General Information
             Write a paper in which you analyze the arguments presented in the set of essays in the Barnet and Bedau book about the legalization of drugs (pp. 94-131). The assignment is due on Thursday, Dec. 15 at noon.

             Your paper should contain three main sections. The first section is the introduction. It should explain the issue under discussion and present the background information needed to understand it. A few paragraphs should be adequate for this. The second section is the main part of your paper. In this section you should describe, reconstruct and evaluate the arguments you’ve selected for discussion. In the third section, summarize your paper and state the conclusion you've reached about the arguments you've considered. Chapter 12 of the textbook provides a sample of the sort of paper you are being asked to write. Your goal is not to develop new arguments about the issues in question or defend your views about the topic. In preparing your analyses, do not look for additional information on these topics. Rather, given the background information you have, assess how well the authors have defended their central claims.

             Excellent answers can vary widely in length. It is likely that a good paper will be approximately 6-8 pages, but this is only a rough guide. Write as much as it takes to produce a good analysis of the arguments.

 

Selecting Arguments for Analysis
             The authors make lots of assertions in their essays. Were you to formulate and discuss everything in every essay that could plausibly be construed as an argument, your responses would be very long. They would also contain discussion of some very bad arguments and some arguments that are not important to the author’s central point. Do not bother with those arguments. Confine your attention to the arguments that you find most effective or most important to the author’s case. It may be that you’ll choose to focus on some aspect of the larger issues. It is better to write a careful and thoughtful analysis of a few main arguments rather than a brief and hasty analysis of lots of arguments.

             You may find that some of the essays are richer sources for analysis than others. You do not have to devote equal attention to all the authors. You do not even have to discuss every author. It is likely that different students will focus on different arguments. There is not a unique set of suitable arguments to discuss. However, it is not acceptable to focus on arguments that are clearly not relevant to the central claims.

             You may find that the essays contain numerous unsupported assertions. You may either drop such assertions from your discussion or include them but note that they are undefended in the essay. You should include them if they are important to explaining the author’s point; omit them otherwise.

 

Reconstructions and Evaluations
             Be sure that your reconstructions follow all the rules and guidelines developed in the course. Appendices A and B to the textbook summarize the central ideas. During the semester we have identified some common ways to formulate typical arguments about certain topics. Make use of those patterns when they are appropriate (but not when they are not). Be sure that your arguments have been “fine-tuned” and that they are clearly stated. If the authors use arguments by analogy, be sure to handle them properly.

             Your evaluations should be fair, careful, and complete. Be sure to use the terms of argument analysis properly. It can be useful to consider potential replies to your criticisms and revisions of the arguments you discuss. By the time you are done evaluating an argument, readers should think that you have thoroughly examined the line of thought expressed in the argument.

             It’s fine to make use of a point made in one of the articles while discussing an argument from another article. For example, you may use a point one author makes as part of an objection to an argument that another author gives.

             The standards applied to these assignments will be high. Reconstructions that have not been fine-tuned will be downgraded significantly, as will hasty and simplistic evaluations.

 

Here are some points to keep in mind:

a) Do not pad your answers with pointless puffery. Your writing should be clear, succinct, and direct.

b) Keep your argument reconstructions as simple as possible. Omit needless premises and claims. Break long and complex arguments into sub-arguments when you can. Follow all the rules of argument analysis.

c) Be sure to make your criticisms clear and precise. Say, "Premise 2 of this argument is false. Here's why: ...".

d) Avoid flimsy criticisms. A significant part of the paper grade will be based on the quality of your evaluations of the arguments you reconstruct.

e) Be clear, direct, and straightforward. Don't defend claims you aren't convinced of. It’s ok to be uncertain. However, if you say that you can't decide about some issue, explain clearly why you can't decide. Don't use this as an excuse for not attempting an evaluation.

f) Don't try to discuss too many arguments. Discuss only the best and most important ones.

g) Keep a copy of your assignment when you submit it.

h) Do not put your paper in folders, binders, envelopes, or other containers. Points will be deducted if you do.

i) Look over the grading information below. It will help you understand the factors that will enter into grades.

 

Grading Information

This assignment is worth 25 points, or 25% of the course grade. The points will be distributed as follows:

 

l. Writing and Organization (5 points):
a) Is the answer well-organized and clearly written?
b) Is the answer free of spelling and grammatical errors?
c) Are the arguments presented clearly and is it clear where in the articles they are taken from?
d) Are the main issues clearly identified and the final conclusion clearly stated?

 

2. Quality of Reconstructions (10 points)
a) Are the arguments written in proper form -- assumptions identified as implicit or explicit, justifications for conclusions listed, etc.?
b) Are standard argument patterns used where appropriate?
c) Have the reconstructions been fine-tuned?
d) Are the arguments kept as simple and clear as possible?
e) Are the implicit premises appropriate ones?
f) Do the reconstructions accurately display the ideas of the authors under discussion?

 

3. Quality of Evaluations (10 points)
a) Are the terms of argument evaluation clearly and properly applied to the arguments?
b) Is it made clear which premises are being criticized?
c) Are criticisms clear and specific?
d) Are the criticisms good ones? Are they substantial criticisms?
e) Are obvious and important criticisms overlooked?
f) Are potential replies to criticisms or revisions of arguments discussed (if appropriate)?