In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent?
(It's as if the first said "Don't talk too much," and the second said "Talk a lot.") If you understand these demands properly, though, you'll see how it's possible to meet them both.
Writing a good philosophy paper takes a great deal of preparation.
Aah-- it isn't that scientific prose is a species of narrative, then, butthat readers comprehend better when story elements are used to conveythe message. In the case of reporting research, the "story" elementsprovide the "...context in which to understand the significance of thework". In other words, the structure of the scientific paper creates amini-world in which a problem is posed (the research topic with itspesky unanswered questions), an action is proposed (your experiement),a consequence is had (the results), new knowledge is formed (results +discussion) and more action is suggested (speculation in discussion).This is not necessarily the story of how the scientist experienced thework; . Perhaps this is why the second person (you,you're, etc) isnot used at all in science -- the research is not about the reader andonly quietly about the writer.
Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument.But "explain yourself fully" also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you're writing.
If you can, show it to your friends and get their reactions to it.
Don’t be afraid to tell others exactly how you think things should go because that’s what we expect from an argument paper. You’re in charge now, what do YOU think?
So do not try to emulate their writing styles.
There is an old kung-fu saying which states, "The hand that strikes also blocks", meaning that when you argue it is to your advantage to anticipate your opposition and strike down their arguments within the body of your own paper. This sentiment is echoed in the popular saying, "The best defense is a good offense".
You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader.
Think about yourself as a child, asking your parents for permission to do something that they would normally say no to. You were far more likely to get them to say yes if you anticipated and addressed all of their concerns before they expressed them. You did not want to belittle those concerns, or make them feel dumb, because this only put them on the defensive, and lead to a conclusion that went against your wishes.
The same is true in your writing.
Thus Q." then you are claiming that P is a good reason to accept Q.
To do this, your paper does have to show some independent thinking.That doesn't mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought.
Consider the following two paper fragments:
Though there are plenty of times in your life when it’s best to adopt a balanced perspective and try to understand both sides of a debate, this isn’t one of them.