In 1000 – 1500 words, take up an argument supporting or opposing one of Sartre’s

In 1000 – 1500 words, take up an argument supporting or opposing one of Sartre’s claims.  This paper should include:
A title page in APA style. No abstract required.
An introduction with some kind of attention getting device and thesis statement.
A clear thesis where you:
establish your position and
preview your main points in support of that position.
A main point where you explain Sartre’s position/argument.
This section should include at least two short quotes from the texts we have read.
A main point where you defend or attack Sartre’s argument.
Include at least one academic (peer-reviewed) source that supports your claim.
At least one potential counterargument against your position that you refute. This can either be abstract: “It could be argued that,” “some might say,” or concrete “[secondary author] tries to claim ”
A conclusion where you restate (not copy-paste) your thesis and come to a conclusion.
Remember that the conclusion is not the place for argumentation.  Your “bombshell” needs to come in the body of the paper.
An APA reference page with all sources.

Continue Reading

Writing Tips Think of the CAP as a well-researched persuasive/argumentative pape

Writing Tips
Think of the CAP as a well-researched persuasive/argumentative paper.  Imagine that you are trying to persuade an intelligent, but uninformed reader of your conclusion, which is encapsulated in your thesis statement.  The last sentence of your introductory paragraph should be your thesis statement.  A common problem that I see is that the thesis statement is way too broad.  Be sure to narrow it down sufficiently to write a well-written paper in 4-6 pages.
The paper should consist of the reasoned defense of some claim, which is stated in your thesis statement.
A good paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it.
Make the structure of your paper obvious.  Include a short outline of the main points of your paper.
Be concise, but explain yourself fully.
Some Possible Writing Strategies
The paper has to do substantive work, not merely regurgitate an author’s main points (although, of course, it is important for you to restate an author’s position before criticizing it).  Some possibilities are:
Criticize an argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good.
Defend the argument or thesis against someone else’s criticism.
Offer reasons to believe the thesis.
Offer counterexamples to the thesis.
Requirements of the Paper
You must cite at least two academic sources (such as journal articles, books, websites, etc.).  Make sure those sources are academically reputable.  Since web addresses change constantly, you can find the website by googling its name.  Be careful of satire websites or fake news.  Some good websites include the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosopher’s Imprint, and the numerous electronic databases that the school library carries.  Possible outside sources include books, journal articles, magazines, databases, Websites, videos, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and almanacs.  When possible, try to cite from recent sources. Make sure you evaluate your online sources for trustworthiness and credibility.
Papers should either be in Microsoft Word format (.doc).  Upload to Canvas by the due date towards the end of the semester.
Four-to-six pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font, 12-point, one-inch margins.
MLA or Chicago system of citation.
Include a cover page that contains the title of the paper, your name, my name, the date, and the class (e.g., PHIL 1301.710 or MW 10:10 AM). 
Include a short outline of the main points of your paper and include it after the title page.
You are allowed to write in the first person.
Sample Footnotes (For those following the Chicago Manual of Style)
Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil:  Why People Cheat, Gossip,
Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (New York:  Times Books, 2004), pp. 25-26.
Nadrian C. Seeman, “Nanotechnology and the Double Helix,” Scientific American
290 (June 2004):  64-75.
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), chap. 9, doc. 3, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/.
Shermer, Good and Evil, 25.
Seeman, “Nanotechnology,” 64.

Continue Reading

Response essays should be 300-400 words in length. They do not need to have a ti

Response essays should be 300-400 words in length. They do not need to have a title page, but should have a bibliography if sources are used. If sources are used then the student should cite sources in APA or Turabian. All writing should include a clear thesis statement and sound argumentation in posing your answer or solution.
Question: Response Essay: Human Flourishing and Market Economies Assignment – What is the relationship between a Biblical understanding of human flourishing and the function of a market economy?

Continue Reading

2.    In The House of God, with time, Roy began to dehumanize his patients (foll

2.    In The House of God, with time, Roy began to dehumanize his patients (following in the footsteps of Pinkus and some others).  In fact, some physicians believe it is necessary to remain emotionally unattached to their patients for professional impartiality, self-care, and other reasons.  Others argue that patients have to be viewed as unique, individual, and, importantly, whole human beings who are owed all of a physician’s attention, care, and perhaps even empathy and love.  Do you think that Shem (the author) takes a position on this debate in the book, and if so, what is he trying to say?  Whatever your argument might be about Shem’s intent and/or message, do you think that he is right?  Why or why not?

Continue Reading

In The House of God, with time, Roy began to dehumanize his patients (following

In The House of God, with time, Roy began to dehumanize his patients (following in the footsteps of Pinkus and some others).  In fact, some physicians believe it is necessary to remain emotionally unattached to their patients for professional impartiality, self-care, and other reasons.  Others argue that patients have to be viewed as unique, individual, and, importantly, whole human beings who are owed all of a physician’s attention, care, and perhaps even empathy and love.  Do you think that Shem (the author) takes a position on this debate in the book, and if so, what is he trying to say?  Whatever your argument might be about Shem’s intent and/or message, do you think that he is right?  Why or why not?

Continue Reading