Grand Canyon University PHI-105 21st Century Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Topic 4 Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet

Complete the Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet in 300 to 500 words, stating one arguable thesis, three supporting reasons with cited evidence, one counterargument with a rebuttal, and an APA 7th edition reference list of at least three credible sources. The worksheet carries 100 points, posts to the Halo assignment dropbox by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Arizona time, and feeds directly into the Topic 7 final draft of 750 to 1,000 words.

Assessment Context

Grand Canyon University requires PHI-105 21st Century Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving of nearly every undergraduate, which makes the Topic 4 Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet one of the most circulated assessment documents in the university’s general education sequence. The task type is a structured planning worksheet rather than an essay, so marks depend on the quality of the argument architecture rather than on prose polish. Course materials sit behind the Halo login, so this brief rebuilds the current version from publicly posted PHI-105 syllabi, the Persuasive Essay Guidelines students receive in Topic 1, and the worksheet copies that circulate each session. The reconstruction assumes 100 points, a Sunday deadline, and a 300 to 500 word worksheet body, since those details hold across the syllabus versions reviewed. Topic 4 tests whether a student can build an argument before writing one, and the Topic 7 draft then tests whether the argument survives contact with a full essay.

Students usually arrive believing the worksheet is clerical work. The rubric says otherwise. A thesis that describes a problem instead of taking a position leaves the three supporting reasons with nothing to prove, and the counterargument section then collapses into a summary of what other people think. Fixing the thesis line resolves most of the worksheet at once.

Learning Outcomes Assessed

• Formulate a defensible thesis that a reasonable person could reject.
• Support a claim with three distinct reasons, each backed by evidence from a credible source.
• Represent an opposing position fairly, then answer it with reasoning rather than assertion.
• Apply APA 7th edition conventions to in-text citation and reference entries.
• Plan an argument that can be carried into a 750 to 1,000 word draft without restructuring.

Task Instructions

1. Choose one debatable issue from the approved topic list in the Topic 4 announcement, or submit a different issue to the instructor for approval before Wednesday. The issue must be arguable, current, and narrow enough to defend in 1,000 words.
2. Write the thesis as a single sentence that names the issue and commits to a position. Add a because clause that previews your strongest reason.
3. Draft three supporting reasons. Each reason gets a one-sentence claim, one sentence of evidence, and one sentence explaining why that evidence supports the claim.
4. Name the strongest objection a thoughtful opponent would raise. State it in that opponent’s terms, without weakening it.
5. Answer the objection in two to three sentences. Concede what is true, then show why the concession does not defeat your thesis.
6. List every source you intend to cite. Use the GCU Library for at least one peer-reviewed article, and keep the total at three or more credible sources.
7. Format the reference list in APA 7th edition, alphabetised, with hanging indents and DOIs where they exist.
8. Submit the completed worksheet as a Word document through the Topic 4 dropbox.

Worksheet Sections and Required Content

• Issue and audience. Two sentences naming the issue and the reader you intend to persuade.
• Thesis statement. One sentence, arguable, specific, and free of first person hedging.
• Reason one, reason two, reason three. Three numbered blocks, each with claim, evidence, and explanation.
• Counterargument. One paragraph of 80 to 120 words presenting the objection at full strength.
• Rebuttal. One paragraph of 80 to 120 words answering the objection.
• Reference list. Three or more sources in APA 7th edition.

Formatting, Integrity, and Submission

• Use the worksheet template posted in Halo. Do not restructure the sections.
• Times New Roman 12 point, double spaced, one inch margins, with a title page that carries the assignment title, your name, the course code, the instructor, and the date.
• Submit through LopesWrite. A similarity score above 20 percent, excluding references, triggers a review.
• Late worksheets lose 10 percent per day. Submissions after Thursday of the following week receive no credit.
• Generative AI tools may support brainstorming and proofreading. Fabricated sources, invented statistics, or unedited generated text count as an academic integrity violation under the GCU Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity policy.

Marking Criteria

Criterion and Points	Insufficient, 0 to 59%	Approaching, 60 to 74%	Acceptable, 75 to 89%	Target, 90 to 100%
Thesis and issue definition, 20 points	Issue is missing or uncontested; thesis describes rather than argues.	Issue is arguable; thesis is vague, broad, or buried in the section.	Thesis takes a clear position, fits the word limit, and previews the argument.	Thesis is precise, contestable, and loaded with a because clause that sets up the strongest reason; the audience is named and plausible.
Three supporting reasons, 30 points	Reasons repeat each other or rest on opinion; no evidence cited.	Three reasons present but overlap; evidence appears once and is not connected to the claim.	Three distinct reasons, each with cited evidence and a sentence of explanation.	Reasons build in strength, evidence is current and specific, and the explanation shows exactly why the evidence settles the point.
Counterargument and rebuttal, 25 points	Objection is a straw figure; no rebuttal, or rebuttal dismisses rather than answers.	Objection is stated but softened; rebuttal repeats the thesis instead of engaging the objection.	Objection is fair and the rebuttal answers it with reasoning.	Objection is presented in its strongest form; the rebuttal concedes what is valid, then shows why the thesis holds.
Sources and APA 7th edition, 15 points	Fewer than three sources, or sources unverifiable; references missing or unformatted.	Three sources present, at least one of them weak; APA errors in author, year, or title.	Three or more credible sources including one peer-reviewed article; APA formatting largely correct.	Source mix is apt and current; in-text citations match the reference list exactly; APA formatting is clean to the DOI.
Worksheet completion and mechanics, 10 points	Sections skipped; sentence-level errors obstruct meaning.	Most sections completed; errors interrupt reading.	All sections completed in order; writing is clear with minor slips.	Every section completed with disciplined sentences and no errors; the plan could be handed to a writer without explanation.

Example Student Response

My issue is whether a state should require a stand-alone media literacy course for high school graduation, and my audience is a school board that has to defend the cost to parents. The thesis runs as follows: states should require a one-semester media literacy course in grade eleven because instruction in evaluating sources reduces the sharing of false information more reliably than warning students about misinformation does. Reason one points to the mechanism behind false sharing. The study titled The Psychology of Fake News finds that people share misleading content largely through inattention rather than partisan intent, which means a habit of pausing before sharing can be taught (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Reason two addresses the design of instruction. A course that drills source evaluation and lateral reading gives students a repeatable procedure rather than a warning, and Hitchcock (2024) notes that critical thinking improves most when teaching includes dialogue, anchored practice, and mentoring. Reason three ties the course to civic cost. A semester of structured practice reaches every student, while opt-in workshops reach the ones already inclined to attend. The strongest objection holds that a new graduation requirement displaces an elective and that media literacy belongs inside English rather than in a separate course. My rebuttal concedes the scheduling pressure, then argues that embedding the content in English has already been tried and that the same content disappears when it is nobody’s assigned responsibility. Naming a responsible course, a required semester, and a named assessment gives the board something it can fund and audit.

Designing Instruction That Transfers

The example above holds together because it separates what students should learn from how the lesson is delivered. Kozyreva et al. (2020) sort interventions into nudges, technocognition, and boosts, and place source evaluation among the boosts that build durable competence rather than momentary compliance. That distinction matters for a worksheet, because a reason built on “we should teach students to be careful” carries no evidence a marker can check. A reason built on a specific instructional mechanism, such as repeated practice with a source-evaluation routine, can be checked against research and against a proposed assessment. Kuhn (2019) adds a further consideration: critical thinking develops through discourse, so a course that asks students to argue in writing and respond to objections produces more transfer than a course that drills fallacies in isolation. Reasons framed this way also survive the counterargument section, since the objection has to attack a mechanism rather than a slogan. Students who build their three reasons around mechanisms find the rebuttal almost writes itself.

Common Misreadings of the Worksheet

Searches for help on this worksheet usually come from students who completed every section and still lost marks, so the failures cluster around a handful of misreadings.

• Treating the counterargument as a display of fairness. The section earns marks for accuracy and force, and a weakened objection makes the rebuttal look easy rather than earned.
• Counting sources rather than weighing them. Three credible sources with one peer-reviewed article beat six web pages, and a course page or encyclopedia summary will not substitute for research.
• Writing the thesis last. Building reasons first and then writing a thesis to match produces a thesis that reports the reasons instead of advancing a position.

Another frequent error concerns scope. Issues framed as questions of whether a whole society should change behaviour, such as ending misinformation or fixing public education, cannot be argued in 1,000 words. Narrowing the actor helps, because a school board, a state legislature, or a single agency can be evaluated against a proposal. Naming the actor also sharpens the audience line, which the rubric assesses under thesis and issue definition. Students who write the audience before the thesis tend to produce sharper claims, since a named reader makes vagueness expensive.

APA Discipline Before the Draft

Reference formatting looks like a technicality until the Topic 7 draft arrives and the source list cannot support the argument. Building the reference list at the worksheet stage forces an early decision about which sources carry weight, and the decision is easier to reverse now than after 800 words are written. Two habits prevent most APA penalties. Paste the DOI at the moment of downloading the article, because reconstructing DOIs later invites invented digits. Keep the in-text citation in every evidence sentence, since the rubric awards source credit where the citation does argumentative work rather than sitting at the end of a paragraph. Students who want a stronger worksheet should also check one thing the rubric does not state directly: whether the peer-reviewed article is current enough to describe the present state of the issue. A 2016 study can support a mechanism claim, and it rarely supports a claim about what a school board faces now.

Final Position on the Task

Topic 4 is a planning task, and planning tasks reward decisions made early. Choosing a narrow issue decides the audience, the three reasons, and the shape of the objection in one move. Writing the thesis as a claim with a because clause gives the reader something to disagree with, which is the whole point of a persuasive essay. Treating the counterargument as the strongest version of the other side protects the rebuttal from becoming circular. Sources deserve scrutiny at this stage because the Topic 7 draft inherits them unchanged, and a weak source is harder to remove once two pages depend on it. A worksheet that could be handed to another writer without explanation has done its job, and that is the standard this brief sets.

References

Hitchcock, D. (2024). Critical thinking. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/critical-thinking/

Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707

Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62(3), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500171

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007

============================================

Grand Canyon University PHI-105 Topic 4: Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet

Assignment Overview and Student Preparation Guide

The Grand Canyon University PHI-105 course, 21st Century Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, uses persuasive writing to assess how students develop, support, and defend an argument. Topic 4 focuses on the Persuasive Essay Outline Worksheet. Students must select a debatable issue, establish a defensible position, support that position with credible evidence, and consider an opposing argument before preparing the final essay. The worksheet functions as a planning exercise rather than a conventional essay. Its quality depends on the strength of the argument and the relevance of its supporting research.

According to the supplied assignment brief, the worksheet requires approximately 300–500 words and carries 100 points. It also prepares students for the Topic 7 persuasive essay, which requires approximately 750–1,000 words. Students should confirm the current word limits, deadline, rubric, and submission instructions in the Halo course platform because the supplied brief reconstructs some administrative details from publicly available course materials rather than a current authenticated course page.

Purpose of the Topic 4 Assessment

The main purpose of the worksheet is to help students organise an argument before they write the full essay. An effective outline establishes the relationship between the central position, its supporting reasons, and the evidence that makes each reason credible. It also anticipates objections, which gives the writer an opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking rather than rely on personal opinion.

The assessment addresses several academic skills. Students must distinguish an arguable claim from a general observation, evaluate research sources, explain how evidence supports an argument, and represent an opposing position fairly. These skills require more than collecting information. Kuhn (2019) explains that critical thinking develops through argument and dialogue, where individuals consider objections and examine the strength of their own reasoning. Consequently, the worksheet rewards students who examine an issue from more than one perspective and explain why their chosen position remains defensible.

Selecting an Appropriate Issue and Audience

Topic selection determines the direction of the entire outline. Students should choose a current, debatable issue that they can address within the limits of a short persuasive essay. The question should present a genuine disagreement rather than invite a factual description. For example, misinformation is a broad subject, but whether states should require structured media literacy instruction in high schools presents a more manageable policy question.

The issue should also identify an actor with the authority to address the problem. A state education department, school board, university administration, or government agency provides a more specific focus than an entire society. Naming the intended audience helps students select evidence that speaks directly to the decision they want to influence. A school board, for instance, may require evidence about educational outcomes, curriculum requirements, student learning, and available classroom time.

The worksheet requires a short issue-and-audience section. Students should use this section to identify the debate and the reader they intend to persuade. A specific audience also helps determine the appropriate tone and the type of evidence required.

Developing a Defensible Thesis Statement

The thesis statement provides the foundation of the persuasive outline. It should identify the issue, establish a clear position, and offer a reason that supports the position. A question, general observation, or description of a social problem does not satisfy this requirement. Readers should understand precisely what the writer wants them to accept.

A useful model is:

States should require structured media literacy instruction in high schools because students need practical experience evaluating online sources before accepting or sharing information.

The statement identifies an actor, a proposed action, and a reason. Another reasonable person could disagree with the proposal, which makes it suitable for persuasive writing. The supporting sections can then explain why source evaluation matters and how schools could teach it.

Students should avoid vague language such as “media literacy is important” or “education should improve.” Those statements identify general concerns but do not establish a specific policy position. A stronger thesis makes a decision, gives a reason, and creates a clear direction for the evidence that follows.

Organising the Three Supporting Reasons

The worksheet requires three distinct supporting reasons. Each reason should contain a claim, evidence, and an explanation connecting the evidence to the thesis. These elements perform different functions. The claim establishes a point, the evidence supports it, and the explanation shows why the evidence matters.

Research into misinformation provides a useful example. Pennycook and Rand (2021) explain that inattention contributes substantially to the sharing of misleading information, rather than every instance involving deliberate partisan intent. Their review suggests that interventions should encourage people to consider accuracy before sharing content. Students could use this evidence to support an argument for teaching deliberate source evaluation and accuracy checks.

A second reason could address the value of practical instruction. McGrew (2024) reviews research on lateral reading, a method that involves checking information across other sources rather than accepting the claims of an unfamiliar website. The review reports evidence that interventions can improve people’s digital evaluation skills. Students can connect that finding to the argument that media literacy education should include repeated exercises in checking source credibility.

A third reason could examine whether students consistently apply these skills. Lodhi et al. (2025) studied 483 undergraduate students and found that selecting lateral reading as a preferred strategy did not always translate into demonstrating that strategy in open-response tasks. The finding highlights a gap between knowing which method is appropriate and applying it in practice. Students could use the result to argue for instruction that provides opportunities to practise information evaluation, although the undergraduate findings do not independently establish the ideal design of a high-school course.

Each supporting reason should contribute a different part of the argument. Repeating the same claim with different wording does not create three independent reasons. Students should also avoid inserting research findings without explaining their relevance to the thesis.

Presenting a Fair Counterargument

A persuasive argument must recognise that reasonable people may disagree with the proposed position. The counterargument section should present the strongest relevant objection rather than an exaggerated or easily dismissed version of the opposing view. Students should consider the practical concerns, costs, competing priorities, and alternative approaches that an informed opponent might raise.

For the media literacy example, an opponent might argue that a separate graduation requirement would take time away from established subjects and electives. Schools could instead integrate source evaluation into English, history, and social studies classes. That objection deserves serious consideration because curriculum time and school resources remain limited.

The supplied brief allocates approximately 80–120 words to the counterargument. Students should explain the opposing position clearly and avoid inserting their rebuttal too early. A well-developed objection gives the following section something substantial to address.

Writing an Effective Rebuttal

The rebuttal answers the objection without ignoring its legitimate concerns. Students should concede any reasonable point before explaining why it does not defeat the central thesis. Repeating the original position does not constitute an effective rebuttal. The writer must provide reasoning or evidence that addresses the actual objection.

For example, the media literacy argument could acknowledge that schools face curriculum pressures and that teachers already cover some aspects of source evaluation. The response could then argue that informal coverage does not necessarily provide every student with consistent opportunities to practise digital verification. Research on lateral reading supports the value of explicit instruction and practical exercises (McGrew, 2024; Lodhi et al., 2025). However, the available research does not establish that a separate semester-long course is the only effective delivery method. A credible rebuttal should recognise that limitation and explain why a clearly defined curriculum requirement remains justified.

The supplied worksheet brief allocates approximately 80–120 words to the rebuttal. Students should use that space to show how the evidence strengthens the thesis, even after considering the opposing position.

Research Quality and APA 7th Edition Referencing

Credible research gives the argument academic authority. Students should use scholarly journal articles, research reviews, academic books, and reliable institutional publications rather than rely exclusively on general websites. The supplied instructions require at least three credible sources, including at least one peer-reviewed article located through the GCU Library.

Research quality matters more than source quantity. Pennycook and Rand (2021), for example, provide a research-based account of why people share misleading information. Kozyreva, Lewandowsky and Hertwig (2020) examine cognitive approaches to the challenges associated with online information. Both sources offer material that can support an argument about digital information literacy.

Students must use APA 7th edition for the actual worksheet. Every in-text citation should match an entry in the reference list. Reference entries should appear in alphabetical order, use hanging indents, and include a DOI or stable URL when available. Students should check author names, publication years, journal titles, volume numbers, issue numbers, and page ranges before submission. A credible article with an incomplete or inaccurate reference can weaken an otherwise sound outline.

Formatting, Academic Integrity, and Submission

The supplied brief specifies Times New Roman, 12-point font, double spacing, and one-inch margins. It also describes a title page containing the assignment title, student name, course code, instructor, and submission date. Students should use the actual worksheet template provided through Halo and preserve its section order rather than create an unrelated document format.

The supplied reconstruction identifies LopesWrite as part of the submission process and gives a similarity-score threshold that may trigger review. Students should check the current course instructions for the applicable submission procedure and originality policy. They should also distinguish legitimate editing support from work that misrepresents authorship. Research citations must refer to real publications, and statistics must come from sources that readers can verify.

The brief gives a Sunday, 11:59 p.m. Arizona-time deadline and describes late penalties. Those administrative details should not be treated as guaranteed current deadlines. The active Halo assignment page and instructor announcements take precedence.

Understanding the Marking Criteria

The supplied rubric allocates the 100 marks across five areas. Thesis and issue definition account for 20 points, while the three supporting reasons account for 30 points. Counterargument and rebuttal carry 25 points. Sources and APA referencing contribute 15 points, while completion and writing mechanics account for the remaining 10 points.

The allocation shows where students should concentrate their preparation. The three supporting reasons carry the largest share of the grade, so each needs relevant evidence and a clear explanation. The counterargument and rebuttal also deserve substantial attention because they assess whether students can engage with an opposing position rather than merely repeat their own opinions.

A strong submission should satisfy every section of the worksheet. It should present a specific thesis, develop independent reasons, cite credible research, and respond to a serious objection. Accurate referencing and clear sentence construction complete the work.

Preparing for the Topic 7 Final Essay

Topic 4 establishes the argument that students will develop in the final persuasive essay. The outline should therefore contain enough substance to support a longer discussion without requiring a complete change in direction. Students should retain their research notes, DOI links, and full reference details after completing the worksheet.

The Topic 7 draft should develop each supporting reason into a coherent body paragraph. The writer can explain the research in greater detail, introduce relevant examples, and strengthen the connection between the evidence and the thesis. The counterargument and rebuttal can also receive fuller treatment. Any weaknesses discovered during the outline stage should be corrected before the final draft, especially problems involving unsupported claims or overlapping reasons.

A successful outline makes the next stage of writing easier because the argument already has a clear direction. Topic 4 should therefore receive the same research attention as the final essay, even though the worksheet is shorter.

Final Assessment Guidance

The PHI-105 Topic 4 worksheet assesses a student’s ability to plan and defend a persuasive position. Its strongest submissions combine a narrow issue, a clear thesis, three evidence-supported reasons, and a fair response to an opposing argument. Credible research and accurate APA 7th edition referencing support the entire structure.

Students should prioritise argument quality over unnecessary wording. Every supporting reason should contribute something distinct, and every citation should support a specific claim. The final outline should give a reader enough information to understand the proposed argument and follow its development into the Topic 7 essay.

References

Kuhn, D. (2019) ‘Critical thinking as discourse’, Human Development, 62(3), pp. 146–164. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1159/000500171

Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S. and Hertwig, R. (2020) ‘Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), pp. 103–156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707

Lodhi, A.K., Brooks, P.J., Gravelle, C., Brodsky, J.E., Syed, M. and Scimeca, D. (2025) ‘Effects of Wikipedia knowledge, algorithm awareness, and reading comprehension on undergraduates’ preference for and use of lateral reading strategies to evaluate information’, Journal of Media Literacy Education, 17(1), pp. 1–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2025-17-1-1

McGrew, S. (2024) ‘Teaching lateral reading: Interventions to help people read like fact checkers’, Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, article 101737. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101737

Pennycook, G. and Rand, D.G. (2021) ‘The psychology of fake news’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), pp. 388–402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007