Essentially, Phase II is the research portion of your paper. So far, you've clearly identified a legitimate issue with credible, scholarly arguers presenting competing views on the matter. Now your jo

Now that you have completed the first phase of your term project, we are ready to move on to Phase II, in which you identify and analyze specific arguments made by real and credible proponents on each side of the issue you identified.

An Issue is a question or challenge on which reasonable people, thinking rationally, may disagree. If you and I disagree on the merits of ice cream versus pumpkin pie, that is not an issue – that is a matter of personal taste. If we disagree on the role that God has in our lives, that is not an issue – it is a matter of faith. Note that neither of these realms is open to rational debate: we make our choices in each realm on factors beyond logic, and any efforts to “reason” us out of our choices are really beside the point.

An issue is a matter best decided by an appeal to reason, and one on which each of us could be asked to offer specific reasons to support our view. That does not mean we aren’t passionate about our views, or that strong emotions may not enter the discussion. But the merits of a particular view are decided on what a reasonable person, thinking rationally, might conclude about the relevant aspects of that question. The passion we bring, or the eloquence of our speech, are not the key factors in deciding the case.

A dispute over an issue may be factual, interpretive/ analytic, or evaluative.

In a factual dispute, we are disagreeing about what is actually true in the matter. The statement, “Obama has said that the goal of public policy is to spread the wealth” would present a factual issue. He either did or did not say that, and we can go to transcripts of his speeches, papers, press remarks and so on, and determine whether he does have that publicly stated goal. Note that “he sort of” said it, or “probably meant it” is not the same as “Obama said x.” This is why clear citations are so important in a sound argument.

“Obama has proposed a socialist economy” is a matter of interpretation, or meaning. First, we need to determine an accepted definition of “socialism,” – which may be lexical or stipulative, but must provide an objective frame of reference outside personal opinions. Second, we need to find out what Obama has actually said about economic policy (a matter of fact). . . Finally, we can map what he said against our objective definition and determine whether those statements are best interpreted as “socialist.”

“Obama’s policies would have the effect of spreading the wealth” would be an issue of analysis. Why might someone make that assertion? Which specific policies take wealth from one location, and redistribute it elsewhere? How do we know that? On what evidence are we making our predictions? What alternate policies might we compare to Obama’s, which would not have a similar effect? How do we know that? In this discussion, we are examining a conclusion and tracing it back to the assumptions we have made, the evidence we have gathered, and how we have put those together. This is a process of analysis, and it typically forms the “meat” of the arguments we produce.

“Obama’s economic policies would best promote the security and prosperity of the middle class.” This is an evaluative issue, but one that includes matters of interpretation and analysis. We must of course define “security, “prosperity,” and “middle class,” and we must then consider how his policies promote (or do not promote) those qualities. Finally, in deciding whether these policies are “best,” we need to state the criteria of “goodness” for the middle class, and then compare them to some alternate policies that may be “right” or “wrong,” “better” or “worse” depending on the criteria we propose.

* * *

In Phase I, you identified an issue that is of some social importance, and explained why we should care about this issue. You described two possible ways of addressing that issue and then proposed at least three reasons on each side that someone might offer in defending that point of view.

In Phase II, you will perform real-time research on credible leaders, thinkers or political groups who hold stated positions on those issues. In this phase, you are not going to evaluate the respective positions. Rather, you are going to focus on interpretation and analysis of these positions. Please do the following.

1. Re-state the issue. (5 pts)

2. For Each Position: Identify at least two credible sources – a statement, a speech, an article, a white paper, or other primary source -- which takes a position on that issue. See chapter 12 for help determining what constitutes a credible source in the specific field. (20 pts)

3. Cite in logical order the reasons presented to support that point of view. (See chapter 7 for a review of summary in standard form.) (20 points.) Note: You need only do this for one argument on each side.

4. Identify any core assumptions in this argument, and determine whether the argument is a legitimate one: Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? Are they sufficient to support that conclusion? Is the evidence from a credible source? Does it conflict with your background information or with other compelling evidence on the other side? Do you accept the premises they provide? Are they offering sufficient reasons to justify the conclusion that they reach? (20)

5. For each side: Have the arguers presented a clear, compelling and logical case? Have they sufficiently addressed the objections raised by competing arguments? If not, what specific flaws did you identify on each side? (10)

(Note: You can accept that a good case has been made, without agreeing with it! The most interesting issues are those that have compelling arguments on both sides.)

Phase III of your project will pull these steps together and culminate in an evaluative paper in which you assess the merits of both sides, draw upon any additional sources on each side that you feel will help flesh out the argument, compare and evaluate the arguments presented on both sides, and finally determine which side you believe makes the stronger case on this issue.

For now, you are only outlining the steps 1-6 as cited above- for EACH position on this issue.

A final tip: Your grade is a function of the degree to which you have specifically answered the questions in each step, anchoring your response in the statements made by the sources you cite. Stating “No, there are no assumptions; yes, the argument is credible; yes, it answered all objections” does not constitute a specific answer.