PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

Phi 102 Final Project

In your final project, you’re going to write a paper that is at most 3 pages long, single spaced. In this paper, you will write an evaluative critique of a piece of reasoning. That means you’ll read a passage that contains some reasoning and then you’ll write an argumentative response to that passage. You’re playing the neutral referee here, analyzing the reasoning in a real-life example of argumentation. Keep the paper fairly bare bones: don’t do anything outside of the enumerated steps below. I don’t care what format the paper is in—I just want a clean, precise evaluative critique that is well-written. Don’t forget to proof read!

Read this entire sheet: There are tips to get your diagram started

First, choose one of the following passages:

1. Passages

• Passage 1 (13A(b)).

If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstrably certain, then these premises [from which it follows] must be certain. . . (1). But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable (2). It is only “a priori” propositions [propositions like “all bachelors are unmarried males,” which are true in virtue of the meanings of the terms involved in the sentence] that are logically certain (3). But we cannot deduce the existence of god from an “a priori” proposition (4). For we know that the reason why “a priori” propositions are certain is that they are tautologies [statements that are necessarily true] (5). And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further tautology can be validly deduced (6). It follows that there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of god (7).

• Passage 2 (13A(d)).

¶1 I’m a Catholic and I believe that any marriage is worth saving (1). But I’m also pragmatic and I have even recommended a couple of friends go ahead with their decision to divorce their partners (2). This is because I believe divorce is not always bad (3).

¶2 Worst case scenario for a divorce is spousal abuse (4). Sure, the couple can go to see a counsellor on that matter (5). In many cases, however, it is probably safer for the abused spouse to just leave (6). Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing (7). It might even save one’s life (8).

¶3 Then there is the irreparable di↵erence, unresolved by marriage counseling (9). When the couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand each other anymore perhaps to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings, divorce seems to be the best strategy (10).

¶4 What about children (11)? That’s the hardest factor in deciding to divorce (12). Children do thrive better when their parents are together (13). I remain, however, a little bit

1

skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-term emotional and social e↵ects on children when their parents can’t stand each other anymore (14). Isn’t it the children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy individuals unrestrained by their marital statuses (15)? And don’t children thrive well when their parents are happy even when separated (16)?

¶5 In sum, no, divorce is not always bad (17). There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost (18). This is, however, not an excuse to make divorce as the feasible exit strategy when things go awry in a marriage (19). There are ways to resolve dilemmas or problems in any marriage (20). It only takes courage, patience, and perseverance, and the desire to save the marriage (21).

• Passage 3 (13A(f)).

Look around today and you can see for yourself that most of the organisms you come across are not making it into the fossil record (1). It takes a rather special combination of physical factors—usually those of swamps or estuaries where remains can be buried in sediment, be compacted and, if lucky, remain undisturbed for millions of years—for the bones or imprints of an organism to achieve a measure of immortality in stone (2). To then become part of the scientific body of evidence, they have to erode in such a way as not to be destroyed and then found by someone who recognizes their importance (3). Furthermore, from what we know of evolutionary mechanisms, speciation events are likely to occur in isolated populations (4), and competition will quickly eliminate the less fit of closely similar forms (5). Both processes make it even more unlikely that there will be a smooth, continuous fossil record of intermediaries (6). Thus, it is not at all surprising that there are “missing links” in the fossil record (7), and this is not good evidence against evolutionary transmutation (8).

2. Evaluative Critique Steps

These are the steps to writing a evaluative response.

Step 1: Write an overview of the main argument and any sub-arguments supporting it.

• Try to summarize the arguer’s point succinctly.

Step 2: Diagram the macro-structure and micro-structure of the argument. I’ve numbered all the sentences in the passages (some are grammatically one sentence, but I’ve put two numbers in there because there are two independent thoughts). Some sentences will not be part of the argument proper, in which case you can leave them out. Diagramming will require you to use some kind of shape function in whatever word processor you’re using. If your word processor doesn’t have a shape function, Google Docs has a free one. You can either put the diagrams directly in your paper or give them names (like “figure 1”) and put them in the back and refer to them in your prose.

• First, diagram the main argument (i.e., the argument without any sub arguments).

• Then, diagram any sub-arguments.

Step 3: Assess the language of the argument. Don’t consider noise.

• Note whether any important argumentative terms are vague, ambiguous, or loaded. 2

• Do any important terms in the argument need definition? Some of the language in the above selections is specialized. If you don’t know a term, look it up in a reputable source. As a UNLV student, you have access to numerous such sources through the library (just the online Oxford English Dictionary will get you pretty far, which you can find through the library’s website).

Step 4: Assess the argument’s reasoning. This is the biggest step. You only consider the premises, conclusions, and inferences from your diagram here—don’t consider the noise of the passage.

• Are the premises are acceptable? See the handouts from module 2, especially handout 8, and refresh yourself by watching the lectures for those days. If the argument fits one of our schemes, then also apply the critical questions for that scheme. You maybe be faced with multiple schemes.

– This means that you’ll be testing every part of your diagram that does not have an arrow going to it for acceptability.

• Are the premises relevant to their conclusions, and su�cient to prove the main con- clusion? Again, see the handouts from module 2.

– This means that you’ll be testing each arrow for both relevance and su�ciency.

• Are any fallacies are present?

Step 5: Weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the given argument.

• You should refer to step 4 to help with this assessment. What are the major weaknesses of the argument? What, if anything, could be done to strengthen the argument?

Be sure to not have one giant blob of text with the steps mixed together. Start a new paragraph (at least) for every step and give the reader (me) signposts for what you’re doing (e.g., “Now that we’re done assessing the language of the argument, we’ll move on to assessing the argument’s reasoning.”).

Scroll to next page

3

3. How to get started

In the past, what you see above, in addition to the examples, were all the student had to do the project. I’ve come to the conclusion that this makes the project a little too di�cult, especially getting the diagram correct. And if you get the diagram wrong, the consequences a↵ect the other steps. Because of this, I’ve provided information to help you with the diagram. Below you’ll find a skeleton diagram along with a list of sentences that you should use to fill out the diagram. That means your diagram should look just like the diagram below for whatever passage you choose except that you fill in the question marks with numbers that I’ve listed.

How to get started with passage 1. The key to this passage is that there’s a hidden premise. Here’s the big-picture idea of the passage.

Basically, the author is giving an argument of the form: If A is true then B must be true. But B is false. Therefore, A must be false. That is, he is basically saying: If you were to demonstrate with certainty that God exists, then the premises of your argument would have to be known with certainty. That’s basically sentence (1). But no premises of an argument for the existence of God can be known with certainty. Therefore, you can’t demonstrate the existence of God with certainty.

The tricky part is is that the author doesn’t explicitly say the “B is false part”—that is, he doesn’t explicitly say “But no premises of an argument for the existence of God can be known with certainty.” Call this claim Hidden Claim. And then, all of the rest of the premises support Hidden Claim.

What this means is that next to (1) you need a hidden premise that says that “no premises of an argument for the existence of God can be known with certainty.” Name it (8).

So the bottom of the diagram will look like this:

Now why is 8 true? I.e., why is it not the case that the premises for an argument for the existence of god would not be known with certainty? Well, if it were an empirical proposition, it wouldn’t be known with certainty. And the only kind of statements we can know with certainty are “a priori” statements, but from those the existence of God can’t be deduced. So the final product should look like this:

4

Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The rest of the sentences in the passage are noise

How to get started with passage 2. The idea of the passage is that divorce is sometimes justified because there are situations in which the costs of marriage outweigh the benefits. And there are three concrete kinds of situations in which that happens: abuse, di↵erences that can’t be reconciled, and some stu↵ having to do with kids. The kids part then involves a sub argument.

You want something in the end like this:

The main work is figuring out the middle three ?s. There are three main situations in which the benefits of divorce outweigh the costs, according to the author. And then one of those situations has its own sub-argument.

Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 6, 10, 14, 15, 16. The rest of the sentences in the passage are noise

5

How to get started with passage 3. Look at the last three sentences of the passage. (7) starts with a conclusion indicator, and (8) seems to follow from (7). So the bottom will look like this:

There are two convergent premise pairs that support 6. 6 says “Both processes make it even more unlikely that there will be a smooth, continuous fossil record of intermediaries.” So we should expect two premise sets to support 6, each referring to a di↵erent process. So things should look like this:

Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 2, 3, 4, 5. The rest of the sentences in the passage are noise

6