Transcript PAPER TWO - St. Edward's University

SUBMISSION THREE
ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
A Reminded on Paper 2
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 15-20 pages long
Works Cited
Appendix(ces)
Correct MLA form throughout
Style
– In accordance with Capstone guidelines
– Polished, proofed
• DUE: in class March 11th
THREE SECTIONS
• Critical Thinking
• Moral Reasoning
• Tentative solution
Part I: CRITICAL THINKING:
Analysis of argumentation and Evidence
• Requires THINKING
• Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of each side’s body of
argumentation
– Each argument and related evidence
– Evaluate their arguments, not your own!
• Think of each major argument as a question needed to
answer
– Is Casino Gambling a good source of Revenue
– Will high speed rail get people to switch from cars
How to identify a weak argument
• Does any real policymaker support this
argument
• Is it supported with valid, current data
• Is it deceptive or fallacious
Decide Who wins the argument
• Take a stand on who “wins” each argument
• Which side’s argument is more substantial and
complete
• Make certain you review EACH MAJOR
ARGUMENT you discussed in Submission 2
– Do not create new arguments, or leave important
arguments on the table
Example
Regarding the issue of personhood, the
conservatives argue…, while the liberals
argue…. The liberals’ strength in terms of their
argumentation is…Their weaknesses are… The
conservatives’ strengths are…Their
weaknesses are…In summary, the (winning
side) have stronger arguments regarding the
issue of personhood.
Part II
MORAL REASONING
MORAL REASONING
• Value-laden, i.e.,
ethical,
perspective
• Based on Ruggiero
method
•
Real Policymaking does not examine
the moral reasoning model, but your
Capstone Paper Must!
Moral reasoning requirements
• Obligations (of each side)
• Values (held by each side)
– Main values (intro)
– Prioritized list (Sub Two)
– Thorough discussion (Sub Three)
• Consequences (potentially coming from position)
• Foundational normative principles (supporting case)
– Other normative principles (supporting case)
Moral Reasoning
• You did this in American Dilemmas
• Make certain you hit all the points
• The Handbook is good on this section
PART III
TENTATIVE SOLUTION
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
• Your answer to the thesis question
• You must take a stand, i.e., answer the
question
– Note reservations, if you have any
• Support your position
Support for your conclusion
• Critical Thinking perspective
– Refer back to “strengths and weaknesses” analysis
– Develop your own argumentation
• Moral reasoning perspective
– Refer back to moral reasoning analysis
– Develop your own moral reasoning
• Obligations, values, consequences
• Normative principles that support your conclusion
Creating your own solution
• I strongly advise against this
• With limited policy and political expertise, you
are setting yourself up for failure
• Use something real.
TENTATIVE SOLUTION
• How you would solve the social problems identified in the
beginning of the paper
• Options
– Content will vary depending on your solution
• Accept the option in the thesis sentence
• Reject the option in the thesis sentence
• Modify the option in the thesis sentence
• Your practical plan
– Economic
– Social
– Political
Mechanics
• 6-8 pages long (estimate only)
• Critical thinking = 3 pages
• Moral reasoning = 3 pages
• Conclusion/solution = 1 pages
• Works Cited as needed
• Writing = as perfect as you can make it
• MLA format = as perfect as possible
THE GOOD NEWS
• Due Thursday, April 1st
• Course is downhill from there!