfy minimum standards of logical argument structure.

Rudimentary skills in expressing and presenting claims.
Essay based on diagram Strictly maps arguments and argument structure to diagram.

Evidence of having researched/read more widely than the core materials.
Provides strong and clearly articulated arguments with supporting evidence from literature and/or real-world examples to justify claims. Closely maps arguments and argument structure to diagram.

Evidence of having read beyond the core materials.
Provides clearly articulated arguments with supporting evidence from literature and/or real-world examples to justify claims. A genuine attempt is made at mapping arguments and argument structure to diagram.

Demonstrates understanding of material presented in core texts & readings.
Provides good articulated arguments to justify claims. Arguments and argument structure do not link well with diagram.

Demonstrates evidence of having read material presented in core texts & readings, however, literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive manner.
Provides some arguments to justify claims. There is no correlation between arguments/structure and diagram.

Demonstrates little evidence of having read material presented in core texts & readings.

Inaccurate or inconsistent acknowledgement of sources.
Considers only those factors of a claim that support a premise.
Writing & structure Language features and structures are used to convey meaning effectively, concisely, unambiguously, and in a tone appropriate to the audience and purpose with no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors. Well developed skills in expression & presentation of ideas.

Fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type.

Grammar & spelling accurate. Good skills in expression & clear presentation of ideas.

Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type.

Grammar & spelling contains a few minor errors. The text contains frequent errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, and structure, lacks clarity, and is not concise, but the meaning is apparent to the reader with some effort. Rudimentary skills in expression & presentation of ideas.
Not all material is relevant &/or is presented in a disorganised manner.
Meaning apparent, but writing style not fluent or well organised.

Grammar & spelling contains many errors.
Conclusion Superior conclusion that ties the results of the analysis together into a coherent, logically valid & convincing argument in support of a premise. Very high standard conclusion that ties the results of the analysis together into a coherent, logically valid & convincing argument in support of a premise. High standard conclusion that ties the results of the analysis together into a coherent, logically valid & convincing argument in support of a premise. Rudimentary conclusion that provides a convincing argument in support of a premise. Sub-standard (or no) conclusion.
Referencing Referencing is comprehensive, demonstrates academic integrity, and conforms exactly to APA style conventions. Very good referencing, including reference list and citations.

Evidence of high quality references. Good referencing, including reference list and citations.

Evidence of good quality references. Referencing is comprehensive, mostly accurate according to APA style conventions, and demonstrates academic integrity. Some minor errors or omissions in style and formatting choices (e.g. italics, punctuation, etc) don’t impact on the transparency and traceability of the source, or demonstration of academic integrity. Sub-standard (or no) referencing.
Poor quality (or no) references.