Homework answers / question archive / Phil/CRST 3400 Paper 2 Instructions Your job is to write an 5-7 page (double-spaced, 12-point font and normal margins, exclusive of bibliography, no cover page) paper that discusses a bioethical issue covered in class—anything EXCEPT topics you have already written about

Phil/CRST 3400 Paper 2 Instructions Your job is to write an 5-7 page (double-spaced, 12-point font and normal margins, exclusive of bibliography, no cover page) paper that discusses a bioethical issue covered in class—anything EXCEPT topics you have already written about

Writing

Share With

---

Phil/CRST 3400

Paper 2 Instructions

Your job is to write an 5-7 page (double-spaced, 12-point font and normal margins, exclusive of bibliography, no cover page) paper that discusses a bioethical issue covered in class—anything EXCEPT topics you have already written about.This assignment gives you wide latitude as to what issue you discuss and what stand you take toward it.* However, the central thesis/point toward which you argue must be about the BIOETHICS of the issue you discuss (vs the politics, medical practice, economics, legality, etc., etc.) And the assignment requires that you argue carefully and persuasivelywith the idea of convincing your readers—imagine your classmates or colleagues—of your point of view on the issue.

* In fact, if you want to write about something we didn’t cover in class, get in touch and we’ll see if your idea will work. (Of course, you may NOT use a paper you wrote for another class.) 

Please note: For me to be able to comment directly on your paper, you will need to submit the paper in a word-processing format, NOT a pdf. Thanks in advance!

 

Important message from the St. Kate’s librarians:

Need help with the research process? Librarians can help you with a variety of questions, including, but not limited to:

• Refining your topic and writing research questions

• Finding information (books, articles, websites, etc.)

• Learning how to use databases effectively and efficiently

• Evaluating sources

• Citing sources

 

You will write and present Paper 2 in four stages:

Stage 1. Proposal

Due November 13, 10 points. Submit in word processing format, not pdf.

Your topic must be a bioethical issue you have not already written about. To complete your preliminary statement of interest, give yourself some brainstorming and research time. Is there an issue experienced by your family, friends, colleagues, or community that you’d like to know more about? What’s in the news? What have you learned about in class? Follow up on credible sources, including those in our resource bases. Then:

• Find and read at least two credible sources on your issue (for how to identify credible sources, see under Content/Course Technology and Supports/Library Resources and Writing Assistance/Evaluating Sources).

• Write a 200-300-word proposal about what you’re finding out. Your proposal should state:

            —What your sources say about the issue.

            —Why you think the issue is interesting and significant.

            —Your tentative (it is common to change your mind about your thesis after you have done more research) bioethical thesis. Your thesis should have a form such as “I will argue that roadblocks to assistance for disabled children [Bioethical issue] are unethical [Bioethical perspective] because every child deserves respect [“Because statement” briefly stating the “why” of the bioethical perspective].”

            —Your sources, in one of the standard formats such as MLA or APA.

TOP TIP: Be sure your topic is clear and narrow enough for a short paper. Not, for example, “Racism in US Medicine,” but “The Harms of Racism and COVID-19 for Twin Cities Hmong Communities” or even narrower, such as, “How Sexism My Wrecked My Mother’s Health.” 

 

2. Draft

Due December 4, 40 points. Submit in word processing format, not pdf.

TOP TIPS: The expectation is NOT a ROUGH draft, but a SOLID draft—as good as you can make the paper without help. Grading will follow accordingly—SEE RUBRIC. (Note also that this makes the best use of your tuition $$: No point in my suggesting that you do what you already planned to do later! ?) 

A typical outline for your draft would be the following (see RUBRIC for additional goals):

1. Brief introduction that engages interest and states your thesis. (1/2 page or less)

2. Explanation of the issue. What’s happening, or what happened? This section should be focused on the facts of the matter (who, what, when, where, why, how), and should rely on credible sources. (~1-1/2 pages)

3. Discussion of the bioethics of the issue. This section must give your reasoning/arguments, not just your conclusion. It needs to draw explicitly on ethical language and concepts we have learned in the course (or in some circumstances, useful ethical concepts you have learned elsewhere). Remember, this is a course in secular ethics, so you’ll need to “translate” religious convictions that guide you into secular language. (If you wish, your conclusion can make the connection to religious convictions explicit.) (~1-1/2 page)

4. Careful explanation of key criticisms someone might make of your reasoning/argument in #3. (~1/2 to 1 page)

5. Convince the critic in #4 that you have a good rebuttal to their critique, so that your response to the prompt is a good one despite their criticism. (~1/2-1 page)

6. Brief conclusion (1/2 page or less)

7. Bibliography [NOTE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS FOR SOURCES]:

Include the following types and number of sources. Use each source substantively in your paper, with proper paraphrasing and citation:

At least 4 strong, relevant, important references to credible sources (see under Content/Course Technology and Supports/Library Resources and Writing Assistance).

            At least 2 sources (of the 4) must focus on bioethical issues related to your topic (such sources may be found in ethics or bioethics journals, opinion pieces in scientific journals, among our course materials, etc.).

            At least 1 source (of the 4) must discuss a substantially different perspective from yours on your topic: for example, by raising an objection to your view.

 

3. Video presentation

Due 8 AM, December 14, 20 points.

The overall goal of your presentation is to tell your classmates about the issue you have studied and written about, and to convince them of your bioethical perspective on it. The content of your presentation should parallel your paper. That is, it should include:

• a brief introduction that states your thesis 

• an explanation of issue

• your bioethical reasoning about the issue.

• objection(s) to your reasoning

• your response to the objection

• a very brief conclusion/wrapup

• bibliography 

The style of your presentation should take advantage of the video format:

• length of 5-7 minutes (this is quick!)

• Visuals that are attractive and help explain the issue and argument (this could be PowerPoint or similar, or??)

• tight organization (on topic, easy to follow, all required content included)

• Good speaking skills: directness, clarity, minimal “umms” etc.

• Well prepared, practiced

• Creativity and humor welcome, within bounds of accomplishing other goals

See rubric for grading criteria.

Technology options:         

1. Flipgrid, using its screen recording option. If you share a screen in which you have created a PowerPoint or similar, you’ll be able to share images or SHORT videos as well as words. 

This link gives the basics: https://help.flipgrid.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045940833

Or see under: Content/Course Technology and Supports/Creating presentations with screen recording

2. Another option you are familiar with is fine (e.g., Animoto, Youtube), as long as the whole class can have access (please provide access to all if you use an option other than Flipgrid).                       

 

4. Revision

Due December 20, 55 points. Submit in word processing format, not pdf.

Revision is a crucial aspect of writing. All of the work you’ve read for this course—including these instructions!—has undergone multiple drafts to refine it. In general, learning to respond to constructive criticism (like comments on papers) is important, too. The “constructive” part shows the respect of the critic (me, in this case) for the writer (you); the response demonstrates the writer’s respect for the critic. For these reasons, your final paper should be a substantiverevision. A substantive revision may require more research. It may require reorganizing or reframing the paper. It may require substantial work clarifying your writing. Your score will not increase, and may decrease, if your only changes are (for example) to correct minor grammar errors I point out. 

That said, the more complete your first draft, the less work you’ll need on the second. 

Note, however, that willingness to hear critique goes both ways: You may have good reasons to disagree with suggestions I make. When you do, rather than make the change I suggest, explain why you didn’t make the change. For example, if I said something like, “this conclusion doesn’t clearly follow because the paper never makes important X” you might be able to say, “I made important point X paragraph Y, so I have made it clear that the conclusion follows.” You can make such notes as footnotes in your paper, or in comments in the dropbox. (Do self-check, though: Did you make important point X clearly? Or could you improve the clarity or emphasis with a few words?)

Please see rubric for grading criteria.