Reconstruct and critically evaluate an argument

Reconstruct and critically evaluate an argument 

Paper Instructions and Guidelines
PHL

1

5

4

Dr. Michael Kates

Requirements. The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and critically evaluate an argument. (An
explanation of these terms is provided below, under “Tips for Writing A Philosophy Paper.”)

To that end, please choose one of the following three articles (located on Canvas) and write a paper
that conforms to the instructions set out below:

-Jeff McMahan, “Why Gun Control Is Not Enough”
-Peter Singer, “Equality for Animals”
-Louis P. Pojman, “The Case Against Affirmative Action”

Please read the instructions carefully, and familiarize yourself with the grading criteria before you
plan and write your paper.

Length and Format. Your paper should be typed, with 1 inch margins, in 1

2

point font. It should
be approximately 1250-1500 words, double-spaced. Papers should not exceed 1500 words. Papers
that are significantly shorter than 1250 words are unlikely to meet the basic requirements of the
assignment. Please provide a word count at the end of the paper.

Deadline. The deadline for the paper is Tuesday November 24.

Evaluation Criteria. Papers will be evaluated according to the following criteria.

1. Logic, precision, clarity, rigor. Is the argument of the paper free of logical errors?
Throughout the paper, is the argument stated precisely? Is the argument stated clearly? Does
the paper adequately explain key terms? Is the argument of the paper vulnerable to obvious
counterarguments?

2. Originality, creativity, insight. Does the paper show evidence of independent, critical
thinking? Does the paper reveal an understanding of the issue(s) at stake? Does the paper
contain original or subtle insight?

3

. Essay mechanics. Is the paper clearly organized and structured in a logical manner? Does
the paper have a clearly stated thesis? Does the paper transition clearly between sections or
ideas?

4. Sentence mechanics. Are the tone and style of prose appropriate, given the purpose of the
paper? Are there errors of grammar, punctuation, spelling, word choice, etc.?

5. Scholarship. Does the paper use primary texts appropriately? When the paper cites another
author’s views, does it represent these views accurately?

6

. Miscellaneous. Does the paper cite its sources using a single, consistent system? Does the
paper meet the purposes of the assignment? Etc.

1

Tips for Writing a Philosophy Paper

1. Know the difference between a thesis, an argument, and the premises of an argument. A
thesis is a claim that you wish to defend. An argument is what you say in order to defend it. Premises
are claims that are used in your argument.

For example, in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham makes the
following argument:

1. The law should be designed to increase the community’s happiness.
2. Letting everyone speak his or her opinion would increase the community’s happiness.
3. Therefore, the law should let everyone speak his or her opinion.

Steps 1 through 3 constitute an argument for the conclusion in step 3. The conclusion is a thesis
that Bentham defends by means of this argument. Steps 1 and 2 are the premises of this argument.

2. Know what it means to reconstruct an argument. If arguments were always laid out as above,
with premises set off clearly from the conclusion, it would be easy to spot any argument and to
distinguish the premises from the conclusion. But usually arguments are harder to identify and
disentangle. Consider the following passage from chapter 3 of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty:

“[I]t is important to give the freest scope possible to uncustomary things, in order that it may
in time appear which of these things are fit to be converted into customs.”

Notice that Mill begins the sentence with the thesis or conclusion he seeks to defend: “it is important
to give the freest scope possible to uncustomary things.” He then says that it’s important to give free
scope to uncustomary things “in order that it may in time appear which of these things are fit to be
converted into customs.” With this phrase, Mill provides one reason why it’s important to give free
scope to uncustomary things. So he appears to be making an argument, even though he doesn’t
actually state all of its premises.

To reconstruct Mill’s argument in this passage would be to (a) state its conclusion and (b) state its
key premises, explicit or implicit. One way to do so it to lay it out like this:

1. It is important to adopt as customs only those things that are fit to be adopted as customs.
2. Giving free scope to uncustomary things will reveal what is fit to be adopted as a custom.
3. Therefore, it is important to give free scope to uncustomary things.

Or you could say “Mill claims that it is important to…. His argument for this claim has the following
two premises….” Or even more simply, you could say “Mill argues that it is important to … because
[premise 1] and [premise 2].” There are many ways to reconstruct an argument. However, whichever
way you do it, you must identify and state clearly (a) the conclusion of the argument and (b) the
argument’s key premises.

As you can see, it often takes some work to reconstruct an author’s argument. Not all premises and
conclusions are stated explicitly. And even when they are stated explicitly, they can be buried in the
middle of a lot of supporting text. To identify an author’s argument, you have to read carefully. Ask
yourself the following questions as you read:

2

-What is the author’s point in this passage? What does he or she want me to conclude?
-What are the author’s reasons for this conclusion? What claims support this conclusion?

Note: you cannot focus on everything the author discusses. Choose to focus on what you regard as
essential.

3. Know what it means to critically evaluate an argument. Suppose that you have accurately
reconstructed an author’s argument. Should you accept the argument? Should you “buy it?” To make
up your mind, you’ll want to critically evaluate the argument.

To critically evaluate an argument is to (a) determine whether the premises of the argument are true,
or at least plausible, and (b) determine whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
To illustrate, consider the following argument.

1. Bentham is a philosopher.
2. All philosophers are monkeys.
3. Therefore, Bentham is a man.

This is an “invalid” argument: the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. If 1 and 2
were true, then Bentham would be a monkey, not a man. Even if the conclusion in 3 is true, this is
not a good argument for it. Someone who was critically evaluating the argument could say “The
argument is illogical.”

Now consider a different argument for the thesis that Bentham is a man.

1. Bentham is a philosopher.
2. All philosophers are men.
3. Therefore, Bentham is a man.

This is a logically valid argument. If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must be true as well. But someone
critically evaluating this argument could now dispute the truth of its premises. Someone might say,
for example, that premise 2 is false, because some philosophers are women. If premise 2 is false,
then the argument for the conclusion/thesis is not a good one: it is not “sound”. Of course, the
thesis may still be true—but it has not been adequately defended.

In general, then, if you want to critically evaluate an argument for a thesis, you must state the thesis,
state the argument, and then ask two questions: (a) does the conclusion follow logically from the
premises? and (b) are the premises true, or reasonable?

4. Be generous and thorough when critically evaluating arguments. Critically evaluating
someone else’s argument can be trickier than it sounds. To illustrate, recall Bentham’s argument:

1. The law should be designed to increase the community’s happiness.
2. Letting everyone speak his or her opinion would increase the community’s happiness.
3. Therefore, the law should let everyone speak his or her opinion.

This argument is logically valid (the conclusion follows logically from the premises), so to determine
whether there is a problem with it, you would need to assess the plausibility of its premises. Suppose
you fix on premise 2, and object to it in the following way:

3

“Some people—including racists, sexists, and bigots—are hateful. Letting them express their
hateful opinions would decrease the happiness of the community by causing significant pain
and anguish. So premise 2 is false: letting everyone speak his opinion would not increase the
community’s happiness. Therefore, Bentham’s argument for freedom of expression is not
sound.”

This is a plausible objection to premise 2. It presents an argument for the conclusion that premise 2
is false. But if you were asked to evaluate Bentham’s argument, it would not be wise to leave it there.
After all, Bentham has his own argument for premise 2, and it conflicts with yours. In his book, he
argues that premise is 2 is true because punishing people for speaking their mind would usually
cause even more suffering than allowing people to express their hurtful opinions. If that is right, then
perhaps Bentham’s argument is sound after all.

So the ball is back in your court. You have anticipated Bentham’s reply. Now you have to decide
what to think about this potential reply. Is it adequate? Or is there (still) a problem with the
argument? Anticipating relevant responses will allow you evaluate Bentham’s view more thoroughly.

This process of considering potential responses to your own claims and arguments is very
important. The authors we are studying are not dummies. Their views are the product of a great
deal of thought. They are not necessarily right, but most of the time the authors we are studying
have reasons for the claims they make. If you wish to undermine—or to defend—one of their
claims, you’ll need to figure out their reasons and assess them.

So be thorough and generous when you’re critically evaluating an argument. When an author makes
a claim, ask yourself why he or she affirms this claim. If the claim is unsupported, ask yourself why
the claim might be true, and imagine the strongest possible argument for it on his or her behalf. If
you disagree with the author’s claim, play devil’s advocate against yourself. This will help you decide
whether to accept or to reject the author’s view, and why.

5. Construct a thesis statement. Once you have a sense of what you think about an author’s
argument, you’ll need to express your position in a clearly stated thesis.

Sometimes, your thesis will be easy to state: “Mill claims that X. My thesis is that Mill’s argument for
this claim is not sound.”

Other times, your thesis will be more complicated. For example: “Mill claims that X. Mill’s argument
for this claim is open to two serious objections, Y and Z. My thesis is that Mill’s argument can be
defended successfully against both.”

Whatever your thesis, state it clearly. Remember: your thesis is a claim you wish to defend. “This
paper explores issues related to…” is not a thesis.

6. Make an outline. The aim of the paper is to reconstruct critically evaluate an author’s argument.
So the first thing you’ll need to do is to reconstruct the author’s argument. How will you do this? In
what order will you present the premises of the author’s argument? What will you say to explain the
various terms that figure in this argument? Before you start writing, you should construct an outline.

Next, you’ll want to defend your own position. What will you say to convince your reader to accept
your thesis? Again, you should start by constructing an outline. Your outline should list the main

4

points you will make, and the order in which you will make them. It’s hard to know exactly what you
will say at each stage in your argument before you actually write it all out. Nonetheless, an outline is
critical because it allows you to begin to imagine objections to each of the steps in your argument.

7. Consider objections to your argument. To do this, you should take each premise in your
argument and imagine someone who disagrees with it. How would they attack this premise? What
would they say to convince your reader that the premise is false or implausible? Would they be
wrong? Why?

If you can imagine and respond persuasively to some interesting objections to your argument, then
great! This means you have a strong argument. Include the objections and your responses in a logical
place in your outline.

What if you come up with an objection to which you can’t find a persuasive response? Then there is
a problem with your argument and you should change it. If you can’t find another argument that
overcomes the objection, then you should change your thesis to a thesis that you can defend
successfully against objections.

8. Write a complete draft of your paper. State your thesis right up front in a short introductory
paragraph. Then move directly to your argument. If there is an obvious objection to any of the
steps in your argument, then mention the objection and explain why the objection does not
undermine your argument. Imagining and responding to objections is critical in a philosophy paper.
This is how you will show your reader that your argument is sound.

Of course, there is a page limit for your paper. This means that you will not be able to respond to
every conceivable objection to every step of your argument. So you will need to make some choices.
The first thing to keep in mind is that you should always aim for an argument with premises that are
relatively uncontroversial. If you need to employ a premise that others may find controversial, then
you may want to defend the premise too—that is, provide an argument for it. But at some point you
have to stop defending yourself and hope that the premises you use will carry your reader. There is
no formula here; you have to exercise your own judgment.

9. Use your limited space wisely. Since you have limited space to state your thesis, develop your
argument, and consider objections to your argument, you can’t waste any words. Don’t say anything
that is not absolutely necessary to clarify or defend your thesis.

For example, don’t start your essay with grand pronouncements about how important the question
is or how many great thinkers have for centuries or millennia thought about it. This is not a history
paper, so it’s very unlikely that such claims would matter one way or the other to your thesis. Every
sentence counts: with each paragraph, and with each sentence in each paragraph, ask yourself “why am
I telling my reader this?” If you can honestly say “because saying this is necessary for defending my
thesis,” leave it in. If not, think again.

What about a “conclusion” or concluding paragraph? In a philosophy paper, there is often no need
to write a separate conclusion. Once you have stated your thesis and defended your argument, you’re
done. You may add further reflections if you have room, but this is not required.

10. Use the key concepts in your paper in a clear, precise, and consistent fashion. When you
use a fancy word, make sure its meaning is clear to you and to your reader. For every word you use

5

in your essay, be sure that you can define it. If you can’t, either figure out what it means, or don’t use
it. If the meaning of the word is clear to you, but it’s a word used in different ways by different
people, then define it for your reader so that it’s clear what you mean by it.

11. Make the structure of your paper easy to follow. Don’t make your reader work hard to
understand the structure of your paper. Beat him or her over the head with it. For example, near the
beginning of the paper, you can give your reader a “road map” of your entire argument. Or you can
say things like this throughout the paper:

I will begin by…
We should reject this claim, for two reasons… I will now defend the claim that…
Further support for this claim comes from…

Using sign-post sentences like this makes a big difference. Consider this paper fragment:

I will argue for the claim that X.
There are three reasons to believe that X. First, …
Second, …
Third, …
The strongest objection to my argument says that…
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason…

Isn’t it easy to see the structure of this paper?

12. Use simple language and strive for clarity. Avoid fancy prose that obscures the content of
your argument. If you can say something equally well with a shorter sentence, then choose the
shorter sentence. If you can say something equally well with a less fancy word, then choose the less
fancy word. Write in a way that is easy to follow when read aloud. As far as possible, try to write so
clearly that any intelligent person could understand you—even a person without any background in
philosophy.

Finally, don’t hesitate to use “I”. In a philosophy paper, it is perfectly acceptable to say “I will argue
that….” Indeed, using “I” is often preferable. “In this paper, it will be argued that…” sounds terrible.

13. Support attributions, but quote only when necessary. When you attribute a view to an
author, you should indicate the evidence that the author held this view by noting the location of the
relevant passage(s). However, you do not need to provide a quotation for every view that you
attribute to an author. As a general rule, you should quote a passage only if (a) the passage plays an
important role in your paper (for example, you will refer back to it often), (b) if you think there
might be controversy about whether the author actually held the view that you are attributing to him
or her, or (c) if there are several plausible interpretations of the passage, in which case you should
quote the passage and explain what you understand the passage to mean.

14. Check your grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

15. Finally, if you are unsure about how to proceed, please don’t hesitate to come see me. I
am always happy to talk—about your argument, about essay mechanics, about whatever. In fact, I
encourage you to come see me with an outline of your paper before you begin writing.

6