Your assignment is to look at Nic. Ethics Book I, ch. 6 (pp. 135-36) and analyze one paragraph of text. You may choose paragraph 2 or 3 or 4 to analyze. Each paragraph contains one argument from Aristotle against Plato. The analysis will be in the style of the last two analyses with the final section of the assignment being an attempt to respond to Aristotle as if you were Plato.

Argument Analysis

You will write five short 1

–

1.5 page papers

(12-pt Times New Roman with 1”

margins!)

throughout the course. The format of these papers will always be the

same.

Introduction:

State the general theme of the article and clearly

articulate the conclusion or thesis.

State how you will critique the argument (see below).

Argument Identification:

In the body of your essay you will need to reconstruct the argument and the

conclusion from the text. You may paraphrase and/or quote directly, but you must

use proper MLA citations.

Paraphrase the argument in simple argumentative form (see below).

Argument Critique:

In the final section, you will need to critique the argument (see below). This may be

your own logical

thought

on the argument or you may use other readings in the

class or outside of class to make the critique

. Remember, the two ways to critique an

argument is to show the conclusion doesn’t follow or that a premise is incorrect.

Papers:

Your papers will require you to identify,clearly represent, and critically evaluate

arguments from philosophical texts. Here are two structures you might follow:

STRUCTURE ONE:

In [citation, with page number], Jane Smith presents the following argument:[Provide quotation from text that includes Smith’s reasons. To find reasons, look for

words like “here’s why,” “because,” “for,” “the reason is,” etc.

] [

Provide quotation from

text that contains the conclusion of Smith’s argument. To find conclusions, look for

words like “therefore,” “hence,” “that’s why,” “in conclusion,” etc.

]

I think Smith’s argument has this form:

.

(1)

_____[

Trim down Smiths’ first reason to its essentials]

_____________

.

(2)

_____[

Trim down Smith’s second reason to its essentials]

___________

.

(3)

Therefore,

_____[

Trim down Smith’s conclusion to its essentials]

_____

I have the following objections to this argument: [

Provide your own reasons to

think that a premise is false. Or, provide your own reasons to think that the inference

from the premises to the conclusion is invalid. Or both

.

No matter what you do,

explicitly tell me what you’re doing

.]

STRUCTURE TWO:

In [citation, with page number], Jane Smith considers the following

argument: [

Provide quotation from text that includes the argument’s reasons.

To find

reasons, look for words like “here’s why,” “because,” “for,” “the reason is,” etc.

] [

Provide

quotation from text that contains the conclusion of the argument. To find conclusions,

look for words like “therefore,” “hence,” “that’s why,” “in conclusion,” etc.

]

I think the argument Smith considers has this form:

.

(1)

_____[

Trim down the first reason to its essentials]

_____________

.

(2)

_____[

Trim down the second reason to its essentials]

___________

.

(3)

Therefore, _____[

Trim down the conclusion t

o its essentials]

_____

Smith provides the following objection to this argument: [

Explain the reason

Smith gives to think that a premise is false, or how an inference is invalid

.]

However, I think Smith’s objection to this argument fails, for this

reason:

[

Explain how the premise that Smith attacked is still true despite her objection, or how

the inference is valid, despite her objection

.]