Seminar 8 - tutorial discussing philosophical essay structure and logical PDF

Preview

Summary

Seminar 8Essay checklist 1- clear thesis 2- arguments- defend against possible objections, do not commit logical fallacy 3- key terms- identified and defined 4- citations- properly formatted, explained (your essay should make sense if read with the quotes removed- quotes do not speak for themselves....

Description

Seminar 8 Essay checklist 1- clear thesis 2- arguments- defend against possible objections, do not commit logical fallacy 3- key terms- identified and defined 4- citations- properly formatted, explained (your essay should make sense if read with the quotes removed- quotes do not speak for themselves.) As Smith says…..” “ (23) smith Is arguing that … Critique must relate to the argument 2 parts to arguement - Logical form (if A is true, then B is true) correct in theory - Content- information, but possibly incorrect theory – this is where the critique comes in A- the ground is wet B- it must be raining “Though it logically seems true, an analysis of the content shows that…” Critical thinking1) trump won the electoral vote- fact 2) Clinton won the popular vote- fact 3) The voice of the people is best represented by popular vote - opinion 4) The electoral system is outdated and needs to be reformed in order to better represent the voice of the people- opinion Conclusion- Clinton should have won the election Form? Content?

Essay formula -

Introduction= thesis, I statements throughout – I agree with Robertson etc Can be part of intro or paragraph 1- Like syllabus summary, explain the debate, tell what are the stakes, why should we care – important Make It very clear what each paragraph will be about

-

Paragraph 2- your evaluation (thesis)-how do you evaluate the debate, specifically relate to the summary, - use example, experience, analogy – what do you think about the debate and why do you think that

-

Counter objection*** very important- must be well developed

-

Evaluate the counter objection – should support thesis, make it more nuanced

-

Conclusion- what other questions does this raise

Counter argument for me- why it would work, but would need to explain this first Key terms depends on the argument you make Pharmaceutical industry topic: -Critics of pharma -Robertson -identify the key terms

Logical Fallacies 1) Ad Hominem – attack the person not their article 2) Appeal to Authority- appealing to qualifications of the person over their article content 3) Band wagon/ad populum- believing that the popular opinion is the correct one 4) Circular argument- when conclusion and premises are the same ie Clinton should have won the election because she should have one 5) False dilemma – presenting a complicated issue as a polarized issue – yes or no, black or white, we want something more nuanced or “grey” 6) Hasty generalization- mistake a small incident for a larger trend i.e. young people are not voting, actually 50% of all eligible voters didn’t vote 7) Faulty analogy- ie suggesting 2 things are more alike than they really are, Moral equivalency- 2 different moral concerns are the same when they are not 8) Slippery slope/ non-sequitor- something is missing in the logical steps and we skip that step – making one change will necessarily lead to another change Ie big pharma will cause crash in economy- can say it’s a concern to avoid getting into it 9) Red herring- changing the debate in the middle of the debate 10)Straw person – presenting either the debate or argument in an excessively unflattering light MLA- perdue owl format As Smith says “…” (64)- page number Work cited- Smith, John, “ article” or book, year, print/electronic...