The instructions for the second paper will be given in a comment on your first paper in turnitin.com.
If the prompt disagrees with the following, and you're not sure what to do, please follow the prompt if you can. (added 10/25/21)
Fundamentally, what you are supposed to do for your first Odyssey writing assignment is to:
Suppose that in your very first school class that involved writing, your teacher had told you to go away and think about some particular issue, think it through from various angles, talk it over with family and friends, and, when you have thought it over just as well as you can manage, and have come to what, as far as you can tell, based on logic and the evidence available to you, is as close to the correct answer as you can get, then, and only then, sit down and write a paper explaining what you think, and why you think it, as clearly, correctly, and completely as possible. Suppose that when you've done this for the first time, and turned in your paper, your teacher reviews it, and gives it back to you with hints and suggestions on how to think more logically, on how to better find, understand, and interpret evidence, and how to write and organize your paper so that the average expected reader will be more likely to be able to understand your thoughts and your reasons. Now imagine that every class that involved writing worked this way so that over your school career, you got better and better and better at thinking things through, and at describing your ideas and reasons. I call this "cognitive writing" (If I was in charge of education, this is how it would always be.)
In my view, pretty much every paper should be the pure result of a Read - THINK - write cycle. You read the most relevant information, enough of it to support a substantial paper, think it through from all angles as deeply as you can (the thinking is the most important part), and only then, you write down the most important results of your thinking process as clearly and completely as you can. When your developed thoughts are as clearly and completely expressed as possible, you stop. Your paper is finished.
To this end, some things are NOT allowed in my class. Specifically things that do not represent part of the results of your thinking process are banned. "Introductions" that waste the reader's time with irrelevancies are not allowed. "Conclusions" that merely repeat things you've already said are not allowed. Dictionary definitions are not allowed. Rhetorical questions are not allowed. Uninterpreted quotes from other writers are not allowed. Snide comments are not allowed. Cop-outs are not allowed. Stuff that is added merely to fill up space ("padding") is especially not allowed.
Your initial assignment is to pick a topic from the list assigned to your class, read completely the prompt for that topic, (and any other material that may be assigned for that topic), make extensive notes on the definitions, ideas, positions, arguments, and facts of that issue, and then figure out as best you can what conclusion is best supported by a logical analysis of all the relevant evidence available to you at this particular point in time. When you've done that, and every aspect of the issue is as sorted as you can get it in your mind, then you write out your most developed thoughts in an organized manner.
Notes:
Roughly speaking, settling on a "thesis" must be the LAST thing you do in your prewriting process. (If a previous teacher ever told you to start a writing process by picking a thesis, that teacher was wrong.) In this class, your "thesis" is whatever you find yourself thinking when you've made all the progress you can reasonably make in the time you have got to write this first paper. If you've come to a settled conclusion about what conclusion is best supported by the available evidence, fine. If you haven't come to a settled conclusion, that is also fine. If you've taken the time to think the issue through as best you can, whatever you happen to think, even if it's just a list of things you can't figure out, will count as your "thesis". Remember, the important thing is to do your own independent thinking, and then write up the results of that thinking as a paper. It's the thinking that counts. The shape of the paper only counts to the extent that it reflects your personal thinking.
If you're having trouble forming a thesis that you would be confident defending, you could instead form an "intermediate position", which is just a statement of where you happen to be on the topic at the time of writing. This can be hedged about with all kinds of "ifs", and "buts", and "maybes", and just has to represent whatever it is you happen to be thinking at the time you write. (If you'd like more details on this idea, please email me.)
Roughly speaking, a person who controversially makes a definite claim, or a moral claim has the logical responsibility to come up with a compelling argument for their view. If they don't have a compelling argument, we should conclude that their claim is likely false. (This can get complicated, so I'm just giving the broad outlines here.) For instance, a person who disputes an established scientific or historical theory bears the burden of proving that some contrary theory is true, a person who controversially claims that some action is morally wrong bears the burden of proving that it is morally wrong, a person who controversially claims that something new exists or something strange is happening bears the burden of proof, and so on. The side with the burden of proof is the side whose argument gets analyzed first. (I tend to call this side the "pro" side, and the side without the burden of proof the "con" side.)
The analysis of arguments can get complicated in practice, but in principle it's, well, a little bit complicated. There's two phases.
First, you ask what the pro side is trying to prove (it's "conclusion"), and the factual claims it's using to support that conclusion. Next, negate that conclusion. (If the conclusion is "my house has been burgled", its negation is "my house has not been burgled".) Then, ask if this negation of the conclusion, and those factual claims can all be true together. (If the factual claims are "my window is broken in," "my stuff is all strewn about", "my mint-in-box Transformers Generation 1 Collection is missing", the question to ask, is it reasonably possible for all those fact claims to be true if my house has not been burgled?) If it is true that the factual claims can all be true with the negation of the conclusion, then the argument is logically flawed, and does not prove anything. (And your analysis is done.)
Second, If the fact claims and the negated conclusion cannot all be true together, look at closely each of the argument's individual fact claims. Are they all things that everyone thinks are true? If so, the argument isn't flawed as far as you can tell. If the specialized facts (scientific, historical, geographic) are supported by a consensus of the relevant experts, the argument isn't flawed as far as you can tell. However, if the claim is disputed by relevant experts, you need to think apply logical analysis all over again to whatever argument is given to support that factual claim,
Basically, logical analysis tends to consist of over and over asking the questions "is this factual claim most likely true", and "if this fact claim is true, does it make this other fact claim most likely true". It's a messy, disorganized process, and it usually takes a person's brain some time to work out and absorb the answers, which is why it's good to spread the process out over a couple of days.
Consider Scanti, Optimia, and Terence, each of whom is writing a paper for this class
Terence trawls the internet for articles, blogs, "encyclopedia" entries and other opinions about the topic. Terence takes quite a lot of time, and assembles a large collection of items expressing various opinions about the topic. Terence glances over the prompt, but doesn't really read it. Instead, Terence reads many of the articles he's found. (Most of the time, Terence skims, because there's a lot of material here.)
Optimia spends much less time on the internet. Optimia reads the prompt carefully, and makes a couple of notes. If the prompt gives links for further reading, Optimia follows and reads only as many links as the prompt requires. Optimia makes notes and tries to identify opposing arguments. Optimia takes important definitions, claims, and arguments and puts them into their own words. Optimia is careful to work out what each sentence actually says.
Scanti doesn't bother to read the prompt. Instead, Scanti scans the internet for an article that agree with Scanti's preexisting opinion, and then finds an article supporting the side Scant thinks is wrong. Scanti skims each article for key words, and then writes down what they thinks each writer is trying to say.
It should be clear that Optimia is the only one doing it right here. Terence wasted a lot of time collecting more articles than needed, and isn't giving anything any kind of careful attention, so Terence's understanding of their articles is shallow at best. As for Scanti, well Scanti isn't really isn't reading at all. Skimming for key words isn't reading. Speculating about what might be in the writer's mind isn't reading. Reading requires reading all the words, in order, and figuring out what the sentence actually says. Optimia, on the other hand, collected just enough material to work with, and then deeply analyzed that material.
Terence thinks about which articles they're going to use, and in what order, without bothering to get their arguments clear, and then stops thinking.
Optimia tries to work out what the known facts imply, and tries to work out logic of the various arguments, and figure out which which ones have logical flaws. (See "logical analysis above.) Optima also thinks about the issue while driving, or eating, and at various odd times during the day, and sometimes discusses their ideas about the issue with various friends and relatives. Optima doesn't necessarily spend any big block of time thinking, but does think, and think again, at various times over several days, at least.
Scanti goes straight to the writing phase.
Of course, Optimia is the only one actually thinking here. (And the other two are setting themselves up to fail.)
Terence has picked out four authors, two on one side, and two on the other. Terence takes the time to write a long introductory paragraph, describing what they take to be the history and background of the issue. Having written well over half a page, Terence ends the paragraph without including a thesis. In the next paragraph Terence describes the views of the first pro writer. After that Terence describes the views of the first con writer, followed by the second pro writer, and finally the second con writer. Terence includes no logical analysis of any of these arguments. Finally, Terrence writes a concluding paragraph about the importance of the issue, repeating a lot of things from previous paragraphs, and ending with a comment to the effect that we ought to figure all this out soon.
Optimia has pretty much concluded their thinking process, or has run out of ideas, or run out of time to think. Optimia may have a well-supported definite thesis about the issue, or they may have made some progress. Whatever set of ideas they have come to, they write a paper explaining what they think and why they came to the conclusions that they did. Where they have a definite conclusion, they explain that conclusion and give their reasons for thinking that conclusion is true. Where there is an opposing argument that they found to be logically flawed, they explain that argument in detail, and say what specific parts of that argument they found to be problematic. They include all the relevant facts they know about, and add in all the other thoughts they have about the issue. They use whatever structure works for them, whether it be a tightly structured thesis paper or a freeform thinkathon, or something in between. If they have a thesis, their first sentence is their thesis. If they don't have a thesis, their first sentence says what they presently think about the issue, even if it's just that they can't make up their mind. They don't write an introduction, or a conclusion, or any other time-waster.
Scanti came into their project with a preexisting opinion on the subject, and writes an introduction that eventually states that opinion. They then carefully describe the argument in the article they agree with, and after that, give a rough sketch of the argument in the article they don't agree with. They remember they're supposed to do some logical analysis, so they make some disparaging comments about the second author, and approvingly repeat the first author's argument. They then write a conclusion repeating most of the things they just said.
Depending on quality of reasoning, Optimia's paper could potentially receive full marks and some admiring comments. There's no wasted work, and the paper fully displays the results of Optimia's thinking process, which is what is required. Terence could potentially receive half credit, and some sympathy, for the descriptions of one pro and one con argument, but, since no thesis is stated and no analysis is done, there's no justification for much more than half credit. Scanti's paper receives zero credit, because it is basically a crime against philosophy.
Notes
If you have any concern that you didn't do it right, it might help to access http://madwizard.com/checklist.htm.
The requirement for the first paper is to read some relevant material, think a lot about that material, and then write up the developed results of your thinking. This can consist of anything from a highly structured "thesis paper" down to a completely unstructured "thinkathon".
Link to Thesis Paper Option
Link to Thinkathon Option
Remember, that the basic point is to think and to report the results of your thinking. You should explain everything you think clearly and completely, with no unnecessary words, paragraphs, sections or anything else that isn't part of a clear and complete report of your own reasoning about the topic. These options are there just in case you need a little direction.
Once your initial paper has been graded, you will receive follow-on instructions in a "Z-comment" (probably "ZNS") in the top-left corner of your paper in Turnitin.com. (See the blue smudge circled in red below? That's about where it will be on your paper.)
Z-comments are always follow-on instructions for new personalized assignments. They are sometimes optional and sometimes mandatory. (ZNS "Ze Next Stage") is the most common Z-comment, but there is also "ZOS." "ZPS," "ZNT," and a few others.) The important thing to remember is that when you see a capital "Z," you know that the marked comment is going to give you instructions for what you should, or could do next in this writing process. (One of the things you can do is change your mind. You don't have to change your mind, but you are always allowed to change your mind. So if you ever think of asking 'may I change my thesis,' the answer will always be "yes, you may change your thesis.")
DON'T STRESS! Remember, the assignment includes a sort of "do-over" option, so if you're still not sure what to do, just write a paper the way you normally do, turn it in as "practice paper," and we can go from there.Questions? Check out the Frequently Asked Questions.
If you still find my instructions confusing, email me before you write the paper. (Do not wait until you have gotten a bad grade, and then tell me that my instructions are "confusing." That will not improve your grade.) Get the instructions clear in your mind before you start.
If you do not understand any or all of these items, or if you are not just not completely sure about how to write this paper, you may click on the following optional link to more extensive (and more boring) optional more detailed instructions.
Remember, when your initial paper has been graded, look for the Z-comment to find out what to do next. (Which may or may not include changing your mind.)
Please note that
your paper will be graded purely on the quality of the reasoning
displayed. Good reasoning, which shows a proper understanding of the
nature of factual evidence, arguments, and the logical relationships
between factual claims, will earn credit. Papers that do not display
good reasoning will not earn credit.
