|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Paper topics
may include, but are not limited to, any of the major
topics of discussion and study we have, up to the time of
the paper, covered as indicated in the Calendar of
Assignments. For Critical Thinking, the perfect place to
look for topics to write about is in the MAIN TEXT. The
most important thing to keep in mind is, namely, to be
specific about what you wish to write about. A 2-5-page
paper on Socrates cannot possibly do justice to that
topic because there are just too many things to say about
Socrates. Focusing upon a specific argument that Socrates
advanced or elaborating upon some theme or statement of
his that you are interested in would be more realistic.
Basically, the sort of paper you will be asked to write
can be called an "argument/analysis" paper in
which you will try to: a) define a concept and/or state a
thesis or position, b) argue for or against a specific
position or criticize and evaluate a given concept, c)
defend your argument, reasoning or evaluation with solid
(and sound) reasoning methods, and d) reach a conclusion
concerning your position or concerning the analysis of
the chosen topic or concept. Your paper should reflect
the use of critical thinking and problem-solving skills
-- more will be said about these things during the first
few weeks of class.
The outline provided here can be of some help to you in
organizing your papers as you plan to sit down to write
them.
I. State the proposition to be proved, analysis
A. Background information
1. Specifically indicate what topic will be examined
2. Report or summarize what others (philosophers, etc.)
have thought about it.
B. State exactly what you're going to prove or show.
1. State who has held a view likes yours (if any)
2. State who has held the opposite view
a) Briefly state the opposite view, position,
Argument
b) What is wrong with this view--why do you disagree?
C. What is interesting about this subject? --State why.
II.Give the argument for your position or the proposition
A. Argument/inference validation
1. Show that the argument pattern/ analysis is valid
2. Show that the inductive argument is strong, cogent
3. Avoid informal fallacies
B. Fact/Claim verification
1. The premises and other propositions are true
2. Refer to other relevant research data
C. Concept clarification
1. Clear up ambiguities and vagueness
2. Give definitions (lexical, stipulative, persuasive,
etc.)
III. Conclusion. Concisely restate your argument in
brief-final comments
|
|
|
|
