Hi Everyone,
1
Writing Instructions for Students and T.A.’s in Media Ethics, Phil 2730 Fall 2014 What follows is a thorough description of what I and your graders will be looking for when grading your two essays, complete with the outline of a hypothetical essay. In other words, this document specifies, with some degree of care, the STANDARDS by which your essays will be assessed. This document is divided into 4 sections: I. Preliminary remarks/goals (p. 2) II. Clarity in the Structure of an Essay (p. 3) III. Clarity of Expression (p. 14) IV. Grading Scheme (p. 18)
2
I. Preliminary Remarks/the Goal of Every Essay There’s nothing mysterious in any of what I’m about to say (I hope… there shouldn’t be). The descriptions of the parts of an essay contained in this document are guidelines that I’m sure you’ve all seen before, though maybe not laid out in exactly this way. What you’re about to read is a guide to success on every essay assignment you ever write, for every course you ever take (I hope). If anything I’ve written doesn't make sense to you, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have in one of the forums or by e-mail. What I am going to describe are the parts of an 'argumentative' essay: an essay wherein you are trying to convince your reader that your point of view is the point of view they should adopt, using an argument a.k.a., the power of reason. So again, the goal of your paper is to convince every person that ever reads your paper that your position is the position they should adopt. The means by which you will achieve that goal is by presenting an argument that provides a rational basis for your position. (So you won’t be, for example, trying to convince your reader to accept your position on emotional grounds.) The bulk of what I’m going to include in this document is a description of how you should structure your essays, given that you are trying to present an argument that convinces those who read your paper to adopt your thesis. The reason for this focus is that convincing anyone of anything ever depends, first, on the person you are trying to convince understanding what you are saying… So what I’m about to outline might seem really formulaic and structurally simple, but that’s because simplicity in the structure of your essay is CLEAR, and CLARITY IS THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION OF ANY SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT. Conversely, you’ll NEVER succeed in convincing anyone of anything, ever, if they do not have a clear understanding of: i. The thesis/conclusion/belief/opinion you’re trying to convince them to accept, and ii. The grounds/reasons you present to justify their acceptance of your thesis.
3
II. Clarity in the Structure of an Argument There are three necessary and sufficient components to every clearly written essay… I will describe each part and simultaneously develop a sample essay based on our first reading by Marshall McLuhan. The three parts of every essay (and those I will be introducing in this section) are: 1. The thesis/point of the essay 2. The exegesis/exposition/description 3. The reasons that support you thesis/point 1. The thesis/point of the essay. If you are going to convince your reader of something, you must have something to convince them of, i.e., a point. In other words, in the absence of a thesis, your essay literally has no point (and that’s a really bad thing). Because your essays are short, and the goal of these papers is to improve upon your ability to make arguments in a way that convinces others to accept your conclusion, you should start by explicitly stating your thesis. So, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF YOUR ESSAY SHOULD BE YOUR THESIS. For example, I could begin an essay about Marshall McLuhan’s ‘The Medium is the Message’ with the claim: “The goal of this paper is to show there is good reason for thinking McLuhan’s claim that the only person capable of grasping ‘the Message’ will be ‘the serious artist’ is too strong.” This would be the very first sentence of the essay… notice how blunt and clear the sentence is, and how it simultaneously identifies the topic (McLuhan’s claim about artists) and my point about the topic (McLuhan’s claim is too strong). Notice also the precision of this thesis; I do not claim that I will be able to establish, with certainty that McLuhan’s claim about the serious artist is too strong… all I say is that I will ‘show there is one good reason for thinking... ’ This choice of phrasing ensures that I am not exaggerating the strength of my argument; all I’m suggesting is that there’s a really good chance that I am right, but I am not unrealistically claiming that I know I am right with certainty (because that would be impossible). Why is it important to start your essay with your thesis? Because essays are not mystery novels; the best way to ‘hook’ an academic reader is with a clear and explicit thesis (one that is sensitive to the limits of the sort of argument you’re going to make).
4
In fiction it's a virtue to ‘tease the reader’, to ‘string them along’, to ‘not tell them everything right away’. In academic writing (the kind of writing you do at university), these sorts of strategies are disrespectful; you respect your reader by telling them precisely what it is you'll be trying to convince them to accept, which gives them the option of deciding whether or not they should continue reading. NOTE: we do not care about the content of your particular thesis (for the most part… there are limits, e.g., attempts to defend genocide are unacceptable), but I do care that your thesis is clear and precisely stated right at the beginning of your piece. Also, having a thesis statement doesn’t actually get you grades; ultimately, your thesis is nothing more than your belief/opinion about one of the readings, and you do not get grades simply for having an opinion – you get grades for providing an opinion that is supported by a set of reasons, i.e., an argument. If, however, your opinion is unclear/hidden in your essay, then that’s a serious problem, one that will cost you grades. Why? Since the purpose of your essay is to defend your opinion using an argument, if we are unable to determine what your opinion actually is, it’ll be impossible to convince us. One last thing to consider once you’ve presented your thesis statement: Since the purpose of everything that follows is to make your opinion convincing to the reader, as you write and when you’re reviewing your work, you should be asking yourself, ‘How does this paragraph/sentence/word contribute to making my thesis more convincing?’ In other words: THE THESIS IS THE FOCAL POINT OF EVERY ELEMENT OF YOUR ESSAY… SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING YOUR THESIS MORE COMPELLING!!!! If you can’t explain to yourself how something that you’re writing contributes to making your thesis more plausible then there’s a good chance that the paragraph/sentence/word in question does not belong in your essay… you’ve lost focus and need to re-think what you’re writing. Note: If your thesis is the focal point of your essay, it follows that you can’t write your essay until you’ve got a thesis (a ‘working thesis’ that you could change before you finish writing… my point is simply that without some idea of what you’re trying to argue, you won’t know what to write… you cannot start writing and just hope that a thesis will suddenly ‘pop-out’).
5
1b. The rest of the Introduction (The ‘Road-Map’) After you’ve carefully crafted your thesis statement, the remainder of the introduction should outline the steps you’ll take to support your conclusion, i.e., present a ‘road-map’ of your essay. NOTE: DO NOT START TO OUTLINE THE READING YOU’LL BE ADDRESSING IN YOUR ESSAY IN YOUR INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH… THAT’S WHAT YOU’LL DO STARTING IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE ESSAY. The thing to keep in mind is that your introduction is NOT an introduction to the topic of your essay; it is instead an introduction to what will happen in your essay. Following my above example, I would say something like: “I begin with a general outline of McLuhan’s argument. I will then focus more precisely on his claim that ‘the Message’ of a particular technological innovation cannot be understood by relying on a set of ‘mathematical/scientific principles’, but only by adopting a ‘creative/artistic approach’. I will argue that while McLuhan might be right to say that adopting a creative approach to technological change could help understand ‘the Message’, his statements that only the ‘serious artist’ can perceive the Message are too strong to be plausible.” And this would be the end of my introduction; including the thesis statement, this paragraph is four sentences total, so blunt, short and therefore provides a clear account of what will happen in the remainder of the essay... there will be no dramatic surprises for the reader. . Note: All I had to do was outline the strategy I’ll be relying upon to criticize McLuhan, namely, that his argument for thinking ‘analytic principles’ cannot be used to identify ‘the Message’ is too strong. I did not go into any specific detail about the ways in which McLuhan’s claim is too strong. I supply those details in the second half of the paper, when I make my argument explicit. The absence of a description of McLuhan’s position in my introduction explains why, before I can present my argument, I’ll need to present the subject of my argument, i.e., McLuhan’s position. That is, I’ll need to do an exegesis of McLuhan’s position, the second essential structural component of every essay. 2. The exegesis/exposition The purpose/goal of an exegesis is based on an obvious point, but it is a point that people frequently overlook; before anyone is ever going to be convinced by an argument you present, they need to know exactly what your argument is going to be about. That is, once you’ve stated your opinion (thesis) with respect to some issue, you need to then describe the issue. 'Exegesis' is just a fancy way of saying that it's a description of
6
the specific written argument you'll be talking about in your essay (in my example, McLuhan’s position). Why do you need to describe the argument you’re criticizing? Primarily to establish common ground with your reader; your reader needs to know that they understand the argument you are criticizing in the same way that you do. In order to establish a clear ‘common ground’ with your reader, a good exegesis is purely descriptive, i.e., it is NEUTRAL inasmuch as it provides no assessment of the work you’re describing… even if the goal of your essay is to show that the work you’re addressing is wildly implausible. You do not want any evaluative claims creeping into your exegesis (no using positive or negative adjectives… write like a reporter providing the facts, and nothing but the facts). There’s a second reason for ensuring that your exegesis is neutral: every view worth writing an essay about is also worthy of your respect… so when you describe the view in your exegesis, you need to adopt a neutral tone until you are able to develop detailed reasons that clearly identify the flaws of the view you are seeking to criticize. That’s one way to show the proper respect. Apart from establishing ‘common ground’ with your reader, your exegesis also needs to ‘foreshadow’ or ‘set-up’ the argument you intend to make. Proportion: Your exegesis should be no less than 1/3 of the length of your essay, and no greater than half of its length. If the exegesis is less than 1/3, you aren’t presenting enough detail about the view you’re criticizing. If the exegesis is more than half of the essay, you’re describing too much, not leaving adequate space to develop your own argument. Parts: Given that the exegesis is supposed to establish a ‘common ground’ with the reader and foreshadow the argument to be presented at the end of the paper, every exegesis will have two distinct parts: (a) The first part will involve a general description, or overview of the paper/position/problem you’re going to be addressing. (b) The second part of your exegesis will be more precise; a detailed/focused account of the specific aspect of the argument you intend to either criticize or support. In rough outline, here are the two steps I would need to take for my exegesis of McLuhan:
7
a. The general overview – I would start the first part of the exegesis with a general explanation of his argument that technological change carries a message, and briefly outline the argument he presents in support of that position. This step tends to take 1 – 2 paragraphs (though it could be more), and is merely an attempt to set a context for your reader. That is, you describe the overall argument as a means of setting the context for your more detailed analysis. Apart from describing the nature of the issue you’ll be addressing, your exegesis is also the point in which you want to DEFINE AMBIGUOUS or SPECIALIZED TERMS. That is, you want to take the opportunity to define terms upon which you’ll be relying in your essay as they arise in your exegesis. Since my essay example here is addressing McLuhan, there are a lot of terms that need to be defined, both in the first part of my exegesis, and the second part. With respect to the first part, the term that I most want to explain is ‘The Message’ McLuhan believes technological innovation imparts. The best means of doing so in this case is probably to quote McLuhan’s explicit definition, then offer a brief explanatory sentence. It might look something like this: “According to McLuhan, “‘The Message’ of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (p. 152). McLuhan appears to mean the following: technology changes human life by changing human behaviour in respect of the environment, and human interaction. ‘The message’ imparted by any new technology can therefore be identified by reference to the degree to which human behaviour changes once the technological innovation has been introduced.” The second part of your exegesis will focus on the specific aspect(s) of the argument that you’ve chosen to analyze. This is an important point; your exegesis is intended to ‘foreshadow’ or ‘set-up’ the argument you intend to make, so you need a detailed description of the particular feature of the argument you intend to analyze. Put another way: DO NOT DESCRIBE IN DETAIL EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID IN THE ARTICLE YOU’RE ADDRESSING (in my example, McLuhan’s article). YOU DON’T HAVE THE SPACE TO DO SO IN 5 – 6 PAGES, AND DOING SO WILL CAUSE YOU TO LOSE FOCUS (AND GRADES). As with the rest of the essay, you should be able to explain to yourself how each aspect of your exegesis contributes to the argument you’re going to make in the last section. b. The focused analysis – In the example I’m developing, the second part of my exegesis will involve an account of why McLuhan believes artists, not economists or scientists, are in the best position to understand the message imparted by some technological innovation. And the reason I need to focus on this discussion is because it is the basis for my interpretive claim that these passages of McLuhan can be read as meaning that
8
‘creative’ thinking is the better than mathematical/scientific (i.e., analytic) reasoning as a means of understanding technological change. Since I’m talking about two ‘ways of thinking’ introduced by McLuhan, I would have to cite evidence that he discusses these two ‘ways of thinking’. For his discussions of ‘analytic’ thinking, I could use his analysis of economic reasoning, or his mention of Hume’s ‘Problem of Induction’. For his discussions of ‘artistic’ thinking, I could include any one of his many example, e.g., Shakespeare, De Tocqueville, the Cubists, etc… I would likely end with McLuhan’s claim that artist’s have a special insight into ‘the Message’, because that’s the explicit claim he makes that my essay is dedicated to criticizing. My best option is to quote from McLuhan directly: “The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception” (p 159). By the end of my exegesis, I will have provided an overview of the general argument McLuhan makes in the piece, along with an explicit account of his claim that artist’s, not scientists/economists, are in the best position to understand the change brought on by some new technology. Quotes: The exegesis is the place in the essay where the most quotes are expected. The purpose of a quote is to provide evidence that your presentation of an author’s view is accurate. In other words, you should not rely on quotes to present an author’s view, but should instead rely on quotes to support your summary of an author’s view. There are two basic strategies for incorporating quotes into the body of an essay: i. The first approach involves paraphrasing the view that you’re presenting in your own words then including a quote from the author that restates what you’ve just said in the author’s own words. ii. The second strategy for including quotes is a little more stylistically pleasing because it doesn’t require that you paraphrase, but instead involves including the words of the author within your own sentence structure. BE CAREFUL IFYOU ADOPT THIS SECOND APPROACH!!! It is nice to be able to avoid paraphrasing, but you can only avoid paraphrasing if the meaning of the quote is extremely clear. Citations: Since all of the quotes in your exegesis will be from the text book (because you aren’t permitted to use external philosophical resources) you should just do what I’ve done and INCLUDE PAGE REFERENCES IN BRACKETS AFTER EACH QUOTE. This method is perfectly acceptable for your essays… you don’t even need a formal bibliography (since I know the page reference is a page from the course text book).
9
The Principle of Charitable Interpretation: Always present the most plausible (but still neutral) reading of any argument you’re describing, whether you’re trying to criticize or support the view. Here’s the concern: if you criticize an objection that no one does/would accept, or you support an objection that no one does/would accept, you’re ‘cheating’. Specifically, you’re committing what philosophers call the ‘Fallacy of the StrawFigure’; you’re setting up a position that no one holds, then claiming either that it is bad, or that you can fix it… This is obviously not nearly as impressive as undermining or supporting the really hard position, i.e., the position that at least appears right to some people. So, that’s all that I have to say about the exegesis… In sum: The purpose of the exegesis is to get your reader ‘up to speed’ by articulating your interpretation of the material you’ll be discussing, first by setting the general context, then by focusing on the specific aspect of that material you’re going to discuss. Anything you say about the reading should be supported by direct quotes from the text. That means that I am not simply requiring that you do an exegesis to prove that you have read the material and understand it (though that is good to know). Every author of an essay on any topic has to do an exegesis, because this is where the context of the argument to be presented is established. Once you’ve completed your exegesis, you can proceed to the next and most important part, of every essay.... 3. The reasons that support your thesis/point Again, this is the last AND MOST IMPORTANT PART of any essay when it comes to fulfilling the goal of convincing your reader. It is at this point that you need to respond to the argument you outlined in your exegesis, with good reasons of your own that are intended to convince your reader that your thesis is the thesis they ought to accept. Ironically, while this is the most important part of every essay, it is also the most difficult part to describe. The reason a description is difficult is because there are so many possible ‘good reasons’. This is the section of your paper wherein you need to be creative, though in a very particular manner...
10
A ‘GOOD’ reason is, generally speaking, one that any RATIONAL person would accept (a ‘rational’ person is anyone that can follow the logic/steps of an argument, i.e., broadly, anyone except children and the mentally incapacitated). So you need to articulate reasons that any rational person could be made to see are legitimate or compelling or plausible. Examples of ‘good reasons’ include (but are NOT limited to): a. Empirical facts that are thought to be beyond dispute, e.g., every time I drop an object on the planet earth, it falls. b. Intuitions that (nearly) all of us share, e.g., it is wrong to kill innocent persons (assuming this is indeed a widely shared intuition). c. Appeals to the rules of logic, e.g., any position that generates a logical contradiction should not be accepted. The second thing you’ll need to keep in mind is that you’ll be directing your good reasons at the argument you’ve chosen to criticize, and you’ll need a strategy for doing so… There are two (extremely) broad strategic approaches to critically analyzing an argument: 1. You could focus on challenging the factual accuracy (the truth) of one or several of the reasons upon which the thesis is based. 2. You could focus on the relationship between the reasons and the thesis. All good arguments work in the following way: if the premises (reasons) of the argument are true, then the conclusion (thesis) is likely to be true. So one way to criticize or support a position is to talk about whether the truth of the conclusion actually does follow from the truth of the premises, as the author of the argument maintains. NOTE: These two strategies are not mutually exclusive… in the very same essay you could argue 1. One or more premises are false, and 2. That even if those premises weren’t false, they still wouldn’t support for the conclusion. Adopting both strategies in a 1500 word essay might not be possible, but it’s definitely a strong strategy if you are able to do it. Here’s a more detailed example of #1, one that completes the argument against McLuhan that I’ve been developing as an example throughout this piece: To this point, in the sample essay I’ve been writing, I’ve stated that I’m criticizing McLuhan’s assertion that artists are the only people that can grasp ‘the Message’ that
11
accompanies technological change, and I’ve presented an outline of the examples he offers to support that position. Now I’d like to present my reasons for being critical. In my introduction I said that the means by which I’m going to proceed is by questioning Mcluhan’s dismissal of mathematical/scientific knowledge. My primary reason for arguing that this dismissal is wrong is that his implicit distinction between mathematical/scientific knowledge and artistic knowledge is too rigid: “As noted, my focus in this paper is McLuhan’s claim that only ‘serious artists’ are capable of grasping the Message that accompanies every new technology and what I am treating as the converse of that claim, i.e., economists and scientists are not so capable. There are (at least) three immediate reasons for thinking that ‘only artists can perceive the Message’ and ‘economists/scientists cannot perceive the Message’ are implausibly strong statements: First, it is odd that only a very small portion of the population has the capacity to grasp the Message, i.e., ‘the serious artists’. Second, the ‘artists’ McLuhan cites as examples, i.e., Shakespeare, DeTocqueville, Seyle, and the Cubists, are drawn from a wide range of what can only be broadly construed as ‘artistic’ endeavours. Finally, it is odd to suggest that economists and scientists do not engage in creative thinking, relying instead on analytic principles only. Of course, these brief observations merely suggest his statements are problematic. From this point, I will try to explain in greater detail the single conceptual problem that underwrites both claims; McLuhan is relying on an implicit distinction between creative and analytic thinking that is implausibly rigid. One possible explanation for McLuhan implausibly attributing the exclusive ability of perceiving the Message to artists is his having chosen to focus on ‘whom’ has the capacity to (or not to) perceive the Message, rather than ‘how’ the Message can be perceived. Had he focused on discussing the approach or method taken by those he offers as examples of ‘artistic thinkers’ and not their particular professional careers, he likely would have presented the following more plausible statement: People who want to perceive the Message need to adopt a creative approach toward their understanding of technological change, rather than relying on traditional analytic (i.e. economic or scientific) principles. Artistic thinking is a method of reflection, not simply a profession (though it is undoubtedly more relevant in some professions than others). More importantly, it is the kind of thinking that can be undertaken by any rational human. So it might be true that individuals who are able to spend their careers pursuing artistic endeavours will, owing to their experience, have an easier time using creative thinking to perceive the Message. It seems implausible however to say only serious artists can perceive the Message since, as I’ve said, creative thinking is a capacity we normally assume is possessed by all humans. I would now like to explain why I think McLuhan’s claim that economists and scientists cannot perceive the message is implausible, by focusing in particular on his rejection of ‘analytic’ thinking as a means of perceiving the Message. Remember that he explicitly claims the process of separating and quantifying an object of study, when applied to the change caused by some new technology, cannot help us understand the Message of that change. In other words, we cannot understand the Message using
12
traditional analytic principles (and since these are the principles used by economists and scientists, they cannot perceive the Message). This claim is too strong because the exclusion of analytic principles is complete; while it might be the case that ‘artistic’ thinking is the best means of grasping the Message, basic mathematical and scientific principles cannot be excluded entirely. Consider the light bulb, or the railway. While we might need to be creative in trying to imagine what life was like prior to the light bulb or railway, it is certainly the case that this creative reflection will be helped with an understanding of basic math and science. In the case of the light bulb, we would likely reflect upon the increase in productivity that invention helped stimulate. In the case of the railway, we might think about the increased speed and distance of travel possible in a lifetime. In both cases, we would have to (if only roughly) numerically quantify our observations to make the comparison between what life was like before and after the introduction of the technological change, and rely on a basic understanding of the idea of cause and effect. Both are essential to our capacity to engage in the type of creative thinking necessary to perceive the Message, because both are necessary to make the relevant ‘before-and-after’ comparisons. So McLuhan can’t be right to completely exclude the usefulness of math and science in understanding the Message, meaning he can’t be right to exclude those who rely primarily on such principles in their work (i.e., economists and scientists). He has created a distinction between these two modes of thought (and by extension two sets of professions) that is too rigid; he might be right to suggest that artistic thinking is more important when it comes to understanding the Message, but he is wrong to suggest that analytic reasoning needs to be excluded altogether. My criticism of McLuhan is narrow, directed only at his claims about the relative ability of artists and economists/scientists to perceive the Message owing to the distinct kinds of principles upon which these two groups of persons rely when thinking through a problem. I did not try to undermine either his claim that technology carries a Message, or that the means of grasping that Message primarily involves creative thinking. All I offer is a criticism that could likely be overcome without disturbing the broader view. Specifically, were we to interpret the rigid distinction he appears to draw between creative and analytic thinking as ‘not-so-rigid’, his emphasis on the importance of creative thinking when it comes to perceiving the Message would rest on a more plausible foundation.” So there’s my objection to McLuhan’s claims that artists, and artistic thinking, are the only persons/means of grasping ‘the Message’, using strategy number 1 (I criticized the implied meaning of the definitions he used in his premises, so by extension I challenged their ‘factual accuracy’). So this is a GOOD (though perhaps underdeveloped) argument because, (I hope) every rational individual (most) would accept it. The reason (I believe) every rational individual might accept it is because it is directed at two implausible and related claims made by McLuhan; all it does is challenge their strength. More importantly perhaps, my argument preserves McLuhan’s emphasis on creativity, while rejecting the notion that grasping ‘the Message’ is only a matter of creativity. The result is that I’ve written a largely supportive essay.
13
Note: It is not the case that I am claiming this argument is ‘right’ or ‘correct’ or ‘true’ or ‘above any criticism’; I am simply giving you an example of an argument that is convincing/compelling, but this does not mean that my argument is complete, or that there is no possible objection to my argument. There are compelling arguments that could be made as a response to the position I’ve outlined here… that does not mean this essay (or one like it) wouldn’t receive a good grade. The general point is that an excellent academic paper is not ‘right’… it doesn’t purport to bring an end to debate, but instead clearly articulates a well-supported position that can, owing to its being clearly articulated, serve as a clear reference point for further debate. I’ve made a compelling case in support of my criticism, but I have not ‘ended all further debate on the matter’ (and I wasn’t trying to end the debate!) SUMMARY: Every essay has three basic components: 1. A thesis/point/belief/opinion about some ‘thing’ (in the context of this course, the ‘thing’ will be a philosopher’s argument). 2. A description or exegesis of the ‘thing’ (argument) about which you have a point. 3. A set of reasons intended to support your thesis/point/belief/opinion about the ‘thing’ as described in your exegesis. If you are able to clearly fulfill these three parts for any essay you ever write for any course you ever take, you will at least be able to be confident that your essay will be structurally clear… someone reading your paper will know what you’re doing at each step of the paper. Structural clarity does not guarantee that you’ll succeed in convincing your reader, but if your essay is not structurally clear, you’re pretty much guaranteed not to convince your reader (because they won’t have a clear understanding of the character of your argument).
14
III. Clarity of Expression What I’m going to briefly outline in this section are some ‘tips’ for how to choose your words and structure your sentences/paragraphs, as well as how to improve your grammar and edit your work. The ‘Cardinal Virtues’ of writing in philosophy are, as I’ve stated repeatedly: be clear and be precise. That is, you need to make your point in the clearest, most focused manner that you can. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and don’t say anything else. Here are some things you should be thinking about as you try to realize these two virtues: Word Choice: Use the simplest and most precise words available to communicate the idea you are attempting to convey. There’s no need to try to impress your reader with your ability to look up words in a thesaurus/dictionary… indeed, they won’t be impressed. They will more likely be confused, trying to understand the obscure vocabulary you’ve invoked to create the appearance of intelligence. To re-iterate: A COMPLEX VOCABULARY IS NOT A SIGN OF INTELLIGENCE, and more importantly A COMPLEX VOCABULARY WILL NOT (in most cases) IMPROVE THE CLARITY OF YOUR ESSAY!!! You should always try to find the simplest word you can to express your idea, unless that simple word is ambiguous (i.e., could be understood to have multiple meanings)… ambiguity often accompanies simple words. If the simple word is ambiguous, that’s when you should try to find a more complex word that more clearly and precisely expresses your idea. Note: In academic essays, repeating certain key words is better than trying to find synonyms to replace those key words. So, repetition of central terms is better than introducing synonyms that threaten the clarity of your meaning. (NOTE: Repetition is a good technique when it comes to word choice… it WILL NEVER be good to repeat the same idea).
15
Sentences: ONE IDEA PER SENTENCE!!! The grammatical function of a sentence is to communicate a single idea to your reader. Since your ultimate goal is clarity, the best approach is to write SHORT SENTENCES WHENEVER POSSIBLE, since that will clearly distinguish between your separate ideas, making the ideas easier for your reader to follow. There is, of course, an element of judgment when it comes to deciding on the relative size of the idea you are going to include in a single sentence… sometimes you’ll think you’ve only got one idea, and once you re-read the sentence, you might actually have included two or three ideas. As a rough visual guideline for determining whether you’ve incorporated a single idea into a sentence, you should start to get worried as soon as a single sentence begins to exceed three lines of text. Once a sentence starts to exceed three lines, it is likely (though not necessarily) the case that more than a single idea. If this happens, it’s not a big deal… all you have to do is break the sentence up into multiple sentences. When should you expect a long sentence? When you are summarizing a point or presenting a list. Paragraphs: ONE IDEA PER PARAGRAPH!!! The grammatical function of a paragraph is identical to the function of a sentence… the only difference is the size of the idea you are communicating. Just like sentences then, clarity is best achieved by neatly distinguishing between your separate ideas. You can achieve this clear separation by writing MORE SHORT PARAGRAPHS RATHER THAN FEWER LONG ONES… The degree to which it is necessary to exercise your judgment when deciding on the relative size of the idea you’d like to communicate is greater with respect to paragraphs than sentences. Part of what this means is that it will often be the case that you’ll begin a paragraph with a single idea in mind and it will get longer and longer and longer… As is the case with sentences that ‘grow’, it’s not a big deal when it happens; all you need to do is recognize that the one idea with which you began is actually bigger than you first realized… so you’ll have to separate that single large paragraph into multiple paragraphs (at least two).
16
In terms of a visual cue, you’ll know that a paragraph is too long by reference to the number of sentences or word count… Three sentences is the minimum number of sentences required, whereas 8 or 9 would be the absolute maximum… any paragraph that starts to get longer than that needs to be divided! With respect to word count… if a paragraph is at 200 words, you should start thinking about making it into two paragraphs… if the paragraph is 300 words or more, you should definitely separate it into two paragraphs (or even three). Also like sentences, the occasional long paragraph is acceptable… though again, when I say ‘long’, absolutely no more than 9 sentences or 300 words (and it would be bad if all of your paragraphs were that length). Grammar: It is not necessary for you to be able to specify what grammatical error you’ve made; it is simply necessary for you to be able to recognize and avoid making those errors. What’s the best way to check your grammar? READ A DRAFT OUTLOUD TO YOURSELF… if it doesn’t sound like something you’d feel comfortable saying in front of a room full of people, it should be re-written until you don’t think you’d be embarrassed. Editing: You should expect to have to write multiple drafts of you paper… it’s not you, it’s everyone (I re-wrote the above sample essay in its entirety four times… I’ve rewritten this document in its entirety more than 13 times)… the words will never come out exactly the way you want the first time, and that is true for absolutely every writer. The best technique for editing your work once you’ve written a draft is, as with checking your grammar, to read it out loud. Stop after every sentence and ask yourself two separate questions: a. Is this a sentence I wouldn’t be embarrassed reading out loud in front of a large group of people? (the grammar question). b. Do I understand how what I’ve written in this sentence contributes (either directly or indirectly) to making my thesis more compelling/plausible? (the ‘focus’ question). Point of View: It’s perfectly acceptable to write these essays from a first person point of view, arguably, it’s preferable. Why? Because ultimately what I want to know is why YOU think whatever it is that you think… what reasons support your opinion? That having been said, if you prefer to write using a third person point of view, that is also acceptable… as with everything else I’ve said, the primary concern is clarity, and a third person point of view can still be clear.
17
SUMMARY: Simple language, short sentences, and short paragraphs are all preferable, because they all tend to improve clarity. Expect to edit often, try to do so by reading your work out loud.
18
VI. Grading Scheme I've worked out a ‘rough’ marking scheme that reflects the emphasis I’ve placed throughout this document and in the other course materials on creating clear, focused, and plausible arguments. To re-iterate: Your term papers will be assessed by reference to the quality of the argument that you make, as the components have been outlined in this document, and nothing else… what that means is: If you have a clear thesis, a good (clear and accurate) exegesis and a convincing set of reasons (clear and compelling to a rational individual), you’ll be within the A range (i.e., 80 – 100%). If you have a clear thesis, a good (clear and accurate) exegesis and a set of reasons that aren't very convincing (either not clear and/or not compelling to a rational individual), you’ll be within the B range (i.e., 70 – 79%). The difference between an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ can be roughly articulated as follows: Reasons that are compelling (the ‘A’ range) are those that it is difficult for your grader to challenge; if your exegesis is accurate and well-supported by quotes, and the grader really has to think hard to come up with an explanation of the flaws in your reasons, you’ll get an A. Reasons that it is easy to explain why they are implausible will yield a B. That is, if you have an accurate and well-supported exegesis but reasons that the grader can easily and clearly explain why and how they are flawed you will receive a grade in the 70 – 79% range. If you have a clear thesis, and a clear exegesis but offer no reasons whatsoever, OR if you make a mistake in your exegesis and then develop reasons that are convincing only if the mistake is accepted, you will fall within the C range (i.e., 60 – 69%). If you don’t have a clear thesis and/or grossly misrepresent the position of the author you’re addressing and present a set of reasons that are obviously irrelevant or flawed in some other way, you’ll fall within the F – D range (i.e., 0 – 59%). NOTE: There are no explicit grades for things like ‘style’ (word choice, sentence and paragraph structure) or ‘grammar’… that’s because my entire assessment will be made by reference to the impact your style and grammar on the degree to which your argument is compelling.
19
So STYLE AND GRAMMAR MATTER TO YOUR GRADE, since POOR STYLE OR GRAMMAR WILL UNDERMINE THE CLARITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. I have also not assigned any explicit grades for going under or over the word limit. Again, however, word count is relevant inasmuch as it affects the quality of your argument: If you are under the minimum word count, the problem would likely be either an insufficient exegesis or an underdeveloped (set of) reason(s). If you are over the maximum word count, the problem will likely be that you’ve lost focus, that is, you’ve included either irrelevant details or more details than are necessary to make your point compelling. SUMMARY: Your term papers will be assessed only by reference to the quality of the argument you’ve made. A = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, compelling reasons. B = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, obviously flawed reasons. C = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, no reasons whatsoever, or partially flawed exegesis upon which your reasons depend. D – F = no clear thesis, grossly inaccurate exegesis, followed by thoroughly implausible/unclear reasons. APPEALS: Owing to the ‘rough’ interpretive nature of these standards, the possibility of a successful appeal of your result will require you to show (starting with the grader, then with me) that your result is incorrect by a minimum of 5%, according to this grading scheme (since I’ve roughly pegged the possible margin of error around plus or minus 5%).
20
The End You might be asking yourself at this point how what you’ve just read applies beyond this course. Think of it this way: (almost) every essay you’re asked to write asks you to defend a position, whether in an English class, History class, business class, psychology, etc… That is, (almost) every essay you’ll be asked to write at university is an argumentative essay; you’re simply asked to make arguments with respect to different subject matter. So whether you’re being asked to interpret a novel, or explain a specific historical incident, or defend a particular course of action in a business decision, or support a psychological theory, you’re being asked to make an argument. And every argument requires a thesis/point of view, an explanation of the subject matter you’re addressing (an exegesis), and a set of reasons/evidence that supports the thesis you’re seeking to defend. So, there ya have it. I hope this clarifies what’s expected of you. If I've left something out or if this is particularly confusing, feel free to ask.
Writing Instructions for Students and T.A.’s in Media Ethics, Phil 2730 Fall 2014 What follows is a thorough description of what I and your graders will be looking for when grading your two essays, complete with the outline of a hypothetical essay. In other words, this document specifies, with some degree of care, the STANDARDS by which your essays will be assessed. This document is divided into 4 sections: I. Preliminary remarks/goals (p. 2) II. Clarity in the Structure of an Essay (p. 3) III. Clarity of Expression (p. 14) IV. Grading Scheme (p. 18)
2
I. Preliminary Remarks/the Goal of Every Essay There’s nothing mysterious in any of what I’m about to say (I hope… there shouldn’t be). The descriptions of the parts of an essay contained in this document are guidelines that I’m sure you’ve all seen before, though maybe not laid out in exactly this way. What you’re about to read is a guide to success on every essay assignment you ever write, for every course you ever take (I hope). If anything I’ve written doesn't make sense to you, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have in one of the forums or by e-mail. What I am going to describe are the parts of an 'argumentative' essay: an essay wherein you are trying to convince your reader that your point of view is the point of view they should adopt, using an argument a.k.a., the power of reason. So again, the goal of your paper is to convince every person that ever reads your paper that your position is the position they should adopt. The means by which you will achieve that goal is by presenting an argument that provides a rational basis for your position. (So you won’t be, for example, trying to convince your reader to accept your position on emotional grounds.) The bulk of what I’m going to include in this document is a description of how you should structure your essays, given that you are trying to present an argument that convinces those who read your paper to adopt your thesis. The reason for this focus is that convincing anyone of anything ever depends, first, on the person you are trying to convince understanding what you are saying… So what I’m about to outline might seem really formulaic and structurally simple, but that’s because simplicity in the structure of your essay is CLEAR, and CLARITY IS THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION OF ANY SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT. Conversely, you’ll NEVER succeed in convincing anyone of anything, ever, if they do not have a clear understanding of: i. The thesis/conclusion/belief/opinion you’re trying to convince them to accept, and ii. The grounds/reasons you present to justify their acceptance of your thesis.
3
II. Clarity in the Structure of an Argument There are three necessary and sufficient components to every clearly written essay… I will describe each part and simultaneously develop a sample essay based on our first reading by Marshall McLuhan. The three parts of every essay (and those I will be introducing in this section) are: 1. The thesis/point of the essay 2. The exegesis/exposition/description 3. The reasons that support you thesis/point 1. The thesis/point of the essay. If you are going to convince your reader of something, you must have something to convince them of, i.e., a point. In other words, in the absence of a thesis, your essay literally has no point (and that’s a really bad thing). Because your essays are short, and the goal of these papers is to improve upon your ability to make arguments in a way that convinces others to accept your conclusion, you should start by explicitly stating your thesis. So, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF YOUR ESSAY SHOULD BE YOUR THESIS. For example, I could begin an essay about Marshall McLuhan’s ‘The Medium is the Message’ with the claim: “The goal of this paper is to show there is good reason for thinking McLuhan’s claim that the only person capable of grasping ‘the Message’ will be ‘the serious artist’ is too strong.” This would be the very first sentence of the essay… notice how blunt and clear the sentence is, and how it simultaneously identifies the topic (McLuhan’s claim about artists) and my point about the topic (McLuhan’s claim is too strong). Notice also the precision of this thesis; I do not claim that I will be able to establish, with certainty that McLuhan’s claim about the serious artist is too strong… all I say is that I will ‘show there is one good reason for thinking... ’ This choice of phrasing ensures that I am not exaggerating the strength of my argument; all I’m suggesting is that there’s a really good chance that I am right, but I am not unrealistically claiming that I know I am right with certainty (because that would be impossible). Why is it important to start your essay with your thesis? Because essays are not mystery novels; the best way to ‘hook’ an academic reader is with a clear and explicit thesis (one that is sensitive to the limits of the sort of argument you’re going to make).
4
In fiction it's a virtue to ‘tease the reader’, to ‘string them along’, to ‘not tell them everything right away’. In academic writing (the kind of writing you do at university), these sorts of strategies are disrespectful; you respect your reader by telling them precisely what it is you'll be trying to convince them to accept, which gives them the option of deciding whether or not they should continue reading. NOTE: we do not care about the content of your particular thesis (for the most part… there are limits, e.g., attempts to defend genocide are unacceptable), but I do care that your thesis is clear and precisely stated right at the beginning of your piece. Also, having a thesis statement doesn’t actually get you grades; ultimately, your thesis is nothing more than your belief/opinion about one of the readings, and you do not get grades simply for having an opinion – you get grades for providing an opinion that is supported by a set of reasons, i.e., an argument. If, however, your opinion is unclear/hidden in your essay, then that’s a serious problem, one that will cost you grades. Why? Since the purpose of your essay is to defend your opinion using an argument, if we are unable to determine what your opinion actually is, it’ll be impossible to convince us. One last thing to consider once you’ve presented your thesis statement: Since the purpose of everything that follows is to make your opinion convincing to the reader, as you write and when you’re reviewing your work, you should be asking yourself, ‘How does this paragraph/sentence/word contribute to making my thesis more convincing?’ In other words: THE THESIS IS THE FOCAL POINT OF EVERY ELEMENT OF YOUR ESSAY… SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING YOUR THESIS MORE COMPELLING!!!! If you can’t explain to yourself how something that you’re writing contributes to making your thesis more plausible then there’s a good chance that the paragraph/sentence/word in question does not belong in your essay… you’ve lost focus and need to re-think what you’re writing. Note: If your thesis is the focal point of your essay, it follows that you can’t write your essay until you’ve got a thesis (a ‘working thesis’ that you could change before you finish writing… my point is simply that without some idea of what you’re trying to argue, you won’t know what to write… you cannot start writing and just hope that a thesis will suddenly ‘pop-out’).
5
1b. The rest of the Introduction (The ‘Road-Map’) After you’ve carefully crafted your thesis statement, the remainder of the introduction should outline the steps you’ll take to support your conclusion, i.e., present a ‘road-map’ of your essay. NOTE: DO NOT START TO OUTLINE THE READING YOU’LL BE ADDRESSING IN YOUR ESSAY IN YOUR INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH… THAT’S WHAT YOU’LL DO STARTING IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE ESSAY. The thing to keep in mind is that your introduction is NOT an introduction to the topic of your essay; it is instead an introduction to what will happen in your essay. Following my above example, I would say something like: “I begin with a general outline of McLuhan’s argument. I will then focus more precisely on his claim that ‘the Message’ of a particular technological innovation cannot be understood by relying on a set of ‘mathematical/scientific principles’, but only by adopting a ‘creative/artistic approach’. I will argue that while McLuhan might be right to say that adopting a creative approach to technological change could help understand ‘the Message’, his statements that only the ‘serious artist’ can perceive the Message are too strong to be plausible.” And this would be the end of my introduction; including the thesis statement, this paragraph is four sentences total, so blunt, short and therefore provides a clear account of what will happen in the remainder of the essay... there will be no dramatic surprises for the reader. . Note: All I had to do was outline the strategy I’ll be relying upon to criticize McLuhan, namely, that his argument for thinking ‘analytic principles’ cannot be used to identify ‘the Message’ is too strong. I did not go into any specific detail about the ways in which McLuhan’s claim is too strong. I supply those details in the second half of the paper, when I make my argument explicit. The absence of a description of McLuhan’s position in my introduction explains why, before I can present my argument, I’ll need to present the subject of my argument, i.e., McLuhan’s position. That is, I’ll need to do an exegesis of McLuhan’s position, the second essential structural component of every essay. 2. The exegesis/exposition The purpose/goal of an exegesis is based on an obvious point, but it is a point that people frequently overlook; before anyone is ever going to be convinced by an argument you present, they need to know exactly what your argument is going to be about. That is, once you’ve stated your opinion (thesis) with respect to some issue, you need to then describe the issue. 'Exegesis' is just a fancy way of saying that it's a description of
6
the specific written argument you'll be talking about in your essay (in my example, McLuhan’s position). Why do you need to describe the argument you’re criticizing? Primarily to establish common ground with your reader; your reader needs to know that they understand the argument you are criticizing in the same way that you do. In order to establish a clear ‘common ground’ with your reader, a good exegesis is purely descriptive, i.e., it is NEUTRAL inasmuch as it provides no assessment of the work you’re describing… even if the goal of your essay is to show that the work you’re addressing is wildly implausible. You do not want any evaluative claims creeping into your exegesis (no using positive or negative adjectives… write like a reporter providing the facts, and nothing but the facts). There’s a second reason for ensuring that your exegesis is neutral: every view worth writing an essay about is also worthy of your respect… so when you describe the view in your exegesis, you need to adopt a neutral tone until you are able to develop detailed reasons that clearly identify the flaws of the view you are seeking to criticize. That’s one way to show the proper respect. Apart from establishing ‘common ground’ with your reader, your exegesis also needs to ‘foreshadow’ or ‘set-up’ the argument you intend to make. Proportion: Your exegesis should be no less than 1/3 of the length of your essay, and no greater than half of its length. If the exegesis is less than 1/3, you aren’t presenting enough detail about the view you’re criticizing. If the exegesis is more than half of the essay, you’re describing too much, not leaving adequate space to develop your own argument. Parts: Given that the exegesis is supposed to establish a ‘common ground’ with the reader and foreshadow the argument to be presented at the end of the paper, every exegesis will have two distinct parts: (a) The first part will involve a general description, or overview of the paper/position/problem you’re going to be addressing. (b) The second part of your exegesis will be more precise; a detailed/focused account of the specific aspect of the argument you intend to either criticize or support. In rough outline, here are the two steps I would need to take for my exegesis of McLuhan:
7
a. The general overview – I would start the first part of the exegesis with a general explanation of his argument that technological change carries a message, and briefly outline the argument he presents in support of that position. This step tends to take 1 – 2 paragraphs (though it could be more), and is merely an attempt to set a context for your reader. That is, you describe the overall argument as a means of setting the context for your more detailed analysis. Apart from describing the nature of the issue you’ll be addressing, your exegesis is also the point in which you want to DEFINE AMBIGUOUS or SPECIALIZED TERMS. That is, you want to take the opportunity to define terms upon which you’ll be relying in your essay as they arise in your exegesis. Since my essay example here is addressing McLuhan, there are a lot of terms that need to be defined, both in the first part of my exegesis, and the second part. With respect to the first part, the term that I most want to explain is ‘The Message’ McLuhan believes technological innovation imparts. The best means of doing so in this case is probably to quote McLuhan’s explicit definition, then offer a brief explanatory sentence. It might look something like this: “According to McLuhan, “‘The Message’ of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (p. 152). McLuhan appears to mean the following: technology changes human life by changing human behaviour in respect of the environment, and human interaction. ‘The message’ imparted by any new technology can therefore be identified by reference to the degree to which human behaviour changes once the technological innovation has been introduced.” The second part of your exegesis will focus on the specific aspect(s) of the argument that you’ve chosen to analyze. This is an important point; your exegesis is intended to ‘foreshadow’ or ‘set-up’ the argument you intend to make, so you need a detailed description of the particular feature of the argument you intend to analyze. Put another way: DO NOT DESCRIBE IN DETAIL EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID IN THE ARTICLE YOU’RE ADDRESSING (in my example, McLuhan’s article). YOU DON’T HAVE THE SPACE TO DO SO IN 5 – 6 PAGES, AND DOING SO WILL CAUSE YOU TO LOSE FOCUS (AND GRADES). As with the rest of the essay, you should be able to explain to yourself how each aspect of your exegesis contributes to the argument you’re going to make in the last section. b. The focused analysis – In the example I’m developing, the second part of my exegesis will involve an account of why McLuhan believes artists, not economists or scientists, are in the best position to understand the message imparted by some technological innovation. And the reason I need to focus on this discussion is because it is the basis for my interpretive claim that these passages of McLuhan can be read as meaning that
8
‘creative’ thinking is the better than mathematical/scientific (i.e., analytic) reasoning as a means of understanding technological change. Since I’m talking about two ‘ways of thinking’ introduced by McLuhan, I would have to cite evidence that he discusses these two ‘ways of thinking’. For his discussions of ‘analytic’ thinking, I could use his analysis of economic reasoning, or his mention of Hume’s ‘Problem of Induction’. For his discussions of ‘artistic’ thinking, I could include any one of his many example, e.g., Shakespeare, De Tocqueville, the Cubists, etc… I would likely end with McLuhan’s claim that artist’s have a special insight into ‘the Message’, because that’s the explicit claim he makes that my essay is dedicated to criticizing. My best option is to quote from McLuhan directly: “The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception” (p 159). By the end of my exegesis, I will have provided an overview of the general argument McLuhan makes in the piece, along with an explicit account of his claim that artist’s, not scientists/economists, are in the best position to understand the change brought on by some new technology. Quotes: The exegesis is the place in the essay where the most quotes are expected. The purpose of a quote is to provide evidence that your presentation of an author’s view is accurate. In other words, you should not rely on quotes to present an author’s view, but should instead rely on quotes to support your summary of an author’s view. There are two basic strategies for incorporating quotes into the body of an essay: i. The first approach involves paraphrasing the view that you’re presenting in your own words then including a quote from the author that restates what you’ve just said in the author’s own words. ii. The second strategy for including quotes is a little more stylistically pleasing because it doesn’t require that you paraphrase, but instead involves including the words of the author within your own sentence structure. BE CAREFUL IFYOU ADOPT THIS SECOND APPROACH!!! It is nice to be able to avoid paraphrasing, but you can only avoid paraphrasing if the meaning of the quote is extremely clear. Citations: Since all of the quotes in your exegesis will be from the text book (because you aren’t permitted to use external philosophical resources) you should just do what I’ve done and INCLUDE PAGE REFERENCES IN BRACKETS AFTER EACH QUOTE. This method is perfectly acceptable for your essays… you don’t even need a formal bibliography (since I know the page reference is a page from the course text book).
9
The Principle of Charitable Interpretation: Always present the most plausible (but still neutral) reading of any argument you’re describing, whether you’re trying to criticize or support the view. Here’s the concern: if you criticize an objection that no one does/would accept, or you support an objection that no one does/would accept, you’re ‘cheating’. Specifically, you’re committing what philosophers call the ‘Fallacy of the StrawFigure’; you’re setting up a position that no one holds, then claiming either that it is bad, or that you can fix it… This is obviously not nearly as impressive as undermining or supporting the really hard position, i.e., the position that at least appears right to some people. So, that’s all that I have to say about the exegesis… In sum: The purpose of the exegesis is to get your reader ‘up to speed’ by articulating your interpretation of the material you’ll be discussing, first by setting the general context, then by focusing on the specific aspect of that material you’re going to discuss. Anything you say about the reading should be supported by direct quotes from the text. That means that I am not simply requiring that you do an exegesis to prove that you have read the material and understand it (though that is good to know). Every author of an essay on any topic has to do an exegesis, because this is where the context of the argument to be presented is established. Once you’ve completed your exegesis, you can proceed to the next and most important part, of every essay.... 3. The reasons that support your thesis/point Again, this is the last AND MOST IMPORTANT PART of any essay when it comes to fulfilling the goal of convincing your reader. It is at this point that you need to respond to the argument you outlined in your exegesis, with good reasons of your own that are intended to convince your reader that your thesis is the thesis they ought to accept. Ironically, while this is the most important part of every essay, it is also the most difficult part to describe. The reason a description is difficult is because there are so many possible ‘good reasons’. This is the section of your paper wherein you need to be creative, though in a very particular manner...
10
A ‘GOOD’ reason is, generally speaking, one that any RATIONAL person would accept (a ‘rational’ person is anyone that can follow the logic/steps of an argument, i.e., broadly, anyone except children and the mentally incapacitated). So you need to articulate reasons that any rational person could be made to see are legitimate or compelling or plausible. Examples of ‘good reasons’ include (but are NOT limited to): a. Empirical facts that are thought to be beyond dispute, e.g., every time I drop an object on the planet earth, it falls. b. Intuitions that (nearly) all of us share, e.g., it is wrong to kill innocent persons (assuming this is indeed a widely shared intuition). c. Appeals to the rules of logic, e.g., any position that generates a logical contradiction should not be accepted. The second thing you’ll need to keep in mind is that you’ll be directing your good reasons at the argument you’ve chosen to criticize, and you’ll need a strategy for doing so… There are two (extremely) broad strategic approaches to critically analyzing an argument: 1. You could focus on challenging the factual accuracy (the truth) of one or several of the reasons upon which the thesis is based. 2. You could focus on the relationship between the reasons and the thesis. All good arguments work in the following way: if the premises (reasons) of the argument are true, then the conclusion (thesis) is likely to be true. So one way to criticize or support a position is to talk about whether the truth of the conclusion actually does follow from the truth of the premises, as the author of the argument maintains. NOTE: These two strategies are not mutually exclusive… in the very same essay you could argue 1. One or more premises are false, and 2. That even if those premises weren’t false, they still wouldn’t support for the conclusion. Adopting both strategies in a 1500 word essay might not be possible, but it’s definitely a strong strategy if you are able to do it. Here’s a more detailed example of #1, one that completes the argument against McLuhan that I’ve been developing as an example throughout this piece: To this point, in the sample essay I’ve been writing, I’ve stated that I’m criticizing McLuhan’s assertion that artists are the only people that can grasp ‘the Message’ that
11
accompanies technological change, and I’ve presented an outline of the examples he offers to support that position. Now I’d like to present my reasons for being critical. In my introduction I said that the means by which I’m going to proceed is by questioning Mcluhan’s dismissal of mathematical/scientific knowledge. My primary reason for arguing that this dismissal is wrong is that his implicit distinction between mathematical/scientific knowledge and artistic knowledge is too rigid: “As noted, my focus in this paper is McLuhan’s claim that only ‘serious artists’ are capable of grasping the Message that accompanies every new technology and what I am treating as the converse of that claim, i.e., economists and scientists are not so capable. There are (at least) three immediate reasons for thinking that ‘only artists can perceive the Message’ and ‘economists/scientists cannot perceive the Message’ are implausibly strong statements: First, it is odd that only a very small portion of the population has the capacity to grasp the Message, i.e., ‘the serious artists’. Second, the ‘artists’ McLuhan cites as examples, i.e., Shakespeare, DeTocqueville, Seyle, and the Cubists, are drawn from a wide range of what can only be broadly construed as ‘artistic’ endeavours. Finally, it is odd to suggest that economists and scientists do not engage in creative thinking, relying instead on analytic principles only. Of course, these brief observations merely suggest his statements are problematic. From this point, I will try to explain in greater detail the single conceptual problem that underwrites both claims; McLuhan is relying on an implicit distinction between creative and analytic thinking that is implausibly rigid. One possible explanation for McLuhan implausibly attributing the exclusive ability of perceiving the Message to artists is his having chosen to focus on ‘whom’ has the capacity to (or not to) perceive the Message, rather than ‘how’ the Message can be perceived. Had he focused on discussing the approach or method taken by those he offers as examples of ‘artistic thinkers’ and not their particular professional careers, he likely would have presented the following more plausible statement: People who want to perceive the Message need to adopt a creative approach toward their understanding of technological change, rather than relying on traditional analytic (i.e. economic or scientific) principles. Artistic thinking is a method of reflection, not simply a profession (though it is undoubtedly more relevant in some professions than others). More importantly, it is the kind of thinking that can be undertaken by any rational human. So it might be true that individuals who are able to spend their careers pursuing artistic endeavours will, owing to their experience, have an easier time using creative thinking to perceive the Message. It seems implausible however to say only serious artists can perceive the Message since, as I’ve said, creative thinking is a capacity we normally assume is possessed by all humans. I would now like to explain why I think McLuhan’s claim that economists and scientists cannot perceive the message is implausible, by focusing in particular on his rejection of ‘analytic’ thinking as a means of perceiving the Message. Remember that he explicitly claims the process of separating and quantifying an object of study, when applied to the change caused by some new technology, cannot help us understand the Message of that change. In other words, we cannot understand the Message using
12
traditional analytic principles (and since these are the principles used by economists and scientists, they cannot perceive the Message). This claim is too strong because the exclusion of analytic principles is complete; while it might be the case that ‘artistic’ thinking is the best means of grasping the Message, basic mathematical and scientific principles cannot be excluded entirely. Consider the light bulb, or the railway. While we might need to be creative in trying to imagine what life was like prior to the light bulb or railway, it is certainly the case that this creative reflection will be helped with an understanding of basic math and science. In the case of the light bulb, we would likely reflect upon the increase in productivity that invention helped stimulate. In the case of the railway, we might think about the increased speed and distance of travel possible in a lifetime. In both cases, we would have to (if only roughly) numerically quantify our observations to make the comparison between what life was like before and after the introduction of the technological change, and rely on a basic understanding of the idea of cause and effect. Both are essential to our capacity to engage in the type of creative thinking necessary to perceive the Message, because both are necessary to make the relevant ‘before-and-after’ comparisons. So McLuhan can’t be right to completely exclude the usefulness of math and science in understanding the Message, meaning he can’t be right to exclude those who rely primarily on such principles in their work (i.e., economists and scientists). He has created a distinction between these two modes of thought (and by extension two sets of professions) that is too rigid; he might be right to suggest that artistic thinking is more important when it comes to understanding the Message, but he is wrong to suggest that analytic reasoning needs to be excluded altogether. My criticism of McLuhan is narrow, directed only at his claims about the relative ability of artists and economists/scientists to perceive the Message owing to the distinct kinds of principles upon which these two groups of persons rely when thinking through a problem. I did not try to undermine either his claim that technology carries a Message, or that the means of grasping that Message primarily involves creative thinking. All I offer is a criticism that could likely be overcome without disturbing the broader view. Specifically, were we to interpret the rigid distinction he appears to draw between creative and analytic thinking as ‘not-so-rigid’, his emphasis on the importance of creative thinking when it comes to perceiving the Message would rest on a more plausible foundation.” So there’s my objection to McLuhan’s claims that artists, and artistic thinking, are the only persons/means of grasping ‘the Message’, using strategy number 1 (I criticized the implied meaning of the definitions he used in his premises, so by extension I challenged their ‘factual accuracy’). So this is a GOOD (though perhaps underdeveloped) argument because, (I hope) every rational individual (most) would accept it. The reason (I believe) every rational individual might accept it is because it is directed at two implausible and related claims made by McLuhan; all it does is challenge their strength. More importantly perhaps, my argument preserves McLuhan’s emphasis on creativity, while rejecting the notion that grasping ‘the Message’ is only a matter of creativity. The result is that I’ve written a largely supportive essay.
13
Note: It is not the case that I am claiming this argument is ‘right’ or ‘correct’ or ‘true’ or ‘above any criticism’; I am simply giving you an example of an argument that is convincing/compelling, but this does not mean that my argument is complete, or that there is no possible objection to my argument. There are compelling arguments that could be made as a response to the position I’ve outlined here… that does not mean this essay (or one like it) wouldn’t receive a good grade. The general point is that an excellent academic paper is not ‘right’… it doesn’t purport to bring an end to debate, but instead clearly articulates a well-supported position that can, owing to its being clearly articulated, serve as a clear reference point for further debate. I’ve made a compelling case in support of my criticism, but I have not ‘ended all further debate on the matter’ (and I wasn’t trying to end the debate!) SUMMARY: Every essay has three basic components: 1. A thesis/point/belief/opinion about some ‘thing’ (in the context of this course, the ‘thing’ will be a philosopher’s argument). 2. A description or exegesis of the ‘thing’ (argument) about which you have a point. 3. A set of reasons intended to support your thesis/point/belief/opinion about the ‘thing’ as described in your exegesis. If you are able to clearly fulfill these three parts for any essay you ever write for any course you ever take, you will at least be able to be confident that your essay will be structurally clear… someone reading your paper will know what you’re doing at each step of the paper. Structural clarity does not guarantee that you’ll succeed in convincing your reader, but if your essay is not structurally clear, you’re pretty much guaranteed not to convince your reader (because they won’t have a clear understanding of the character of your argument).
14
III. Clarity of Expression What I’m going to briefly outline in this section are some ‘tips’ for how to choose your words and structure your sentences/paragraphs, as well as how to improve your grammar and edit your work. The ‘Cardinal Virtues’ of writing in philosophy are, as I’ve stated repeatedly: be clear and be precise. That is, you need to make your point in the clearest, most focused manner that you can. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and don’t say anything else. Here are some things you should be thinking about as you try to realize these two virtues: Word Choice: Use the simplest and most precise words available to communicate the idea you are attempting to convey. There’s no need to try to impress your reader with your ability to look up words in a thesaurus/dictionary… indeed, they won’t be impressed. They will more likely be confused, trying to understand the obscure vocabulary you’ve invoked to create the appearance of intelligence. To re-iterate: A COMPLEX VOCABULARY IS NOT A SIGN OF INTELLIGENCE, and more importantly A COMPLEX VOCABULARY WILL NOT (in most cases) IMPROVE THE CLARITY OF YOUR ESSAY!!! You should always try to find the simplest word you can to express your idea, unless that simple word is ambiguous (i.e., could be understood to have multiple meanings)… ambiguity often accompanies simple words. If the simple word is ambiguous, that’s when you should try to find a more complex word that more clearly and precisely expresses your idea. Note: In academic essays, repeating certain key words is better than trying to find synonyms to replace those key words. So, repetition of central terms is better than introducing synonyms that threaten the clarity of your meaning. (NOTE: Repetition is a good technique when it comes to word choice… it WILL NEVER be good to repeat the same idea).
15
Sentences: ONE IDEA PER SENTENCE!!! The grammatical function of a sentence is to communicate a single idea to your reader. Since your ultimate goal is clarity, the best approach is to write SHORT SENTENCES WHENEVER POSSIBLE, since that will clearly distinguish between your separate ideas, making the ideas easier for your reader to follow. There is, of course, an element of judgment when it comes to deciding on the relative size of the idea you are going to include in a single sentence… sometimes you’ll think you’ve only got one idea, and once you re-read the sentence, you might actually have included two or three ideas. As a rough visual guideline for determining whether you’ve incorporated a single idea into a sentence, you should start to get worried as soon as a single sentence begins to exceed three lines of text. Once a sentence starts to exceed three lines, it is likely (though not necessarily) the case that more than a single idea. If this happens, it’s not a big deal… all you have to do is break the sentence up into multiple sentences. When should you expect a long sentence? When you are summarizing a point or presenting a list. Paragraphs: ONE IDEA PER PARAGRAPH!!! The grammatical function of a paragraph is identical to the function of a sentence… the only difference is the size of the idea you are communicating. Just like sentences then, clarity is best achieved by neatly distinguishing between your separate ideas. You can achieve this clear separation by writing MORE SHORT PARAGRAPHS RATHER THAN FEWER LONG ONES… The degree to which it is necessary to exercise your judgment when deciding on the relative size of the idea you’d like to communicate is greater with respect to paragraphs than sentences. Part of what this means is that it will often be the case that you’ll begin a paragraph with a single idea in mind and it will get longer and longer and longer… As is the case with sentences that ‘grow’, it’s not a big deal when it happens; all you need to do is recognize that the one idea with which you began is actually bigger than you first realized… so you’ll have to separate that single large paragraph into multiple paragraphs (at least two).
16
In terms of a visual cue, you’ll know that a paragraph is too long by reference to the number of sentences or word count… Three sentences is the minimum number of sentences required, whereas 8 or 9 would be the absolute maximum… any paragraph that starts to get longer than that needs to be divided! With respect to word count… if a paragraph is at 200 words, you should start thinking about making it into two paragraphs… if the paragraph is 300 words or more, you should definitely separate it into two paragraphs (or even three). Also like sentences, the occasional long paragraph is acceptable… though again, when I say ‘long’, absolutely no more than 9 sentences or 300 words (and it would be bad if all of your paragraphs were that length). Grammar: It is not necessary for you to be able to specify what grammatical error you’ve made; it is simply necessary for you to be able to recognize and avoid making those errors. What’s the best way to check your grammar? READ A DRAFT OUTLOUD TO YOURSELF… if it doesn’t sound like something you’d feel comfortable saying in front of a room full of people, it should be re-written until you don’t think you’d be embarrassed. Editing: You should expect to have to write multiple drafts of you paper… it’s not you, it’s everyone (I re-wrote the above sample essay in its entirety four times… I’ve rewritten this document in its entirety more than 13 times)… the words will never come out exactly the way you want the first time, and that is true for absolutely every writer. The best technique for editing your work once you’ve written a draft is, as with checking your grammar, to read it out loud. Stop after every sentence and ask yourself two separate questions: a. Is this a sentence I wouldn’t be embarrassed reading out loud in front of a large group of people? (the grammar question). b. Do I understand how what I’ve written in this sentence contributes (either directly or indirectly) to making my thesis more compelling/plausible? (the ‘focus’ question). Point of View: It’s perfectly acceptable to write these essays from a first person point of view, arguably, it’s preferable. Why? Because ultimately what I want to know is why YOU think whatever it is that you think… what reasons support your opinion? That having been said, if you prefer to write using a third person point of view, that is also acceptable… as with everything else I’ve said, the primary concern is clarity, and a third person point of view can still be clear.
17
SUMMARY: Simple language, short sentences, and short paragraphs are all preferable, because they all tend to improve clarity. Expect to edit often, try to do so by reading your work out loud.
18
VI. Grading Scheme I've worked out a ‘rough’ marking scheme that reflects the emphasis I’ve placed throughout this document and in the other course materials on creating clear, focused, and plausible arguments. To re-iterate: Your term papers will be assessed by reference to the quality of the argument that you make, as the components have been outlined in this document, and nothing else… what that means is: If you have a clear thesis, a good (clear and accurate) exegesis and a convincing set of reasons (clear and compelling to a rational individual), you’ll be within the A range (i.e., 80 – 100%). If you have a clear thesis, a good (clear and accurate) exegesis and a set of reasons that aren't very convincing (either not clear and/or not compelling to a rational individual), you’ll be within the B range (i.e., 70 – 79%). The difference between an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ can be roughly articulated as follows: Reasons that are compelling (the ‘A’ range) are those that it is difficult for your grader to challenge; if your exegesis is accurate and well-supported by quotes, and the grader really has to think hard to come up with an explanation of the flaws in your reasons, you’ll get an A. Reasons that it is easy to explain why they are implausible will yield a B. That is, if you have an accurate and well-supported exegesis but reasons that the grader can easily and clearly explain why and how they are flawed you will receive a grade in the 70 – 79% range. If you have a clear thesis, and a clear exegesis but offer no reasons whatsoever, OR if you make a mistake in your exegesis and then develop reasons that are convincing only if the mistake is accepted, you will fall within the C range (i.e., 60 – 69%). If you don’t have a clear thesis and/or grossly misrepresent the position of the author you’re addressing and present a set of reasons that are obviously irrelevant or flawed in some other way, you’ll fall within the F – D range (i.e., 0 – 59%). NOTE: There are no explicit grades for things like ‘style’ (word choice, sentence and paragraph structure) or ‘grammar’… that’s because my entire assessment will be made by reference to the impact your style and grammar on the degree to which your argument is compelling.
19
So STYLE AND GRAMMAR MATTER TO YOUR GRADE, since POOR STYLE OR GRAMMAR WILL UNDERMINE THE CLARITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. I have also not assigned any explicit grades for going under or over the word limit. Again, however, word count is relevant inasmuch as it affects the quality of your argument: If you are under the minimum word count, the problem would likely be either an insufficient exegesis or an underdeveloped (set of) reason(s). If you are over the maximum word count, the problem will likely be that you’ve lost focus, that is, you’ve included either irrelevant details or more details than are necessary to make your point compelling. SUMMARY: Your term papers will be assessed only by reference to the quality of the argument you’ve made. A = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, compelling reasons. B = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, obviously flawed reasons. C = clear thesis, accurate/well-supported exegesis, no reasons whatsoever, or partially flawed exegesis upon which your reasons depend. D – F = no clear thesis, grossly inaccurate exegesis, followed by thoroughly implausible/unclear reasons. APPEALS: Owing to the ‘rough’ interpretive nature of these standards, the possibility of a successful appeal of your result will require you to show (starting with the grader, then with me) that your result is incorrect by a minimum of 5%, according to this grading scheme (since I’ve roughly pegged the possible margin of error around plus or minus 5%).
20
The End You might be asking yourself at this point how what you’ve just read applies beyond this course. Think of it this way: (almost) every essay you’re asked to write asks you to defend a position, whether in an English class, History class, business class, psychology, etc… That is, (almost) every essay you’ll be asked to write at university is an argumentative essay; you’re simply asked to make arguments with respect to different subject matter. So whether you’re being asked to interpret a novel, or explain a specific historical incident, or defend a particular course of action in a business decision, or support a psychological theory, you’re being asked to make an argument. And every argument requires a thesis/point of view, an explanation of the subject matter you’re addressing (an exegesis), and a set of reasons/evidence that supports the thesis you’re seeking to defend. So, there ya have it. I hope this clarifies what’s expected of you. If I've left something out or if this is particularly confusing, feel free to ask.
