‣
‣
Formative
Formative assessment is not-for-credit ; your final mark for the module will rest solely on your summative assessment. Typically, your formative essays will be 1000 words in Level 4 modules.
Summative
Summative assessment is assessment for credit . It determines your final degree class. By and large, it will rest on either a two-hour examination in
May/June (or January in the solitary case of 4AANA003 Elementary
Logic), or two essays.
2

‣
‣
‣
A philosophy paper consists of the rational defense of some claim .
It’s always a good idea to state a clear thesis early in the paper.
A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point ; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it.
In your paper, you might:
Criticize a specific argument;
Show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good;
Defend the argument or thesis against someone else’s criticism;
Offer reasons to believe the thesis;
Offer counter-examples to the thesis;
Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis;
Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true;
Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection.
3

‣
‣
‣
‣
Discuss the issues with others
Write an outline : state your thesis , try to identify the central argument that you’ll discuss, force yourself to focus your discussion on that particular argument.
Write a draft : use simple prose, explain what the technical terms mean, use illustrative examples , and signpost throughout.
Edit : read the draft aloud, ask yourself whether the body is wellstructured, what role each paragraph plays in furthering the discussion, and whether the material there is necessary and sufficient for defending your thesis.
4

‣
‣
‣
Lacks a clear thesis . Exs:
(a)This is a paper about Mackie’s error theory.
(b)I believe that names are not devices of direct reference.
(c)I will show that utilitarianism is not the best moral theory.
The thesis should state your position ((a) doesn’t), it should identify a reason for thinking the position is correct ((b) and (c) don’t do that), and the position should be one that can be defended in the space provided ((c) doesn’t do that).
Better :
In this paper, I shall argue Mackie’s argument from moral disagreement does not support his anti-realist views.
To show that names are not devices of direct reference, I shall argue that only the descriptivist can solve Frege’s Puzzle.
To show that the utilitarian view is mistaken, I shall argue that there is a morally significant difference between doing and allowing.
5

‣ Discussion is too broad .
We often find that people try to discuss everything from the readings. We want you to focus on the points that matter and leave out the extraneous parts . Remember, you won’t be asked to summarize a reading or a collection of readings, but to discuss some position or some specific argument for that position. You should show that you can provide a discussion that is rich in details . You should avoid a superficial overview of a debate.
On politics exams, for example , I often ask people to discuss the strongest argument for, say, the Difference Principle. What I want is for a student to identify one argument for the Difference Principle and to explain that argument in detail (e.g., What is the argument’s structure? What role does the Original Position play? Are there any steps missing?). What I get is a thumbnail sketch of three or four arguments that Rawls discusses.
6

‣ Forgets the imagined audience
In the bad old days, I had a student submit an exam that said something like this, “In class, you presented an objection to Nozick’s Wilt
Chamberlain argument. You drew a diagram on the board. [There was a drawing with some arrows and circles.] You could probably explain it better than I can.”
Probably. Remember that the goal is not to remind the reader (a professor or a GTA) of some interesting idea or argument but to explain the interesting idea or argument as if you were the professor or GTA trying to explain things to an audience of university students with no prior introduction to the material . Your imagined audience is clever and will read about as carefully as you do, but it is not well-versed on the material.
7

‣
‣
‣
Student doesn’t explain things in his or her own words .
This covers a myriad of sins:
Quoting texts without explaining their meaning;
Using technical language without explaining its meaning ;
Failing to provide illustrative examples when introducing subtle distinctions.
Writing like a philosophical sociopath (e.g., using clever turns of phrase to mask or conceal the darkness within where the understanding should be).
8

‣ Doesn’t answer the question. ‘ Nuff said.
9

‣
‣
‣
‣
You cannot improve as a writer without practice and you have to be a passable writer to get somewhere in philosophy.
My advice : Spend an hour each day writing. Start a blog and use it to write about philosophy.
Pick a piece of philosophical writing (assigned, perhaps), try to identify an argument, offer a reconstruction of that argument, explain the crucial moves, and identify objections to the premises.
Read it to yourself aloud and eventually you’ll stop hating the sound of your own voice.
The standard you should use to assess this writing— if I presented this to my peers , could I clearly explain the issue to them? Or the
Grandmother Test .
10