I found this while going through the dumpsters by the History building. I hope you're entertained by the essential hopelessness of whoever wrote this for ever having a class of students who can use half a brain.

...a few comments about the paper assignment.

1. The assignment for the paper has only to do with Marquis’ (M) argument; the argument is the topic of the paper (the conclusion is not the topic). To discuss is to address (all important) relevant issues and to address (and assess) more than one viewpoint.

2. You are addressing the soundness of M’s argument (see the assignment sheet for the peer review draft for definitions). In order for the argument to be sound, it must both be an argument that works (the conclusion must follow from the premises) and one whose premises are true.

2a. A valid argument, for our purposes, will have only one conclusion possible from the premises; the conclusion will not contradict any of the premises.

2b. There may be premises not explicitly stated by M; make sure you clearly state all of the premises of his argument (you need not give a list). Make sure you correctly characterize what M’s conclusion is.

3. The assignment does not require you to defend any particular viewpoint on the issue of abortion, and it would be inappropriate to insert your opinions on the topic into a discussion about an argument (as opposed to one about policy decisions or the like).

3a. If you claim that M’s argument is sound, then you make a de facto commitment to the truth of his conclusion. If you argue that M’s argument is not sound, you are only committed to saying that this particular argument for this particular conclusion fails.

3b. There are a variety of views to take on this topic. I may have said in class that I do not think that M’s argument works. Some of my reasons for this are claims well outside the purview of this class. And of course, I could always be wrong.

3c. To repeat: this assignment is about skill in navigating an argument, not about what the correct position on the abortion issue is (if there is one). Disagreeing is fine; just back up your assertions, and remain civilized.

3d. We will assume for our purposes that there are “objective” (whatever that might turn out to mean) ethical standards of some sort, and that what we are doing in this class is discussing those. We will assume that if there is an ethical rule or imperative of some kind, this gives us a prima facie reason to act in accordance with it.

4. One could claim: (i) M’s argument is both valid and its premises are true, i.e. that it is sound; (ii) M’s argument is neither valid nor are all of its premises true; (iii) M’s argument is valid but (at least one of) its premises are false; (iv) M’s argument is not valid even if all its premises are true.

4a. Option (ii) above is work than one needs to do in order to deny that M’s argument is sound; you need only show either that it is not valid or that (at least one of) its premises is false. If you are claiming it is a sound argument, you need to fit (probably) more work into the same amount of space.

4b. Seriously: you all should be having difficulty in editing your paper down to the space requirement, not in filling it up to get over four pages. I am happy to advise you on editing, if this does turn out to be your problem.

4c. Of course, there are extraneous things that need not be said in order to give the argument in its best form; don’t pad your paper with ‘facts” (in this case such facts would be bits of reportage about things M does in his article).

5. The argument on both sides ought to be in its best form. Bad arguments are boring, and besides if we want to be sure of ourselves we need to make and defend the best case that can be made (for our chosen conclusion).

5a. Make sure you give (as closely as possible) the strongest interpretation of M’s argument that you can, whatever you will later say about it. This means explaining technical uses of terms, relations between concepts, and the overall structure of the argument. Don’t sell M short. At the same time, don’t sell yourself short by making unwarranted assertions. You can’t just assume things willy-nilly and use these in your argument.

5b. That is not to say that there are general assumptions in place in order to be able to discuss M’s argument in the first place. One effective method of argument can be to attack assumptions (I am not here endorsing any particular method of argument for your papers).

5c. Do justice to objections to M’s position. Be sure to honestly account for how he succeeds (or fails) at addressing objections. This does not mean you have to mention every objection. You do not have to talk about every topic M talks about, either; you are allowed to ignore things not relevant to your question (i.e. whether the argument of the article is sound); you are allowed to bring in considerations not found in the article.

5d. You only need to address that which is necessary for M to make his argument, and what is necessary for you to make yours. You do not have to talk about every topic M talks about, either; you are allowed to ignore things not relevant to your question (i.e. whether the argument of the article is sound); you are allowed to bring in considerations not found in the article.

6. Remember your target audience: you are supposed to be making it possible for someone who is intelligent and interested but without a background in this topic able to easily understand your argument (which will be about M’s argument).

6a. The standard you are striving to achieve here is perspicuity, that is, crystal clarity (perspicuous means transparent, it comes from latin “see” “through”). The reason for this is to achieve the above mentioned goal. So: don’t make the reader work to get your point. Once you can make the argument perfectly clear, then you are free (after this course is over) to make it confusing again, if you want.

6b. Your ability to so explain yourself will demonstrate your understanding of the topic and your mastery of the skills we are attempting to teach.

6c. For the ninth minipaper assignment, do the following. Summarize in under two hundred words the main thrust of the objection Steinbock makes against Marquis (this means: say what the point of attack is, and how the attack is supposed to be accomplished).

6d. I must receive the minipaper assignment from you by 1pm tomorrow (Friday). You may consult with others in the class, but you must write your answer in your own words (don’t write them together, it’s easy to tell who does that).

7. As always, if you have any questions, especially specific questions about your draft, please email me, and/or set up a time to visit me in my office. You do not need an appointment to come to regular or announced office hours.