Philosiphy

Rough-Draft Requirements • Format: 4-6 double-spaced pages, 12” font, MLA Bibliography, with Works Cited page (Works Cited page

does not count toward your page requirements). • Submission: through Canvas by 11:59pm, 4/12.

Assignment Goals and Rubric The purpose of the rough draft is to develop a paper topic that will address the foundational assumptions of two philosophical positions from two separate readings that we have done this semester. Notice that this paper is not simply a “compare and contrast” paper. The purpose is not simply to state the different conclusions that philosophers reach concerning similar questions, but to explain the reasons why they diverge. For this reason you must also identify and explain the major arguments of each philosopher. Finally, you must evaluate these arguments: who has the better argument, and why? Accordingly, the four basic requirements for the paper are the following.

• Provide clear textual reasons for motivating a point of comparison. Don’t just pick an arbitrary point of comparison. Identify reasons that indicate the need to posit this particular issue as a relation between the two texts.

• Identify the arguments that the two authors use to establish their respective viewpoints. • Evaluate the arguments. Be clear about your reasons for thinking one argument is better than another. Does

one argument rely on a false premise? Would accepting the argument entail accepting other undesirable conclusions?

• Include direct citations, references, and a bibliography in MLA format. Limit yourselves to the primary sources exclusively.

The points you may earn for different components of the paper are distributed according to the following rubric. Excellent (A) Good / Satisfactory (B / C) Below Average / Failing

(D / E) Introduction / Thesis Statement (15pts)

Introductory paragraph draws from appropriate textual and argumentative resources to establish the author's topic; includes a brief statement of the conclusions the author reaches in the evaluative portion of the paper, and the reasons for that conclusion.

Introductory paragraph draws from appropriate textual and argumentative resources, but there is some imprecision about the topic these resources establish; statement of the author's evaluative conclusions and reasoning process is either vague or not well- expressed.

Introductory paragraph draws from inappropriate textual and argumentative resources; fails to establish a topic or makes no mention of a topic; either fails to include altogether, or includes an extremely vague statement of conclusions and reasoning from the evaluative portion

Representation of Arguments from Primary Text 1 (20pts)

Accurately represents the primary text's arguments by identifying the major conclusions and concepts, and clearly describes the inferences used to reach the conclusion.

Minor inaccuracies in representing the primary text's arguments, either in the identification of the major conclusions and concepts, or minor inaccuracies in describing the inferences used to reach the conclusions

Significant inaccuracies in representing the primary text's arguments; fails to identify the major conclusions or concepts from the primary text; misrepresents the inferences used to reach the conclusions.

Representation of Arguments from Primary text 2 (20pts)

Accurately represents the primary text's arguments by identifying the major conclusions and concepts, and clearly describes the inferences involved in reaching the conclusion.

Minor inaccuracies in representing the primary text's arguments, either in the identification of the major conclusions and concepts, or minor inaccuracies in describing the inferences used to reach the conclusions

Significant inaccuracies in representing the primary text's arguments; fails to identify the major conclusions or concepts from the primary text; misrepresents the inferences used to reach the conclusions.

Interpretation (10pts)

Identifies an ambiguity or lack of clarity in one of the primary texts, which is relevant to the author's topic, and suggests a plausible interpretation that draws from other resources in the primary text.

Identifies an ambiguity or lack of clarity in one of the primary texts, but the interpretive problem is either not immediately relevant to the topic, or the interpretation suggested does not draws from the best resources from the primary text.

Identifies an ambiguity or lack of clarity in one of the primary texts, but fails to suggest an interpretation; or fails altogether to identify an ambiguity or lack of clarity in one of the primary texts.

Evaluation (15pts)

The author clearly indicates the conclusions reached through an evaluation of the arguments from the primary texts; offers plausible reasons for endorsing one argument and for not endorsing the other argument; argues for this position by considering examples, test cases, etc.

The author clearly indicates the conclusions reached through an evaluation of the arguments from the primary texts, but the reasons he or she offers for preferring one argument over the other are implausible; or the author fails to argue his or her position by considering examples and test cases when his or her argument would clearly benefit from such considerations.

The author fails to clearly indicate the conclusions he or she reached through an evaluation of the arguments from the primary texts; or the defense of the evaluation is extremely inadequate; or the author fails to consider examples and test cases when his or her argument would clearly benefit from such considerations.

Citations (10pts)

Incorporates direct quotations of primary or secondary sources that are best suited to the author's argument and interpretive strategy.

Incorporates direct quotations of primary or secondary sources, but the quotations are not best suited to the author's argument and interpretive strategy; OR

Fails to incorporate an adequate number of direct quotations from primary or secondary sources, and those included lack relevance to the author's argument and interpretive strategy.

Style / Quality of Writing (10pts)

Writing is coherent and contains very few grammatical errors and typos; the paper has a clearly indicated organization, and its

Writing is occasionally unclear or contains grammatical errors or typos that hinder comprehension; organization is either not clearly indicated, or the

Writing contains numerous grammatical errors and typos that significantly hinder comprehension; the paper fails to indicate its organization, or the order in

parts are logically ordered and easy to follow.

paper's components are not set in the most logical order

which the parts are presented is extremely illogical and difficult to follow.