Description Writing Assignment #1: Argumentative Essay PHI 2100 Objective To write an original essay that showcases your ability to skillfully (a) identify, (b) reconstruct, (c) evaluate, and (d) repair a real-world argument using the methods we have learned in class. Your Task Step 1: Doing your own research, find a piece of media that prominently features just one of the following types of arguments: (1) a statistical argument or (2) an analogical argument. You may choose which of these two types of arguments to write about. But whichever type you choose to focus on, it must reflect that type of argument as we have studied it in this class and in our course textbook. This is important: randomly typing in “statistical arguments” on Google, for example, yields arguments that—for our course—are more appropriately classified as causal arguments, even if the argument involves statistics. The argument should be one that you suspect is problematic in ways that you can precisely diagnose using evaluation tools that we are studying in this course. Which media? The argument can come from a range of possible sources: news articles, academic journals, self-help books, YouTube video essays, Reddit, podcasts, etc. You must cite the specific source you use so that we can locate the argument ourselves. (For instance, if you use a YouTube clip or podcast, provide timestamps and links in the citation.) The argument should explore a topic about which contentions can reasonably arise concerning the misuse of statistics, the inaptness of analogies, etc. (depending on the type of argument). Step 2: Succinctly describe the argument in normal prose. In doing so, give relevant background information (e.g., the issue or topic that the argument is meant to address, the debate in which the argument is being presented). You should begin the essay with: “In this essay, I will be evaluating a [type of argument] from [argument source].” Step 3: Reconstruct and standardize the argument in premise-conclusion format. In addition to identifying the type of argument it is (e.g., “This argument is an inductive analogical argument), be sure to explain why it is best categorized that way. Step 4: Evaluate the argument. This involves: Assessing the form of the argument. Does it have all the components that a good argument of its type should have? Assessing the inferential strength of the argument: Do the argument’s premises adequately support its conclusion? Why or why not? Assessing whether the premises can reasonably be trusted. Specifying (when applicable) which of the ‘Rules’ from our Workbook for Arguments the argument violates. Specifying (when applicable) which of the fallacies we have studied/that are examined in Workbook for Argumentsthe argument is guilty of committing. Giving a concise global assessment of the argument based on your evaluation (e.g., “Overall, this is a weak analogical argument because…”). Step 5: Repair the argument based on the evaluation you provide. Be specific: Explain why the specific issues with the argument would be addressed by the repairs that you propose. Use the techniques that we have examined for repairing specific types of arguments. (Repairing an analogical argument involves different techniques from, say, a statistical argument.) Logistics Format: Typed essay. 12 pt. font. Double-spaced. Proper heading (name, class, etc.). Length: 500-750 words. References: You must include a reference section. Any style is fine—just be consistent. Provide a hyperlink to your sources (when applicable). Cite all of your sources (even if you use a grammar checker).
READ MORE >>