Paper

Paper Format and Length Requirements

Font face

Times New Roman, Cambria, Garamond, or Baskerville (serif fonts)

Font size

12 point

Paragraph spacing

0 point (none)

Line spacing

Double, not single

Margins

1 inch, all around

Page numbers

Top-right in the header, or bottom-middle in the foot

Word limits

About 800 words, give or take 100 words.

File format

May be Word Document (.doc, .docx), OpenDocument (.odt), Rich Text Format (.rtf), or PDF (.pdf). No other formats are permitted. A paper submitted in another format is treated as a non-submission. If your software saves in another format by default, such as Pages (.Pages) or GoogleDoc (.gdoc), you must select ‘Save As’ one of the above formats.

Citation style,
if applicable

Chicago, APA, or MLA. You will not be required to cite the passage I assign (except, say, the author and page number), but if you consult or use any other source, you must cite or reference appropriately. Submissions may be evaluated through SafeAssign, an anti-plagiarism service.

Paper Goal

In this paper, your goal is to represent an author’s view clearly and fairly, and then evaluate the reasoning for their view. In order to do this, your sub-goals include these three tasks:

Reconstruct – Present the author’s reasoning in argument standard format
Explain – Explain the premises the author gives
Evaluate – Weigh in what you think about the argument
Reconstruct instructions (word count not too important here, but at least 70 40 words)

You are expected to present it in argument standard form. Some think it is the hardest step, since it requires reconstructing an author’s logic in a very distilled, concise manner. Though this part may be time consuming to most people, it will be a fairly short part of your paper. An example:

If you’re stuck, email me!

P1. All humans are mortal.

P2. Socrates is a human.

Socrates is mortal.

The format requires that each number/bullet has one and only one sentence. Each claim gets its own line and label. Premises given first, and then conclusion last. If you feel unfamiliar with this, remember that it is available both in Chapter 2: Moral Reasoning and the lecture videos on the same. I also have a video on writing this kind of paper.

Often it is difficult to take someone’s argument and simplify it down and represent in this way. Only rarely do authors organize a paragraph that fits this presentation so neatly. For the many who do not, it will be helpful to you to summarize each paragraph into a single, complete sentence (i.e., not a sentence fragment) as you go along. When you collect all the critical sentences (or the sentences you have summarized a critical paragraph), identify the one that is the “main point” the author is trying to establish. Identify all sentences that do not factor in as direct support for the conclusion. Toss out all those that are off-topic or those that are on the topic but do not offer direct support (examples and anecdotes are usually only indirect support).

Then build them in the most linear order of reasoning, label them with P1, P2, P3, and so on, and then C. Sometimes the author mentions their conclusion first, and then offers reasons. Even in such cases, you still want the conclusion put as the last line in Standard Form. We want to represent reasoning, not order of presentation.

Explanation instructions (at least one paragraph for each premise – about 250-450 words)

While the presentation in Standard Form was super brief and distilled, here you unpack what the premise intends to communicate. Spell out any technical term or concept, so that someone who is entirely unfamiliar with the topic would be able to grasp it. Assume the reader has not read the text (or has never taken this class).

Explain some of the reasons why the author thinks the premise is true. Explain why the claim is plausible. Would an example help? Use one, even if the author didn’t.

The difficulty here is to capture what the author intends to communicate. Sometimes you may need to be clearer than the author is. You may need take up more space to make sure you are accurate and complete. You want the description in your words to be so fair, so clear, and so accurate, that the author would recognize the explanation as meaning the same thing as they did.

In this section do not evaluate the argument or offer opinions. Present the author’s position charitably and fairly. They aren’t crazy but probably reasonable, even if they could be mistaken.

Evaluate instructions (at least one paragraph – about 150-250 words)

Assess whether you think the argument works and why. Are the premises true? Do the premises fail to support the conclusion, even if they are true? Is it valid? Sound? You may be able to just analyze the argument and expose some aspect you found unconvincing. If you aren’t convinced at some point, you may want to spell out an alternative interpretation or motivate why we should resist accepting the premise(s). A critique is more than just a difference of opinion. When you criticize, you give a reason why you disagree. Since you have made the premises precise and distinct in Standard Form, it should obvious which premise you are assessing.

Recommended strategies: (1) Sometimes it is helpful to think about what this argument seems to show for practical life. If normal, every-day people can’t believe the conclusion, how would they respond? (2) If you can think of what another philosopher would say, a response may become fairly obvious. (3) If you are unsure what you think about an argument, write up a rough idea what you are thinking might be a good criticism, and then email me. I am happy to help you formulate your thoughts!

Discouraged: I recommend against searching the internet for critique ideas. While secondary sources are permitted, you must cite appropriately. Failure to cite appropriately is plagiarism.

Assigned Texts
Any argument in Sticks and Stones (John Arthur)
OR
Any argument in Speech Codes and Expressive Harm (Andrew Altman)

For either text, it depends on the level of granularity you are interested in. Main conclusion of article? Main conclusion of a section? Main conclusion of a paragraph? That decision will determine what is direct support/premises. (Because the author has a main point supported by premises, but he gives reasoning for the main premises, like mini-arguments or sub-arguments). If you want help, email me.

Example outline of the paper structure:
Argument in Standard Form [section header]
Argument in standard form (use numbered order, or bullets), for example:
Premise which says if this is true, then blah blah blah
Premise about schuggity-schwoh, schfifty-five
Premise about how a duck walked up to a lemonade stand
Conclusion/main point to be established of the argument
Explanation of premises [section header]
Explanation of premise 1
Explaining what the premise means and why the average person would find it reasonable. Short explanation of all the technical philosophical terms used or assumed in the premises. Examples help.
Explanation of premise 2
(same kind of task as for premise 1)
If applicable, premise 3
(same kind of task as for premise 1)
Evaluation of Argument [section header]
Paragraph giving some reasoning and evaluation of the premises. Is the premise true? Do the premises fail to support the conclusion? Etc.
Unnecessary elements you should exclude on this paper assignment
Introduction paragraph, where you frame the rest of the paper or give background information.
Unnecessary hedging: “I feel that”, or “it seems to me”
Platitudes, clichés, cheesy writing: “From the dawn of time, ethical debate has raged”
Opinions whether you like a theory or reading; critiques of the theory or reading (yet!)
Conclusion paragraph, where you summarize what you have accomplished.
Frequently asked questions:
Is it OK to just write the premises and conclusion in a paragraph, prose-style?
No. Give it in standard form, which has each claim labeled with their own lines.
Must I cite sources?
For the text assigned: an in-text citation of the page number will suffice.
For secondary sources: if you rely on other’s ideas, you must give them credit. You are not required to use internet searches, scholarly articles, or any other sources. The goal is for you to work through it yourself. However, if you do end up using someone else’s thoughts, then yes, you must
I agree with the author. What should I argue?
You can agree with the author’s conclusion, even if you don’t agree with the reasons. Find which reasons you don’t find compelling, and explain why they might be false.
But even if you agree with the reasons given, you might still think that one of the reasons might be controversial or unacceptable to someone else. Try your best to represent the views of someone who disagrees.
I can’t think of any good objections. Could you help me?
Ask whether the argument is airtight in terms of logic – if you accept the premises, do you have to accept the conclusion? If not, then mention that the argument’s structure is not valid (it is logically invalid).
Ask whether each premise is true or not. If you don’t know whether a premise is true, ask whether you could “fix” the premise (not what the author meant, but what the author should’ve said), or whether you can show it is false.
Ask what difference it would make if a premise is false. Does it seem plausible?
I can’t think of more than two sentences to say. What do I do?
You might be assuming too much of what the reader knows: assume I know nothing about the text. Explain concepts we discussed in class. Try explaining technical terms and consider making an example that will clarify your objection well.
Here are some youtube links that went along with the lecture.
This one is for Andrew Altman.

This one is for John Arthur.

H
Here
Here