APEURO/ Paper Two
Graham/R10-08
Paper Two: Enlightened Argument
Yo Novice Scholars!
For your second paper this year, we are going to focus less on your research skills and more on
your ability to discern and apply complex ideas. This is an exercise that should help you develop
your skills at deciphering documents and developing arguments. Here is what you need to do:
Research: No need to plan a trip to the British Museum this time; you already have most of what
you need. Find the philosophical reading your Professor assigned you, then read and study it.
Find a secondary reading about the philosopher’s ideas and study it. Make sure you know and
understand the basic ideas of your assigned philosopher. Discuss them with someone. Then,
read a brief biographical sketch of the individual you are working with; use either the
Biographical Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Britannica. This will help you place his ideas in
historical context.
Said differently, do the following:
1. Study the assigned philosophical reading.
2. Locate and read a secondary article about the philosopher’s ideas.
3. Read a brief biographical article about the philosopher from one of the two sources
listed above.
4. Keep bibliographical information so that you can include a bibliography with your
final paper.
Structure: Your paper will be written in three distinct sections. The first section will be a brief
biographical sketch that places the thinker in historical context. The second section will explain
the thinker’s ideas. In other words, summarize his ideas and argument. In the third section, I want
you to write a short, persuasive essay, in which you try to convince this jaded, skeptical twentieth
–century* curmudgeon that the views of your philosopher would provide the best answer to the
problems challenging America today. You will have two pages in which to complete this
awesome task. Consequently, I would suggest that you confine your argument to one or two
problem areas, say, violent crime, drug abuse, poverty, greed, nationalized health care, etc. There
are, after all, seven deadly sins; choose your favorite! (“Thomas Hobbes Takes on Gun Control,”
“Rousseau on School Attendance Policies”, “Locke on national health care”, “Voltaire on
terror…” got the picture?)
In other words, do the following:
1. Write a 1-2 page biographical sketch.
2. Write a one-page summary of the thinker’s argument.
3. Write a two page persuasive essay from the point of view of your assigned thinker on
a current issue.
Citation: I do not expect to read an assembly of quotations. I want to read your interpretation
and understanding of the philosopher’s ideas. (I’ve already read what the dead dude said.)
Limit yourself to no more than one quote per section. You may, however, cite documents or
secondary sources to support your argument.
Format Stuff: Typed, double-spaced, standard font, spell-checked, grammar- checked,
proofread, interesting title, bibliography, proper citation, hermetically sealed, irradiated, fully
assembled, follow all of the above instructions, etc.
Due Date: 12/16: NO LATER!
Point value: 100
----------------------------------------detach and return with paper--------------------------------Honors Form
I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear that that __________________________, my dear
(your name)
_______________________, attempted to explain ____________________________’s
(appropriate noun indicating relationship)
(philosopher’s name)
ideas to me on ____________________.
(date)
Signature of Victim: __________________________________
I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear that, at great pain and personal risk, I have
proofread an earlier draft of this paper and made suggestions to the author for
improvement. I further understand that the author of this paper owes me a big favor in
return.
Signature of Proofreading Victim: ________________________________________
Relationship to Author: _______________________________________
A Note to Proofreaders: Good writing should communicate well. Please help the scholar
by pointing out areas that are unclear, difficult to understand, seem muddled or addled,
where an example might help to clarify a point, that seem illogical, etc. Have the scholar
use spell-check and grammar-check on a word processor to assist in cleaning up those
aspects of writing.