Choose one topic: Reality, Truth and Knowledge, Ethics, or Justice

A. What is the question that the philosopher is trying to answer? How does the philosopher answer the question? Why should we care?

B. Identify and explain every part of the philosopher’s argument, including their reasons or evidence (premises) and the conclusion they draw from these reasons or evidence. This argument should reveal the philosopher’s proposed answer to the question in b. References and quotations: Don’t just quote – put it in your own words (and cite passage page or reference numbers), and explain why you are including them and what you think it means. Then the reader can compare the quote with your interpretation of it, and measure it against their own.

C. Concede something, but then point out a problem: Tell them what they did right: good definition, true premises, valid conclusion? Say so. Then point out one of three things: a key definition is unclear or unacceptable (circular, too narrow, to broad, etc.), the conclusion does not follow (the argument is invalid or weak), or one or more of their premises (their reasons or evidence) is unclear or false (the argument is unsound or uncogent).

D. Give a possible response to the problem– It is easy to point out a problem, but more challenging to come up with a response. Suggest a way for the philosopher to improve their argument? How can they improve their key definition? What other conclusion might they draw to make the argument valid or stronger? What premises are truer but still achieve the desired conclusion? Or do you concede their whole argument? If so, then explain why there is no way to improve on the philosopher’s argument. You had better be right!