You will be paid FULLY and RIGHT, when you turned it in! Thank You!
File is attached. DUE 12/9/15, 11 a.m.
This is the instructions. Please read it carefully or you will not be paid at all because you did not read and understand the assignment fully. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank You.
Please DO NOT GIVE ME SUMMARIES it's total BULLSHIT...Also back yourself up if you are going to just say "oh this about this and that..." PLEASE STATE WHY! EVIDENCE.
Here is how to write an analysis of a philosophical essay for this class. First, read the article several times. When you think you understand it, select an aspect of the article that you find particularly interesting, troubling, exciting, confusing, or problematic. By an aspect of the article, I do not mean a particular section of it; I mean a claim or set of claims to which the author is committed, either by explicitly arguing for them, or implicitly presupposing them.
Basic Submission Requirements
- Title your essay: Analysis of "______________, by _________" Write the title of the target article in the first blank and the name of the author in the second blank.
- Your essay must be single-spaced.
- Do not indent paragraphs. Create a space between each one.
- Each section of your paper must be preceded by one of the following boldfaced headings: Introduction, Summary , Critique, Conclusion.
- The highest college writing standards apply. Papers submitted with large numbers of typos or grammatical mistakes will receive failing grades.
Your analysis should be concise and thorough. Absolutely do not engage in:
- Unnecessary editorializing
- Pointless repetition
- Personal attacks on the author or questioning of the author's psychological motives
- Complaining about the author's writing style or choice of words
In short, always strive to express yourself in the simplest, clearest, and most precise terms possible.
Your paper should conform to the standards of written college English and to basic guidelines for writing philosophy papers, which can be found here. As noted above, it must be free of spelling, grammatical and structural errors. It is important to understand that any essay that begins with such errors is likely to be dismissed by the reader (and hence by your instructor) as an incompetent piece of work. In general, spelling and grammatical errors, run-on and convoluted sentence structure, and long paragraphs with multiple topics make it very difficult to credit quality of thought. Always write with the aim of making it as easy as possible for the reader to understand and evaluate what you are saying.
As a general rule, you should avoid writing long sentences (over 20 words) and long paragraphs (over 12 lines). Anytime you write a sentence, read it and ask yourself if it is possible to express the same thought in fewer words. The answer will usually be yes. Do it. Anytime you write a paragraph be sure that you are using it to accomplish one and only one task. When that is finished, move on to the next one. This will almost always result in paragraphs under 12 lines.
All direct quotations must, of course, be identified as such with a citation. However, in general, an essay of this type should make minimal use of direct quotations. As a rule, one should only quote an author if the precise way in which he or she has chosen to express something figures essentially into your critique. Never simply substitute a quotation for your own summary of what the author is saying.
Even though your primary reader is your instructor, who will have read the article in question, you should approach this assignment as if you intend to publish it in a philosophy journal. This means that everything you say must be comprehensible to a philosophically sophisticated reader who has not read the article. While you are not accountable for summarizing the entire article (see summary section below), you must always refrain from allusions that would only be comprehensible to someone who has read the article.
Your analysis should demonstrate an awareness (or at least not demonstrate obvious ignorance) of other relevant readings covered in class. Specifically (1) you should be careful to note when you are reproducing criticisms that are made by others authors we have read and (2) you should be careful to include or consider important criticisms made by other authors when they are clearly relevant to your own concerns.
Your analysis must have three sections, in the following order, with an optional conclusion:
- Conclusion (optional)
in that order. (Be sure to identify each section. In other words, at the top of the introduction write the word "Introduction," etc.)
Follow these specific instructions for each section to the letter.
This section must accomplish the following tasks in the following order. I prefer that you devote a single short paragraph to each task.
1. Identify the article, and describe in one or two sentences what problem(s) it addresses and what view(s) it defends.
2. State precisely which aspect(s) of the article your analysis will address and precisely what you intend to accomplish. This must not be a vague statement like "I will evaluate the author's views..." or "I will show where I agree and where I disagree....". Rather, it must be a very specific and concise statement of the case you intend to make, and the basic considerations you intend to employ in making it. (You will probably find it impossible to write this section before your analysis has gone through the rough draft phase.)
The rules for constructing a summary are as follows:
1. For the most part, you should summarize only those aspects of the article that are relevant to your critique. If you summarize more than that, it should only be because anything less will not provide the reader an adequate understanding of the author's basic concerns. Do not produce an unnecessarily lengthy or detailed summary. As a general rule of thumb,the summary and critique will usually be roughly equal in length.
2. The summary must present the author's views in the best possible light. It must be a thorough, fair, and completely accurate representation of the author's views. Misrepresentation of the author's views, especially selective misrepresentation (i.e., misrepresentation for the purpose of easy refutation) is EVIL and will be heavily penalized.
3. The summary must contain absolutely no critical comments. (This restriction does not prevent you from expressing some uncertainty about what the author is saying, however. )
4.The summary should be organized logically, not chronologically. Each paragraph in the summary will ordinarily present argument(s) the author makes in support of a particular position. This means that, depending on the organization of the article itself, a single paragraph from the summary may contain statements that are made in very different places in the article. The summary itself should be organized in a way that makes the author's views make sense. Under no conditions are you to simply relate what the author says the way that s/he says them. A summary that goes something like: "The author begins by discussing.....Then s/he goes on to say......then, etc." is VERY BAD..
1. Your critique should be organized in a way that reflects the structure of your summary. This is easy to do since you have selected for summary only those aspects of the article about which you have something to say. Be sure your critique obeys the rules laid out in the Writing Style section above.
2. It is very important to understand that your critique isnot a place to:
a. Extend your summary.
b. Identify aspects of the article you agree with (unless this must be done to focus your reader on what you don't agree with.)
3. There are three different acceptable approaches to writing a critique.
a. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you find problematic. In your critique show how the author's conclusion does not follow, either because (a) the author's reasons are false or (b) the author's reasoning is mistaken, or (c) the author has failed to make other important considerations that tend to undermine the conclusion.
b. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you basically agree with. In your critique, consider ways in which the author's views might reasonably be criticized. Then attempt to strengthen the author's position by showing how these criticisms can actually be met. If you use this technique, be sure you don't consider criticisms that the author actually does respond to in the context of the article (unless, of course, you think that the author has failed to answer the objections effectively).
c. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you find interesting, but which you are currently disinclined to either fully accept of fully reject. Carefully articulate the strongest considerations in favor of the view and the strongest considerations against the views. Then carefully explain why you remain undecided and indicate precisely what sort of information or arguments would be required for you to be able to make up your mind.
Briefly summarize the steps you have taken in reaching your conclusions. The conclusion should be very short and it should contain no new information, claims or criticism. This restriction prevents you from making closing comments which are not sufficiently articulated in the body of the paper.
Sample Analysis from a student
An example of an analytic paper is attached as well! (Attach)
This is the reading 14 pages only (ATTACH)