PHIL 1120: Philosophy and Human Nature (Guetter) Winter 2022

PHIL 1120: Philosophy and Human Nature (Guetter) Winter 2022

Research Assignment

Directions: Produce an original, cogent argument on any of the options below. The first half of your paper is reserved for explaining the main argument* advanced by the author(s) in the article indicated (locate all your research in this section); the second half is reserved for your critical evaluation of something in one of your sources – whether concept, claim, or argument – that has already been mentioned in the research/descriptive half of your work.

* see important qualification in Rule 1

How to find the articles

– Leddy Library homepage
– Learning and Research Support – Resources by Subject
– Philosophy
– All Philosophy Databases
– JSTOR
– search by article title

A1. T. Miller, “Socrates’ Warning Against Misology (Plato, Phaedo 88c – 91c),” Phronesis 60:2 (2015) 145 – 79

A2. H. B. Jones, “Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic Ethic, and Adam Smith,” Journal of Business Ethics 95:1 (August 2010) 89 – 96

A3. A. Hartel, “The Invisibility of Philosophy in the Essays of Montaigne,” Review of Metaphysics 65:4 (June 2012) 795 – 812

A4. F. Neuhouser, “Rousseau’s Critique of Economic Inequality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 41:3 (Summer 2013) 193 – 25

Length: 4 – 6 double-spaced pages

Due: 27 Mar, 11.59p, via ‘Gold’ upload link

Lateness policy: Reduction in feedback rather than marks (see Rules 6 and 8)
a. ‘Silver’ upload link expires 3 Apr, 11.59p
b. ‘Bronze’ upload link (and late-penalty-free extension) expires 10 Apr, 11.59p c. ‘Tin’ upload link expires 18 Apr, 11.59p

The Rules

1. General. Develop an original, informed, and philosophical (vs. literary, historical, scientific, religious, etc.) response to any ONE of the choices indicated above. Your ‘assessment’ (see Rule 4a) should take the form of a cogent or sound argument. FYI, the premises in a sound argument aim to guarantee the truth of their conclusion, but in a cogent one they aim to establish only that their conclusion is likely. Note: You are permitted to explain a particular subargument in the primary source instead of the main one.
2. Evidence. Two sorts are required: primary (= the author(s) and article indicated in the question) and secondary (= articles in related research journal literature). Books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, webpages (even those by university professors), newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, book reviews, and the like are prohibited because they carry little to no weight, at least when compared to peer-reviewed articles written by experts in the particular field of research – and that’s why you’ll lose marks if you include them. Your research assignment constitutes a task whose leeway while considerable does not extend so far as to permit you to include in your supporting evidence what has here been categorically defined as out of bounds, or to exclude what has here been required. It’s a big part of our job to make scholarly demands of you and an even bigger part of yours to do everything you can to fulfil them. This rule in no way precludes you from surprising us with your inventiveness in fulfilling those expectations.

Three important notes. (1) primary source is determined by your choice of A1 – A4; two to three direct (= word-for-word) citations are required from it; (2) number of ‘secondary sources’: three to five, and exactly one direct citation is required from each; and (3) required method of citation: MLA style (see further Rule 4b). Avoid indirect citation/paraphrasing for the purpose of this assignment.

3. Length. For 1000-level courses, the ‘body’ is four to six double-spaced pages in a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman 12 and 1″ margins all around; see illustration in Rule 4c).
4. Format. (a) First half of paper = analysis, description; all your research is to be confined to this half, including explanations and/or examples of points expressed in the primary material; note that secondary sources can often be quite helpful for this purpose (give it the subtitle ‘Research’ if you can’t think of anything else). Second half of paper = assessment, evaluation; your own argument is restricted to this half (give it the subtitle ‘Assessment’ if you can’t think of anything else). Because ‘your own argument’ = your point plus your reasons, if you agree with A’s argument then it falls to you to say why you think A’s reasons are such good ones. If the reporter’s job is to describe things accurately but the editor’s is to express a well-reasoned opinion about something that’s already been reported, then be a reporter in the first half and an editor in the second.

(b) Small but significant tweak. Expropriate a bit of space from the first half of your paper for a vitally important sub-section: the ‘Abstract’. Divide its 50-word limit into no more than two sentences, one expressing the point you wish to make and the other expressing your main supporting reason(s). The abstract is a summary of your own argument (= your intellectual results) rather than about what you’ll be doing in the paper. (If you don’t know what an argument is, find out before you lose lots of marks under the ‘quality of argument’ parameter just because you didn’t.) In this way, the abstract – in effect a ‘report’ on your argument – naturally belongs in the first half of your paper. Note that MLA format reserves some space for name, course, title, etc. on the first page of the body; for our purposes, move that information to your title page and use the resulting freed-up space for your abstract. Any paper lacking this two-sentence abstract as its initial paragraph will not earn a grade higher than B+ no matter how excellent it otherwise is; I know it’s hard work, but once you actually do it you’ll see why it was worth learning how to do.

Abstract
✔ ‘In this paper I will argue that X. My main reason is that Y.’

In this case, X and Y are statements, and as such it makes sense to ask whether or not they are true, but not whether or not they exist.

compare:
✘ ‘In this paper I will discuss X and compare it to Y.’

Here, X and Y are subjects or topics but not statements, and as such it might make sense to ask whether or not they exist, but not whether or not they are true. This sort of paper uses words to say things (maybe interesting, maybe not) without ever actually arguing anything. Only an argument even attempts to make a point.
Warning: Any such paper will fail to meet the expectations of this course unless your ‘discussion’ is in fact an argument.

✘ ‘A thinks X. A’s main reason is Y.’
This is a descriptive report on A’s argument rather than one of your own. The most that can be said, in this scenario, is that it’s true that something exists – namely that the author’s argument is in fact what you say it is.
Warning: Any such paper will fail to meet the expectations of this course because you are to invent an argument of your own rather than to discuss someone else’s.

(c) Here’s a visual representation of the structure of a 6-page paper:

5. Evaluation criteria. Major criterion: Quality of Content (80%, divided equally between ‘quality of research’ and ‘quality of argument’). Minor criterion: Quality of Form (20%; includes things related to expression [clarity, substance, conciseness, spelling/grammar, eloquence], format [Title page, Works Cited page, three subtitles*], and style of referencing [MLA, with a tweak]).

*one for abstract, one for research, one for evaluation; if absent, maximum grade for paper = B+

6. Submission. Electronic upload is required in every case, directly via Blackboard (Resources > ‘Research assignment upload link’; you must use whatever specific link is available. The ‘Gold’ link is intended for anyone interested to receive specific and detailed written comments; ‘Silver’ is intended for anyone satisfied with written comments related to the major parameters of Research, Argument, and Expression; and ‘Bronze’ is for anyone satisfied with general comments on the work as a whole. In each case the rubric will be filled in so you can identify assessed strengths and weaknesses in your work, but note that the grade for the work submitted would be the same whether it was uploaded via the Gold or the Bronze link. This is an experimental lateness policy intended to give you more time to make your work as good as you can make it – in exchange for a correlative reduction in written comments. ‘Tin’ is the emergency option: due no later than the very last minute of the term, I mark them myself, their maximum is a passing grade (50%), and the only comments will be explanations for a failing grade.

Your research assignment is assessed on the basis of your latest acceptable submission at the time of assessment. Acceptable means it is in a format SafeAssign can evaluate for originality and time of assessment refers to all submissions under a specific upload link. For example, a Gold submission will count as your official submission unless it is replaced by a Silver one before the Gold one has been graded; the easiest way to guarantee that is for you to upload the very same paper as soon as the next link becomes available – the old link disappears at the same time that the new link appears. It is therefore possible to submit your work first via the Gold link, to resubmit an improved version as soon as Silver appears (thereby nullifying the Gold submission), and resubmit an even more improved version as soon as Bronze appears (thereby nullifying the Silver submission).

7. Deductions. Submission of work for credit in this course implies your acceptance of the following:
8. a) It loses some marks due to unoriginality. A SafeAssign “matching score” above 25% often indicates that you’re relying too much on others and not enough on yourself. Each additional 5% block beyond the limit (26–30%, 31–35%, etc.) in the body of your paper is therefore subject to an additional unoriginality penalty of 5%.
9. b) It loses all marks due to the particular sort of unoriginality known as plagiarism. The crime of ACADEMIC THEFT doesn’t distinguish between ‘not much’ on one hand and ‘too much’ on the other, so correct it before it’s too late to avoid sinking your ship – in this course if not also beyond. The consequences are quite severe and uncompromising (see FAHSS template for definition).

Use the first of your two upload attempts to generate an unoriginality report and the second to upload any ‘corrected’ version. Incorporate the feedback from SafeAssign to make any desired or needed adjustments; it’s often as easy to fix as giving credit where it belongs and thus explains why the penalty for not fixing it is so significant. To discover the ‘matching’ score for your work, upload your file in a format Blackboard can assess, then click ‘Submit’, and wait for your score to be returned; it can take a little while, so be patient.

8. Extensions. Everyone gets a no-questions-asked, penalty-free extension of two weeks. (= Silver/Bronze) 9. Appeals. This rule does not apply unless your work was assessed by my assistant.
9. a) First step. Within seven calendar days of the marks being published, you upload a document under the “consultation link” in which you respond to the GA’s assessment; the GA will provide a written reply within three days. Only if you remain unsatisfied after this exercise will I consider your petition for reconsideration.
10. b) How to petition for reconsideration. Within fourteen calendar days of the marks being published, you upload a document under the “appeals link” in which you respond to the GA’s replies; I need a written record in order to assess whether or not the evaluative standards for this course were improperly applied to your work. You are advised to be specific and thorough because there is only one opportunity to make your case to the Court of Appeal (me). Note that if in my professional judgement the grade being disputed is in fact too high, I will have no choice but to reduce it to what it would have earned had I marked it myself.

Content: quality of research (40%)

Content: quality of argument (40%)

Expression: substance, clarity, conciseness, spelling/grammar, eloquence,

format, etc. (20%)

❒ ✔❒❒❒❒ ❒

A B C D F+ F F- 35 30 26 22 16 12 0–8

❒ ❒✔❒❒❒ ❒

A B C D F+ F F- 35 30 26 22 16 12 0–8

❒ ❒❒✔❒❒ ❒

A BCDF+F F- 18 1513118 6 0–4

FYI: Sample Evaluation Rubric

This rubric allows us to indicate particular academic strengths and weaknesses. Note that the numbers represent the middle of the range for a given letter grade, while F+ and F- allow us to say how unsatisfactory the performance is. An overall grade of A+ on the research assignment requires that all three parameters be inadequately assessed as ‘clearly well beyond normal expectations for this course’. Any specific comments for ‘Silver’ papers will be in the feedback box under each of the parameters (check ‘show feedback’ to show them); general comments (including how the three parameter scores add up to the total score for the assignment, i.e. 30 + 26 + 11 = 67% for the example below) are in the ‘general’ box – the one when ‘show feedback’ is unchecked.

Gross: 67% NOTE: relevant deductions will be explained in the ‘Feedback’ box at the bottom of the rubric.

SafeAssign unoriginality deduction: __14___% Suspected-plagiarism deduction (100%):

Total deductions:

→ __0__% → __0__%

__0__% →

→

– 0% 67%

❒ _A_ Clearly well above normal expectations for this course ❒ _B_ Clearly above normal expectations for this course
✔ _C_ Clearly satisfying normal expectations for this course
❒ _D_ Not clearly satisfying normal expectations for this course ❒ _F_ Clearly not satisfying normal expectations for this course