PHIL 121 Tetralogue Short Paper Arguments Analytical Review
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
PHIL 121 Tetralogue Short Paper Arguments Analytical Review
Description
Task: Write a short (2-3 pages) paper analyzing an argument from Tetralogue, using the tools we have mastered in this course. Select one of the passages below, or one of your choosing, and write a paper in which you explain the context of the argument within the work, distill, diagram, and analyze the argument, and evaluate the argument for validity, soundness, logical strength, and the like.
Here are the elements of the paper: PHIL 121 Tetralogue Short Paper Arguments Analytical Review
- An introductory paragraph introducing the topic discussed in your passage (e.g. moral relativism, fallibilism, dogmatism, human knowledge, relativism, the reliability of moral judgments) a concise statement of the argument’s conclusion, and a statement of your evaluation of the argument (basically, the respect in which you think it is a good or bad argument).
- A paragraph which motivates the topic and defines the key terms and views for the argument under discussion. (For example, you may explain what relativism is and some reasons to accept or reject it.) This does not need to be long, but you do want your reader to understand the argument and its significance.
- Distill and diagram the argument, in the manner that we studied in AOR. (You may want to consult the handouts on diagramming arguments in chapter 4, fallacies in chapter 5, as well as the handouts on chs. 12 and 13) (Remember, distill means: identify the premises and conclusions, identify hidden premises, screen out for noise, make linguistic adjustments, etc. then write out the argument for the diagram.)
- Analyze the argument. Be sure to identify what kind of argument it is (deductive or inductive, analogical, categorical syllogism, propositional, etc.) and how the premises are related and support the conclusion. (This can be done in a few sentences. Classify the argument and explain how it is supposed to work.)
- Evaluate the argument. Is it convincing? Does it commit a fallacy? Are the premises true? This does not need to be long either, but should concisely offer an evaluation of the argument in terms of its logical strengths and weaknesses.
The Fine Print. Your paper should be 12 pt. font, one inch margins, double spaced. It should be approximately three pages (~800words). The exact length will depend on how you incorporate the diagram into your paper. You are free to do this whatever way you find easiest. (e.g. you can draw it and scan it and append it to your paper or you can include it in the word or pdf document). There is no narrow word maximum or minimum, you just want to be sure to include all of the required elements.
Grading: You will be graded on your inclusion of the required elements of the paper (1-5 above), the clarity of the writing, and the accuracy of your diagram and analysis.
Arguments to distill, diagram, analyze, and evaluate:
- “Every single thing we think, we are physically and psychologically capable of thinking when it is false. Although I think this is my train, I am physically and psychologically capable of thinking it’s my train when in fact it isn’t.” (p. 82)
- “Anyway, my analogy between decision-making and science still holds. We aren’t completely incompetent at deciding what is to be done, which depends on our moral beliefs, so it’s very improbable that they’re hopelessly false.” (p. 148)
- “If a human claims to know something, I can demand proof. If they can’t produce one, I reject the knowledge claim. Humans can be expected to meet the demand for proof, since they understand the challenge. Dogs don’t, so they can’t be expected to meet it.” (91)
- “Since the number is either odd or even, it is either true that the number is odd or true that it is even. Therefore, something is true but not certain. Either ‘The number of coins now on the train is odd’ is an example of truth without certainty, or ‘The number of coins now on the train is even’ is. We know that one of those two sentences is an example, although we are not in a position to know which of them it is. Zac was incorrect in claiming that truth implies certainty.” (52)
PHIL 121 Tetralogue Short Paper Arguments Analytical Review
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow