Pol. Sci./Philo 27

SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING PAPERS

            1. Papers will be evaluated not on what position you take, but on the quality of the arguments you make to support your views. As many of you are unfamiliar with what it means to "make an argument," this sheet is designed to help you. It is meant to be suggestive only; what follows are "hints" on how to make a good argument. They are emphatically not "instructions" on how to write a paper.

            2. For starters, it is always helpful to read the question before you sit down to answer it.

            3. It is also helpful to remember the six elements of an "ideal" moral judgment: (a)conceptual clarity; (b)information; (c)rationality/logical consistency; (d)impartiality (making morally relevant distinctions between cases); (e)coolness; and (f)correct moral principles. You might check through the rough draft of your paper to see if your essay stands up to each of these "tests".

            4. One technique I myself have always found helpful in writing an argument is to follow the style of a "proof" in geometry. You state your position ("to prove"), define your terms, give your assumptions ("axioms", perhaps the "correct moral principles" that stand behind your reasoning), and then proceed to deduce your position from them, giving reasons for each link ("theorem") in your logical chain. In doing so, you should refute counter-arguments to your position.

            5. Another good technique (perhaps better in this course) is to (a)state your position; (b)describe all (or at least some--there are limits to how much you can cover in 6 pages!) of the most important arguments against your position; (c)show why these arguments are wrong; and (d)finally, show why arguments supporting your position are not subject to these weaknesses. I suspect that often you will find it easier to state why the other guys are wrong then to start off by simply declaring why you hold the views you have. (But remember to end up defending your position, too!)

            6. Use of the reading: You are expected to draw on the reading assigned in the course in constructing your own arguments. This does not mean saying "I agree with (say) Noonan" and then copying or summarizing Noonan's article. It means you may agree with Noonan, and then independently reject arguments against his position. In short, you must make the argument, the reading must not make it for you.

            You may cite from the reading on occasion, but your paper should not simply be a string of quotations from one or several authors. If you have any doubts about how extensively you should be quoting from the reading, the safest strategy is not to do it: just summarize an author's position in your own words.

            7. What is plagiarism? Plagiarism occurs when you copy from a reading (or some other source) and don't say so. If you put long paragraphs in quotations and give the author credit (by, say, putting his/her name in parentheses at the end of the quote) this is not plagiarism. However, bear in mind that, as noted in point 6, if your paper is one long string of quotations, it suggests that you did the reading but didn't do any thinking of your own. This will not be considered plagiarism, but it will also not be considered a very good paper. (Needless to say, copying another student's paper--traditionally called "cheating"--is also a case of plagiarism.) Please note that copying from an assigned reading, a reading from outside sources, or an article posted on the web is treated identically: you may use outside and virtual sources if you wish, but you must specify the source somewhere in the paper. Generally, you should not rely on outside sources in this class, and if they are used, it should be in addition to—not instead of—the assigned reading.