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.
Copyright © 2023 by Martin C. Young
