A3. J. Glasgow, “Racism as Disrespect,” Ethics 120:1 (Oct 2009) 64…

Question Answered step-by-step A3. J. Glasgow, “Racism as Disrespect,” Ethics 120:1 (Oct 2009) 64… A3. J. Glasgow, “Racism as Disrespect,” Ethics 120:1 (Oct 2009) 64 — 93  Directions: Produce an original, cogent argument on any of the options below. The first half of your paper isreserved for explaining the main argument* advanced by the author(s) in the article indicated (locate all yourresearch in this section); the second half is reserved for your critical evaluation of something in one of yoursources – whether concept, claim, or argument – that has already been mentioned in the research/descriptive halfof your work.* see important qualification in Rule 1   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 theform of a cogent or sound argument. FYI, the premises in a sound argument aim to guarantee the truth oftheir conclusion, but in a cogent one they aim to establish only that their conclusion is likely. Note: Youare 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 thoseby university professors), newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, book reviews, and the like are prohibitedbecause they carry little to no weight, at least when compared to peer-reviewed articles written by expertsin the particular field of research – and that’s why you’ll lose marks if you include them. Your researchassignment constitutes a task whose leeway while considerable does not extend so far as to permit you toinclude in your supporting evidence what has here been categorically defined as out of bounds, or toexclude what has here been required. It’s a big part of our job to make scholarly demands of you and aneNew 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, includingexplanations and/or examples of points expressed in the primary material; note that secondary sources canoften 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 thesubtitle ‘Assessment’ if you can’t think of anything else). Because ‘your own argument’ = your point plusyour reasons, if you agree with A’s argument then it falls to you to say why you think A’s reasons are suchgood ones. If the reporter’s job is to describe things accurately but the editor’s is to express awell-reasoned opinion about something that’s already been reported, then be a reporter in the first halfand an editor in the second.doing in the paper. (If you don’t know what an argument is, find out before you lose lots of marks underthe ‘quality of argument’ parameter just because you didn’t.) In this way, the abstract – in effect a ‘report’space for name, course, title, etc. on the first page of the body; for our purposes, move that information toyour title page and use the resulting freed-up space for your abstract. Any paper lacking this two-sentenceabstract as its initial paragraph will not earn a grade higher than B+ no matter how excellent it Arts & Humanities Philosophy PHILOSOPHY PHL201 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)