Consider Thomas Nagel’s article, “Moral Luck”. State the Control Principle. State the conditions for moral luck and how moral luck results from the Control Principle. Describe Nagel’s four kinds of mo

Practicing writing thesis statements is an invaluable tool. o Netflix movie descriptions; “Striv ing for an economy of language” • e.g., In the following paper I will argue that we should stop eating at Torchy’ s Tacos, specifically explaining how what is served should not be considered a taco. o Write in first person. Using first person does not cause bias or confusion. If anything, first person allows you to speak to the reader in an authentic , immediate and clear manner. Road map – W hat will be the main sections of your paper? • The Form – “First, I'm going to give an overview of the issue and position X; second, I'm going to explain and evaluate the first argument; third, I'm going to explain and evaluate the second argument; fourth, I'm going to give my own argument; finally, I will conclud e that, based on the evaluations of the available arguments, X is not a very plausible solution to/explanation of the issue, instead we ought to adopt an approach more like Y. However, it is critical I begin discussing X. ” • Example - First I will explain h ow Torchy’s Tacos come to be, highlighting those factors I believe lead to them serve hip taco recipes. Second, I will explain criteria for a taco and how Torchy’s does not met that standard. Finally, I will explain how Torchy’s at best serves ‘honky tacos ’, but regardless we should not consider their food as genuine tacos. I will conclude with a general approach to relieving taco ordering anxiety, as well as alternative venues to purchase genuine tacos in the Houston and Austin areas. Let’s begin our inqui ry into taconess. Body (Saying what you’re going to say) – Three P arts Pt. 1 – Exposition • The exposition can be done in two possible ways: One is to write this section in terms of the position you'll be defending, the other is to focus on explaining the posit ion you'll be arguing against. Either way is fine. About a page to a page and a half should be dedicated to explaining precisely what the main issue is and what the points of debate are (i.e., sub - issues). You don't need to give the particular arg uments for or a gainst a position in detailed form , but once you've outlined the contested sub -issues, you should, in a sentence, state what the main positions are on that sub -issue. In this section, you should also make clear any technical terms you or the author introduce which are relevant . • Don’t cite the dictionary. There’s generally accepted definitions (which anyone can find), and there the way the assigned authors are using the terms in question. You should be concerned with the latter. Pt. 2 - Arguments and Dialectic – Following your roadmap, the second part of paper is the nuanced bit where you must make clear to the reader the fine -grained points at hand. • Your paper should clearly identify the following: o the main premises of the argument you' ll be evaluating. o the main objection(s) to this argument. o what position you'l l eventually side with and why ▪ Specifically considered in terms of whether the ob jections are successful or fail Pt. 3 - Opinions and Solutions • Depending on how you structure your paper, your own input might be in the form of (a) analysis or original reply/counter -argument within th e context of the dialectic in Body Pt. 2; and/or (b) adding an innovation to or strengthening an existing argument or response. • However, you may also, if you so choose, introduce your own original line of argument into the issue. If you choose to do this, you should follow this structure: o Introduce your own line of argument for/against the main position. o Explain why your argument is relevant to the debate. o Consider objections to your argument. o Show why those objections don't, on balance, defeat your argument. ▪ The last part might be difficult for the short papers you have been assigned. But if you have an idea, I would like to discuss it with you. Conclusion ( Say what you said) • Restate the main issue and the position you were arguing for/against. o Thesis and Body Pt.1 • Summarize the main reasons for which position X should be accepted or rejected o i.e., your arguments/conclusions from Body Pt.2&3 • Suggest how you r conclusion might have implications for other issues (Optional) .