Explaining Your Reasoning
Defining technical terms, conveying the topic's significance, and justifying your argument
This page contains parts 3 - 5 of the 10 part PEE Writing Assignment
OVERVIEW
Step 1 Define ALL Technical Terms
✓ A technical term is any word or phrase that can be (i) understood differently depending upon someone’s background assumptions or (ii) that a lay person [someone unfamiliar with philosophy] may otherwise be unfamiliar with.
Step 2 Cite EACH Definition
In order to ensure that your sources are reliable & authoritative, use the CRAAP Test:
✓ Currency: The information is from the last 5 years
✓ Relevance: The information is important to your needs
✓ Authority: The source of the information is qualified to state/provide such info
✓ Accuracy: The content is reliable, truthful, and accurate – unbiased, supported by evidence, and peer reviewed
✓ Purpose: The point of view does not interfere with the accuracy of the content
Which Terms Should Be Defined?
Factual Topics
✓ Be sure to define what your necessary and sufficient standards are for “truth”, “consistency”, “sufficient evidence”, or however you are assessing truth / falsity.
Moral Topics
If you are dealing with a moral topic, Be sure to define “moral (im)permissibility / obligation” or “virtue”.
Make sure to define each according to a SPECIFC normative ethical theory.
EXAMPLES
Factual Assertion
P1. If there is evil in the world, then God does not exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.
In the above example, the terms ‘evil’ and ‘God’ can be understood in many different ways, philosophically and theologically; thus, the author should make clear how they will be using each term (to reflect their own background assumptions).
E.g., by ‘evil’, does one mean a psychological construct? Suffering caused by natural phenomena or only morally despicable acts? A good philosophical source could be “The Concept of Evil” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
By ‘God’, does one mean a Judeo-Christian monotheistic conception of the divine? Any divine entity, perhaps many, etc.? A good philosophical source could be “Western Conceptions of God” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or “Concepts of God” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) where a specific set of religious doctrines or attributes are highlighted by the author to make clear the type of being you are discussing.
‘Existence’ is also a philosophically rich concept and so should be clarified for the reader. A good source could be “Being and Existence” (New World Encyclopedia).
Factual Description
P1. If Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy, then the CIA was not involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
P2. Lee Harvey Oswald did shoot John F. Kennedy.
C. Therefore, the CIA was not involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
For descriptive arguments, like the one above, these terms need merely be laid out using the most reliable and concise definitions as possible. Focus on the Who? What? When? Where? Why? And / or How?
If your factual argument makes any mention of ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’, “sufficient evidence”, ‘theory’. etc., then define the appropriate academic standards for counting as ‘true’, ‘sufficient’, ‘evidence’, or a ‘theory’ (E.g., the criteria of adequacy).
Moral Assertion
P1. If animals have no moral standing, then it is morally permissible to consume animals.
P2. Animals have no moral standing.
C. Therefore, it is morally permissible to consume animals.
‘Animal’ and “moral standing” both have philosophically rich meanings which should be clarified for a layperson. 'Consume' can also refer to many different actions and so ought to be specified to establish the scope of the argument.
For normative arguments, “moral permissibility” [or "moral obligation"] will need to be defined depending on the normative ethical framework of the author.
I.e., a specific ethical theory will need to be selected and then the term should be defined according to it. Additionally, one will want to note the difference between acts which are “morally permissible” and “morally obligatory” and consider which one to use for their argument as well as pointing out the difference to the reader.
Tips For Success
FORMAT
✓ Write each part of the Explain section in one complete and concise paragraph [3 paragraphs total = (1 ¶) Definitions, (1 ¶) Significance, & (1 ¶) Rationales].
✓ Include an introductory sentence leading into each paragraph to clarify the purpose each serves.
✓ Refrain from personal pronouns as the points you are making should stand no matter who is making them.
✓ Write each paragraph in your own words (paraphrasing rather than quoting).
USING SOURCES
✓ Use primary philosophical sources & course content.
✓ Cite your sources (MLA) with BOTH:
IN-TEXT (Author last name, Year, pg #)
WORKS CITED Author last name, Author first name or initial. “Title of work”. Title of volume that contains work. Edition. Location of Publication: Publisher, Year. Page range.
Step 1 Tell a Story
Consider using / creating an anecdote or thought experiment to draw out the reader’s emotional investment and / or psychological interest.
Step 2 Convey Your Topic's Significance
Be sure to demonstrate to as wide an audience as possible (including those who disagree with you) why they should care about the topic you have chosen (i.e., illustrate the consequence(s) of not taking the issue seriously).
How to Strategize Rhetorically?
💕 EMPATHY
Tell a story of an individual or group which you are confident people care about (e.g., children always pull at the heartstrings)
🤔 NEUTRALITY
Rather than arguing that your position is better than a competing one, highlight differences between options connected to specific implications of getting it wrong.
🚨 URGENCY
Use statistics (which are cited from a reliable source) to show the immediacy with which the topic needs attention.
Step 1 Explain Logical Structure
In order to provide sufficient justification for your deductively valid argument, make sure to explain the logical structure of (i) each premise, and (ii) why the conclusion follows (i.e., the validity of your chosen argument)
Step 2 Justify Each Line of Reasoning
In order to demonstrate that your argument is not just valid, but sound; be sure to explain and the defend the truth of each line of your argument, supporting any assertions with relevant cited evidence.
Tips for Justifying...
Conditionals
(“if … , then …“) statements - Explain why the antecedent entails the consequent / the consequent depends upon the antecedent
Disjunctives
(“either … , or …”) statements - Explain why these are the only two options to choose from / ensure no false dilemma.
Assertions
Statements that anything is [not] the case - Support with specific reliable and thorough evidence
Validity
Explain why the conclusion (“Therefore, …”) follows from the premises (i.e., how if the premises are true then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false).
EXAMPLES
P1. If there is evil in the world, then God does not exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.
To understand why the consequent in premise 1—that God does not exist—follows from the antecedent—there being evil in the world—we must briefly explore the philosophical Problem of Evil [FILL-IN] The assertion that there is evil in the world, stipulated in premise 2, is supported by [FILL-IN] If the above support is sufficient to establish the truth of the premises, then the conclusion logically follows, via Modus Ponens, that God does not exist.
P1. Either the CIA was involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or the CIA was not involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
P2. It is not the case that the CIA was involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
C. Therefore, the CIA was not involved in carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
In premise one of the argument above, it is stipulated that the CIA either was or was not involved in the assassination of JFK. These are the only two options because [FILL-IN] In the second premise, the CIA’s lack of culpability in the assassination of JFK can be confirmed by [FILL-IN] Since it cannot be the case that the CIA were both involved and not involved, and the evidence previously mentioned is sufficient to reject one of the options in premise one, via Disjunctive Syllogism, we must logically conclude that only the other option remains [FILL-IN]