Assessment 2: 1,500-Word Political Theory Essay (University-Level)

Assessment Overview

Write a 1,500-word analytical essay that develops a clear argument in response to a focused question in political theory or modern political thought. You must engage closely with at least one core theorist studied in the unit and support your position with relevant primary and peer-reviewed secondary sources.

Context and Rationale

Essay assignments in undergraduate political science and political theory are designed to assess your capacity to develop and defend a sustained argument rather than to produce a descriptive summary of readings or events. This task contributes to your development of higher-order skills in critical reading, conceptual analysis, and written communication that are central to philosophy, history, and political science majors.

Task Description

Prepare a 1,500-word essay responding to one of the approved questions provided by your instructor or developed in consultation and formally approved in advance. Your essay must advance a clear, defensible thesis, situate the debate within the relevant theoretical literature, and use carefully selected evidence and reasoning to support your claims.

Step-by-Step Requirements

1. Choose one essay question focused on a key problem in political theory (for example: liberty, equality, democracy, authority, justice, rights, or political obligation).
2. Identify at least one primary author (e.g., Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, Arendt, Rawls, Nozick, Fanon, Young) as the central focus of your analysis, using specific passages from the set reading.
3. Formulate a precise thesis that answers the chosen question and indicates how you will structure your argument across the essay.
4. Develop a logically ordered argument using well-structured paragraphs, each centred on a clearly signposted claim that advances your thesis.
5. Engage with at least three recent, peer-reviewed secondary sources (2018–2026) to situate your interpretation and address at least one significant objection or alternative reading.
6. Cite all sources consistently using the citation style required for your course (e.g., Harvard or Chicago author-date) and include a properly formatted reference list.

Length and Formatting

• Length: 1,500 words (±10%), excluding reference list.
• Format: Double-spaced, 12-point readable font, standard margins.
• File type and submission portal: As specified on your course site (e.g., LMS/Quercus/Brightspace/Canvas).
• Late penalties and extension policies follow the School or Department regulations stated in the syllabus.

Core Requirements

Content Requirements

• Clearly stated research question or prompt in the introduction, followed by a precise thesis statement.
• Accurate exposition of the central theorist’s position, using textual evidence (quotations and close paraphrase with page references).
• Analytical, not descriptive, engagement with key concepts and arguments.
• At least one substantial counterargument or critical challenge addressed in a reasoned way.
• Explicit links between theoretical claims and broader normative or political implications where appropriate.

Structure Requirements

• Introduction that sets up the question, outlines your thesis, and signposts the structure of the essay.
• Body paragraphs organised around clear topic sentences and coherent development of a single main idea per paragraph.
• Conclusion that synthesises the argument and briefly indicates its significance or limitations without adding new substantive claims.

Research and Referencing Requirements

• Use of prescribed primary text(s) for the chosen question.
• A minimum of three recent peer-reviewed secondary sources (journal articles or scholarly book chapters, 2018–2026).
• Consistent citation style throughout and a complete reference list.

Assessment Criteria and Marking Rubric

Markers will use the following rubric, calibrated to university-level expectations in political theory and political science.

Rubric (Indicative Weighting)

• 1. Argument and Thesis (25%)

1. Outstanding (High Distinction/A): Thesis is precise, arguable, and insightful; the entire essay is consistently organised around defending this central claim.
2. Proficient (Distinction/B+–A-): Clear and arguable thesis; minor inconsistencies in focus but overall coherent argumentative line.
3. Competent (Credit/B–B): Thesis present but may be somewhat broad, partially implicit, or unevenly supported.
4. Basic (Pass/C): Thesis is vague, largely descriptive, or only partially addresses the question.
5. Insufficient (Fail): No identifiable thesis or serious misreading of the question.

• 2. Understanding and Interpretation of Texts (25%)

1. Outstanding: Demonstrates nuanced grasp of the theorist’s arguments and concepts; uses relevant passages accurately and critically.
2. Proficient: Shows secure understanding with minor slips or over-simplifications.
3. Competent: Shows basic comprehension but leans on paraphrase and occasionally misstates key points.
4. Basic: Partial or confused understanding of central ideas or arguments.
5. Insufficient: Misrepresents core arguments or relies on non-academic summaries in place of the primary text.

• 3. Critical Analysis and Use of Evidence (25%)

1. Outstanding: Evaluates arguments systematically, weighs objections, and integrates primary and secondary evidence to support clear conclusions.
2. Proficient: Offers relevant critical discussion and some engagement with counterarguments; evidence is mostly well-chosen.
3. Competent: Provides some analysis but often descriptive; limited engagement with alternative views.
4. Basic: Largely descriptive, with minimal justification or evaluation of claims.
5. Insufficient: Assertions are unsupported or contradict the cited evidence.

• 4. Structure, Coherence, and Writing Quality (15%)

1. Outstanding: Logical progression of ideas; paragraphs are tightly focused and transitions clarify the argumentative steps; prose is clear and precise.
2. Proficient: Generally coherent structure; some minor repetition or weak transitions; language is mostly clear.
3. Competent: Recognisable structure but occasional digressions; some awkward or unclear sentences.
4. Basic: Disorganised or difficult to follow; frequent stylistic and grammatical problems.
5. Insufficient: Very poor organisation; writing obscures meaning.

• 5. Research, Referencing, and Academic Integrity (10%)

1. Outstanding: Meets or exceeds minimum number of appropriate scholarly sources; referencing is precise and fully consistent; all use of sources is properly attributed.
2. Proficient: Uses suitable scholarly sources; referencing has only minor errors.
3. Competent: Mix of scholarly and borderline-appropriate sources; several citation inconsistencies.
4. Basic: Relies heavily on non-scholarly or unreferenced material; frequent citation errors.
5. Insufficient: Fails to meet research expectations or shows evidence of academic misconduct as defined in the institutional policy.

Sample Essay Questions

• “Is John Rawls’s conception of justice ultimately compatible with significant social and economic inequalities? Defend your position.”
• “Does J.S. Mill successfully reconcile individual liberty with democratic authority, or does his defence of liberty undermine majority rule?”
• “Can liberal theories of rights adequately address structural injustice, as articulated by critics such as Iris Marion Young or Frantz Fanon?”

A strong essay on Mill and liberty does more than restate his harm principle; it shows how that principle reshapes the limits of state power and democratic decision-making. High-quality work explains Mill’s core argument, tests it against hard cases (such as paternalism or offensive speech), and then takes a clear position on whether his defence of individuality can coexist with robust democratic authority. Well-structured analysis will guide the reader step by step from the essay question to a defensible conclusion grounded in both primary texts and recent scholarship.

Academic Sources

• Forrester, K. (2019) In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy. Princeton University Press.
• Valentini, L. (2020) ‘Justice, fairness, and responsibility’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 28(3), pp. 239–262.
• Stilz, A. (2019) Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State. Princeton University Press.
• Kramnick, I. and Sheerman, B. (eds) (2020) The Political Thought of John Stuart Mill, new edn. Cambridge University Press.
• Young, I.M. (2019, reprint edn) Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.