Assignment: WRITING CRITICAL ARGUMENT PAPERS

I. Where to start?

• For both short and long papers, start by making a moderately detailed outline that starts with the PRIMARY ARGUMENT the paper will make and SUB-ARGUMENTS that will support the primary argument. Writers typically don't write a clear, concise introduction until a paper is finished, but this is because the organization and content of the paper usually changes during the revision process, so where you start out initially might not be where you actually end up. For this reason it is important to write up and outline that will help you stay on track

• Start the paper by writing a concise THESIS statement that indicates what the argument of the paper is about. Typically, such statements for short papers are 3-4 sentences long, though they might be longer if you provide more detail. A thesis statement should tell the reader what is the primary argument, and provide reader with "directions" on how the sub-arguments of the paper will be examined. In short, tell the reader the order of these sub-arguments as they will appear in the paper For example, "First, I shall examine X..." and "Second, I shall examine Y..."

• When you are done with the paper go back and make sure the introduction is more filled out with the details of these sub-arguments. As much as possible, leave out extraneous information, such as biographical information about the authors, etc. Limit the introduction to two things: (1) the arguments formulated in the paper, and (2) the arguments found in the text themselves.

• Conclusions are not very important for short papers, so they should be short and to the point: either summarize the results of the paper's investigation (weaker) or provide some independent perspective, criticism, or analysis of what you think (stronger) However, this latter kind of conclusion calls for evaluation that is structured and well connected to the arguments raised in the paper, so calling the author names, for example, or criticizing her writing style, or supplementing the arguments with personal anecdotes, are tangential and thus will not provide the paper with a stronger conclusion

II. Critical Analysis

The main body of the paper should take the time to answer the questions of the paper topics, or reconstruct and evaluate the arguments made in the paper, as comprehensively as possible and hopefully in the sane order of the paper topic (unless you see some more logical way of presenting the information that calls for a different order). Answering prompt questions and/or reconstructing and evaluating a set of arguments comprehensively means doing six things.

1. Formulate the significance or importance of the author's point or argument for answering the question. Give some context for or formulate in your own words what the point or argument is that you will be discussing.

2. Provide the author's principal arguments or claims concerning the concept, problem, or issue addressed in the questions. This also means formulating those arguments as accurately and with as much detail as possible.

3. At this point the use of textual material to support the development of your paper is crucial.

4. Explain what the quote is saying. Don't act like the meaning of the text is or should be apparent to your reader! Instead, take the time to explain what the quote is saying and WHY it is relevant for the point or argument you are making.

5. Then explain connections and relations between different points and arguments in order to show the reader how they work together. Do not make a series of points and expect your reader to "connect the dots" for you. The job of a writer is to explain some material and present information in a way so that the reader can understand it as clearly as possible without having read the material herself.

6. When it's relevant, cite potential objections and /or responses to these objections. Sometimes the paper topics call for this kind of analysis explicitly; however, even when the questions do not ask for objections/responses, your ability to do this shows philosophical competence to engage the arguments at the level of the argument. This shows critical thinking skills beyond reconstructing the arguments of the text and improves the quality of the paper!

III. Citing the text

• Use Modern Language Association (MLA) style. If you don't know it, Google this information, but in general it is internal citation such as this (Plato 33).

• Here are some general rules to follow when citing the text.

1. Do not use too many quotes; be selective in the textual evidence you use by editing long quotes to focus only on that part of the text that supports or develops the point or argument you are making.

2. Don't throw quotes in randomly to fill space-this is obvious to the reader and diminishes the quality of the paper!

3. NO BLOCK QUOTES.

IV. Helpful Hints

• When referring to examples, illustrations, or stories that you think support the point or argument you are making, limit yourself to those used by the author in the text or those discussed in class. Don't use personal stories.

• Do not try to draw connections between elements of popular culture and arguments, because this can go badly very quickly. You will have plenty to write about just answering those questions and drawing connections between them.

• Do not speculate in terms of your views about the subject matter. The point of a good argumentative paper is to show that you understand the arguments made in the text and are able to reconstruct them accurately, anticipate potential objections and responses to
them, and analyze the problem or issue thoroughly.