Theme Q and A

Theme Q and A

The task itself What is a premise?

A premise is one of the numbered sentences on the task sheet. Its one of the reasons that Brighouse/Nussbaum/Schouten/ Friedman gives for their conclusions.

For example, Brighouses argument has four premises. The first one is 1. The only way for some people to live well is for them to have the ability to evaluate alternative good ways of life.

Critical engagement with reading What if I havent yet taken a position against the argument that the author is making?

This is not OK! You must take a position against the argument that the author is making.

If you are not sure you disagree with any of the authors, the first thing to do is to figure out which of the arguments seems the weakest to you. Then you should try to figure out what the weakest point of that argument is which means identifying one premise as the weakest one, and explaining why you reject it.

Extension What do I do if I need to apply for an extension?

FIRST: refer to the Assessment policy to check that you are eligible to apply for an extension

If you are eligible, refer to the process outlined in the pdf in the Assessment tab in LEO.

Writing Is it OK to use the first person - for instance, to say `Ill argue?

Yes, you should use the first person (words like `I, `my, `mine...) in this philosophy paper. Using the first person makes it easier to see what youre arguing for.

Grading How do I know what my tutor is looking for when marking?

Your tutor will mark your assignment according to the criteria set out in the rubric. See the Appendix in the unit outline.

Getting started How do I get started?

Go back to the notes you have taken during the tutorials (and the resources/ slides shared by your tutor). Look for discussion points that have been designed to prepare you for assessment task 2.

Length Can I go over or under the word-count/ time?

Yes, but only by 10% either side.

How do I know how long to spend on each section?

Refer to the criteria for weighting of the various components.

Referencing Which referencing style do I use in the paper?

APA (refer to the Libguide linked in LEO for how to structure your citations)

Research Do I need to refer to any sources other than the one that Im writing about?

No. If youre writing about Brighouse, you only need to refer to Brighouse; if youre writing about Nussbaum, you only need to refer to Nussbaum; if youre writing about Friedman/Schoeten, you only need to refer to Friedman/Schoeten.

If you do refer to other sources, be sure to cite the source (see question in this doc about referencing).

Id prefer that you tackled this assessment by thinking carefully for yourself about the arguments described. You wont lose points by referencing other sources, but its not the way that Id prefer that you do the assessment.

Signposting Do I need to include headings within my text to signpost the sections of the assignment?

Yes.

Your submission must include the words Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Including headers tells the people who are grading your submission how you understand the parts of your paper to fit together.

Examples The sample papers include the example of a blood transfusion. Are we encouraging you to come up with your own examples to illustrate your points?

Yes! It is often very helpful to include your own examples to illustrate your points.

Giving examples helps you make your paper more concrete, helping your reader follow what you are meaning to argue.

Choice Can I choose any premise from any philosopher and have an equally good chance of doing well or are there some that are better to choose than others?

Yes, you could have an equally good chance of doing well by picking any of the premises.

The most important thing is that you pick a premise that you think is false, dont try and figure out which premise you think your tutor is most likely to think is false. Youre going to do best if you express your own perspective.

Point Whats the point of writing this paper? Are you trying to get us to think that governments should not mandate education?

No; thats not the point. We dont want to convince you that the government should not mandate education.

The point is to help you think for yourself about which of these justifications is the strongest one and which one is the weakest one. You can - and we hope should - think that some other justification is itself strong enough.

Can the esay begin with why I disagree with the overall conclusion?

No, the essay must still start by giving a reason for rejecting one premise that is also a reason for rejecting the conclusion. Your reason for rejecting one of the conclusions must still be a reason for rejecting one of the premises. (The only in the announcement meant that you didnt have to argue against mandatory education as such, but only against the targets justification being sufficient.)

Am I allowed to include my personal experience in part 3 as the evidence to argue with my chosen premises?

Yes, as long as including your personal experience is a way of persuading your reader to agree with you and disagree about the author who youre writing about. You have to describe your experience and explain how its evidence for what youre arguing.

If I accept all the premises of all the arguments, am I to misrepresent my view by imagining that I reject one of the premises?

Yes. If you yourself accept all the premises, you still need to figure out which premise is the weakest. So if you need to think of it as misrepresenting your own view, think of it like that.

But its better if you think of this assessment as an exercise in critical reasoning: youre required to think critically about these arguments, which means identifying which step is the weakest. The assessment is to explain why that premise is the weakest, by doing your best to fully develop a reason for rejecting that premise thats also a reason for rejecting the conclusion.

ASSESSMENT TASK 2 EXTENDED TASK SHEET

Structured Written Analysis task

You will write a paper that develops exactly one response to the argument from Brighouse, the argument from Nussbaum, or the argument from Schouten/ Friedman. Your response must have the structure described on pages 23 of this task sheet. Your response will be one reason for rejecting one premise of the argument thats also a reason for rejecting the conclusion. Your paper needs to be between 1000 and 1200 words.

Brighouse

1. The only way for some people to live well is for them to have the ability to evaluate alternative good ways of life.

2. The ability to evaluate alternative good ways of life requires being well informed about alternatives and being able rationally to compare them.

3. Mandatory education is necessary if all citizens are able to be well informed about alternatives and be able rationally to compare them.

4. Just governments give their citizens what they require to live well.

Conclusion: being able to evaluate alternative good ways of life is important enough by itself for just governments to mandate education.

You will reject this conclusion by identifying a reason why being able to evaluate alternative good ways of life is not important enough by itself. You can argue that its not important at all, or you can argue that its only important enough to justify mandatory education in combination with something else, or you can argue that just governments dont need to mandate education.

Nussbaum

1. Citizenship in a pluralistic democratic society requires Socratic self-criticism and the ability to see and understand the diverse groups that make up modern democracies.

2. Mandatory education is necessary for society-wide development of Socratic self-criticism and the ability to see and understand the diverse groups that make up modern democracies.

3. Democratic governments can legitimately mandate what's necessary for citizenship.

Conclusion: developing citizenship in a pluralistic democratic society is important enough by itself for just governments to mandate education

You will reject this conclusion by identifying a reason why developing citizenship in a pluralistic democratic society is not important enough by itself. You can argue that its not important at all, or you can argue that its only important enough to justify mandatory education in combination with something else, or you can argue that just governments dont need to mandate education.

Schouten/ Friedman

1. Imperfections in the free market lead to underinvestment in human capital.

2. Mandatory education is a way of investing in human capital.

3. Children benefit enough from the development of their human capital for governments to legitimately mandate education.

Conclusion: making adequate investments in human capital is important enough by itself for just governments to mandate education.

You will reject this conclusion by identifying a reason why making adequate investments in human capital is not important enough by itself. You can argue that its not important at all, or you can argue that its only important enough to justify mandatory education in combination with something else, or you can argue that just governments dont need to mandate education.

You cannot reject this conclusion by focusing on tertiary education, because this conclusion isnt specifically about tertiary education.

Structure:

The first sentence of your paper must be a thesis statement with the form I reject [P1/P2/...] of [Nussbaums/ Brighouses/ Friedmans] argument because [...]". And it must satisfy all the requirements for the essay. The requirements are:

Your thesis must identify exactly one criticism of your target's argument, whichever criticism you think is strongest. You do not receive any points for including more than one criticism; we will ignore any material that develops a different point.

Your criticism is a reason for rejecting one premise of the argument thats simultaneously a reason for rejecting the conclusion of the argument

Your criticism needs to be more than just your saying what you think. Your goal is to give a reason that would help convince one of your classmates to agree with you, and to think that there is something wrong with the argument that your target is offering.

The rest of the paper needs to have three parts. You must have headers for each of these parts.

Part I: One criticism of the argument

You should develop exactly one criticism of your target's argument, whichever one you think is strongest. You cannot give more than one criticism; you will only earn credit for one. Your criticism is a reason for rejecting one premise of the argument thats simultaneously a reason for rejecting the conclusion of the argument. The criticism that you offer should be similar to the sorts of criticisms that we discuss in class. Your thesis statement must be a one-sentence summary of your criticism.

Your criticism needs to be more than just saying what you think. Your goal is to give a reason that would help convince one of your classmates to agree with you, and to think that there is something wrong with the argument that your target is offering.

Part II: Anticipation of what your

target would say in response

You then need to explain what your target would say in response to your criticism. In grading this explanation, I'll be making sure that you do understand the assumptions that your target is making.

Your part II needs to be new: it needs to go beyond what the author says in the original paper. If the original paper contains a response to the idea that you develop in your Part I, you *must* answer that objection in your Part I. Part II is for you to develop a new response on behalf of the original author.

Part III: Critical discussion of what

your target would say in response

Your paper needs to end with a critical discussion of what you anticipate in Part II -- you need to attempt to explain what you think is wrong with the response. As before, your goal is to give a reason that would help convince an impartial observer to agree with you, and to think that there is something wrong with the argument that your target is offering.

And your Part III needs to defend the same idea as your Part 1 -- you cannot abandon your idea from Part I and give some other objection.