Performance Enhancing Drugs Paper

Description

I. INTRODUCTION: Your intro should cite the name and author of the article you are analyzing. It should BRIEFLY introduce the issue at hand. The thesis statement of your paper should appear here. For instance, “In this paper, I will argue that Philosopher X’s argument is strong but uncogent.” Also, your paper should provide a “map” to the rest of your paper. For instance, “In this paper, I will first explain X’s argument. Then, I will evaluate the argument and explain why it is logically strong. Next, I will carefully articulate why although strong, the argument is ultimately uncogent. Finally, I will offer some suggestions as to how the argument could be improved.” Oftentimes, it is best to leave the writing of your introduction for last. As you begin to draft your paper, you may not always know exactly where it will end up. Allowing this process to occur without worrying about being consistent with your introduction will help your ideas flow more readily and consistently. II. UNDERSTANDING/EXPOSITION: This section of your paper should demonstrate your understanding of the argument by explaining it. You should NOT paraphrase the entire article or do a bunch of quoting. Also, you should NOT dedicate the bulk of your paper to your explanation. Instead, SUMMARIZE briefly what point the author is trying to make. Pretend that you are explaining the article to a friend who is entirely unfamiliar with it, wants to know about it, but only has a few moments to listen. Indicate whether the argument is deductive or inductive (which we already know…right?) *If you successfully completed the annotated bibliography for the issue upon which the paper is based, then you have already completed your summary! Just use that in your paper, minus the bibliographical information. Finally, for this section, which bioethical principle (respect for persons/autonomy, beneficence, justice) is favored in this argument? Briefly explain. Also, which bioethical principle seems to be less emphasized? Briefly explain. III. EVALUATION: In this section, you will critically evaluate the argument. First, announce that you are going to exhibit the argument in a standardized structure, and then present the premise/conclusion breakdown we went over in class (the one in the PowerPoint) word for word, single spaced and indented, like so: 1. 2. 3. C: Since the argument is inductive, is it strong/cogent? Why? Are there fallacies employed, and if so, how do they affect the argument? For instance, you might claim that the argument is strong because the premises are relevant to the conclusion and provide good grounds for it, but that the argument is uncogent because one or two of the premises are false/unacceptable, or that a fallacy of cogency has been committed. Or you might argue that the argument is weak because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, due to the existence of a fallacy that affects strength or because the conclusion takes too great a leap from the premises. Also, “the author is simply stating his/her opinion” is a relativist stance that does NOT belong in your paper. IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR DEFENSE AGAINST COUNTERARGUMENTS: This section of your paper is an extension of your evaluation. If you are claiming that the argument has problems of strength and/or cogency, then in this section you will offer some suggestions for improvement that address the problem area(s) specifically. If you are claiming that the argument is both strong and cogent, then in this section you will help the author by anticipating some potential counterarguments and defending his or her argument against them. V. CONCLUSION: You should conclude your paper by briefly and succinctly reminding the reader how you have supported your thesis. You might say, for instance, that you have supported your thesis by successfully pointing out the flaws in the argument you have analyzed. This is also where you may want to consider an objection to your thesis and answer that objection. Your paper will also be graded on clarity/style as well as mechanics! CLARITY/STYLE: Your paper should be written such that a person who is entirely unfamiliar with the subject could understand it and follow it with relative ease. This means that you avoid excessively long sentences and you keep it simple. Once again, imagine that you are writing your paper to a reasonably intelligent friend who is interested in what you have to say but is unfamiliar with the subject. Also, your paper should not digress from your thesis. This means that your paper constantly keeps its objective in sight and does not change the subject or veer off course. You should avoid the use of the first-person (“I” and “my”) except within your intro and conclusion. Avoid insults. If you have a criticism, provide REASONS, not ad hominem attacks. Rhetorical questions and slang are not appropriate. Also, avoid editorializing and personal commentary. MECHANICS: “Mechanics” here refers to the presentation of your paper as well as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and proper citation. Paper should be double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margins. Paper should be 3-4 pages…no less than 3 but no more than 4. Most importantly, you should accomplish your objective. Your premise/conclusion format should be indented from the body paragraph and single spaced. – Detailed Outline for Papers Going the Strong but Uncogent Route I. Introduction Two to three sentences about the issue in general A sentence that mentions the author’s name and the title of the article (italicize the title) Thesis statement: In this paper, I plan to argue that X’s argument on issue Y is strong but uncogent. Map of paper: First, I will summarize X’s argument, including the dominant bioethical principle which underpins it as well as the one lest emphasized. Next, I will present the argument in its standardized form, and carefully explain why although logically strong, the argument is ultimately uncogent. After that, I will offer suggestions for improvement, so that the argument will be cogent. I will conclude with some final thoughts. II. Exposition “Nutshell” summary of the author’s argument. *If you were successful with the annotated bibliography on the issue, you can just use that here, WITHOUT the publishing information! Dominant bioethical principle that underpins the argument (Respect for persons/autonomy? Beneficence? Justice?) and one or two sentences that support this claim. Which bioethical principle seems to be less emphasized than the others? Offer a sentence or two to support this claim. III. Evaluation Transition statement: I will now present X’s argument in its standardized form: Insert the premise/conclusion breakdown here, word for word, from the PowerPoint. Single space this part and indent it a bit, like you were presenting a block quote. Explain why the argument is logically strong: The premises are relevant to the conclusion and provide good grounds for it. Explain why although strong, the argument is ultimately uncogent (because one or two premises are unacceptable…which one(s)?) Provide a detailed and thorough explanation of why the premise(s) are unacceptable. Does it/they commit a fallacy of cogency (false dichotomy, false cause, slippery slope)? Just plain false or unreasonable? Supported by any bad evidence? Describe with as much detail as possible, like you are a trial attorney! IV. Suggestions for Improvement How could the author fix the problem(s) that you just detailed? Change the wording of the premise to avoid the fallacy? Change the wording to make the premise more reasonable? Take it out entirely? Be very specific and detailed with this part as well. If you think the premise should be taken out entirely, you must also discuss how removing the premise would not compromise the logical strength of the argument to the point where it becomes weak. V. Conclusion You can conclude by simply summarizing what you have accomplished in this paper, or you can conclude by taking a more personal tone and discussing the issue in general for a bit, or you can do both. – Detailed Outline for Papers Going the Strong and Cogent Route I. Introduction Two to three sentences about the issue in general A sentence that mentions the author’s name and the title of the article (italicize the title) Thesis statement: In this paper, I plan to argue that X’s argument on issue Y is both strong and cogent. Map of paper: First, I will summarize X’s argument, including the dominant bioethical principle which underpins it as well as the one least emphasized. Next, I will present the argument in its standardized form, and carefully explain why it is both strong and uncogent. Then I will present a possible challenge to X’s argument, and then answer it. I will conclude with some final thoughts. II. Exposition “Nutshell” summary of the author’s argument. *If you were successful with the annotated bibliography on the issue, you can just use that here! Dominant bioethical principle that underpins the argument (Respect for persons/autonomy? Beneficence? Justice?) and one or two sentences that support this claim. Which bioethical principle seems to be less emphasized than the others? Offer a sentence or two to support this claim. III. Evaluation Transition statement: I will now present X’s argument in its standardized form: Insert the premise/conclusion breakdown here, word for word, from the PowerPoint. Single space this part and indent it a bit, like you were presenting a block quote. Explain why the argument is logically strong: The premises are relevant to the conclusion and provide good grounds for it. Explain why the argument is also cogent: Each premise is true or at least rationally acceptable. No fallacies of cogency are committed, and each premise is adequately supported with explanations and illustrations. IV. Anticipation of Potential Counterargument Transition statement: Some may claim that X’s argument is strong but uncogent. Explain the specific problem one of these detractors might pose: They might say that premise Z is unacceptable because (it commits a fallacy of cogency, like false dichotomy, false cause, or slippery slope? Because it’s just plain false or unreasonable? Because it’s supported by bad evidence?) Counterargue that claim: To them, I would say that this is not the case because…and then carefully defend the argument from this attack. V. Conclusion You can conclude by simply summarizing what you have accomplished in this paper, or you can conclude by taking a more personal tone and discussing the issue in general for a bit, or you can do both.

My Master Papers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -