HOME | COURSES | CV | WRITINGS | BLOG | LINKS | CONTACT

Problems of Knowledge

Philosophy 311
Winter/Spring 2007

5-7 pages

due dates:

Proposal: Monday, 26 February 2007
Final Draft: Monday, 19 March 2007

description of assignment:

This assignment involves summarizing and critiquing an argument from one of the essays that we've read in the text. Thus there are two aspects you must keep in mind in order to successfully complete this assignment.

First, you must transform a complex piece of philosophical writing into a clearer expression of its meaning, doing so with both quotations and your own explanations. Even if the original argumentative essay was wandering, thick, or abstruse, your own summary should be clear and to the point, using whatever concrete examples or specific illustrations you need in order to do so.

Second, you must go on to interact critically with the viewpoints you have explained, either agreeing or disagreeing. Whatever position you take, you must both [a] make your own position clear as well as [b] giving due consideration to the opposite view.

In other words, if you disagree with the position the philosopher takes, then you should consider how he or she would respond to your disagreements and you should then give your answer that response. On the other hand, if you agree with the philosopher, then you should consider how someone who disagrees might respond and then make a reply in defense of the philosopher. Of course, you might disagree in part and agree in part as well, though that makes for a more complex essay. Whatever the case, in terms of grading, more weight will be given to the effectiveness of the arguments against your own view. That is, you must attempt to be a convincing advocate for what you disagree with.

Here are some further guidelines:

  • Begin by analyzing the argument, identifying the conclusion and the premises.

  • Put the argument back together, this time clearly and succinctly, organizing the information for clarity.

  • Clearly report the claim or claims that are defended, using phrases like "the author argues that . . . " to label the statement's role in the argument.

  • Then, one by one, report the reasons offered in defense of the claim and any other essential supporting information.

  • Feel free to use your own examples to illustrate the points that the author makes, especially if the author does not provide any.

  • Be sure to frame each claim and each reason with sign posting phrases ("the reason is that," "because," "To support this claim, he notes that . . .") that clearly identify the role each statement plays in the argument as a whole.

  • Be sure to include all the main points contained in the argumentative passage that you are discussing.

  • Leave out all extraneous material that does not advance the argument, for instance, a tangential aside the author makes about a topic he plans to deal with later.

  • Paraphrase the language used by the author into your own words or make sure you explain any direct quotes that are not clear.

  • Be sure to introduce technical terms explicitly, by means of a definition or examples. Don't just start using them without explanation.

  • Make sure that your sentences cannot be misconstrued because of ambiguity or vagueness. The point is to be more clear than the original text.

Reread your essay sentence by sentence, asking yourself if each sentence says exactly what you want it to say. If you are not happy with a particular sentence or passage that you have written, ask yourself why it bothers you. It could be that you don't really understand what you were trying to say. If this is the case, you need to think some more before writing. It really helps the rereading process if you can allow some time between writing and re-reading - in other words, start working on your assignment well before the deadline!

criteria for evaluation:

The following kinds of criteria will be used in evaluating and grading your essay:

  • Is it an accurate representation of the original argument, capturing what was argued and giving it a fair interpretation?

  • Does it clearly state the essential content of the argument?

  • Does it make proper use of citations, quoting material accurately, in a proper form, and only when helpful and relevant?

  • Is there evidence that effort was put into writing the essay in terms of adequately meeting requirement, clarity, and technical care (e.g., avoiding spelling and grammatical errors)?

  • Does the essay show that you understand what the author has argued?

  • It is clear what position you are taking with regard to the philosopher’s viewpoint?

  • Are any disagreements clearly presented and insightfully backed up with argumentation, examples, and evidence?

  • Are agreements cogently justified by careful understanding and evaluation of the position?

  • Are both sides given due consideration, providing a balanced and fair argument?

  • Are your summary, arguments, and position organized clearly and in a logical way?

In order to get an "A" on this essay, you will have to do well in all of these areas.

possible topics:

You are free to write about any argument presented by any of the philosophers we have read for this class prior to the due date for the paper. The argument may be drawn from an entire essay in the book or any (relatively self-contained) part of an essay. If you have any question about whether or not a topic is acceptable, feel free to talk to me about it beforehand.

I am requiring you to turn in an approximately one page (typed) proposal for your essay by Monday, 26 February 2007. In the proposal you must tell me what article (or portion of an article) from the book you will be writing about, what you take the main argument of the essay to be, what position you plan to take with regard to the argument in the essay, and some of your reasons for taking that position.