Paper 2 Rewrite: A how-to

Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts in our conferences.  I enjoyed talking with you, and as the day went on, I figured out two things, with your help:

1. I’m going to have to adjust the rubric significantly—it no longer describes what I think is most important. 
• In the new rubric, a large amount of the credit for the assignment is going to be awarded for your work on the “worksheet,” so that’s gotta be factored in. 
• And the old rubric constructs the paper itself as a kind of classic “persuasive essay,” with prompts for you to present arguments in the introduction and conclusion.  But really, what I want is more like a lab report.  So that’s all got to be rewritten.
2. In a way, the rewrite is a different assignment, and there’s a specific method I think you’ll need to follow.  (This means, for the most part, setting aside your first writeup completely and starting from scratch.  Don't worry:  This is actually going to make your life simpler.)

 I’m not going to be able to re-tool the rubric tonight, but I do want to share my thoughts on the assignment and the method you need to follow. Some of you will find this familiar because it came up in our conversations, but I want to be sure it's clear to everybody. 

The key is:  This time, start with a piece of evidence, not with a claim.

Most of the papers got kind of tangled up (either in detail or in vagueness) because you started with some of the biggest, most sweeping claims that Hewitt and Lemann made. 

And that set you up for an almost impossible task:  These arguments are too big, and too complicated to successfully address in an assignment of this scope. 

Instead, I’m telling you to start by identifying a piece of evidence that you find interesting:  Maybe you actually find it confusing.  (That might be the best.) 

… and then trace your way to the claim it’s supposed to support, and then through the warrant that’s supposed to connect them. 

So, these are your tasks, in order:

Process:  The worksheet

1. Start with a piece of evidence—a fact presented in the text—that you’re going to use.  Ideally, it’s one that actually prompts you to wonder, “What IS this fact doing here?  What’s the point?  What’s it supposed to prove, and how?”  (This was true of the Chuck Hagel example.) 

2. Do any research you need to do, to feel confident that you understand how the fact relates to the bigger picture.  (I had to Google Sen. Hagel to figure out why Hewitt thought Milbank voting for him was news.)

3. Trace the line of reasoning—fill in the blanks. 

1. First up, the claim:  Your answer here is an answer to the question “What’s the point?  What’s it supposed to prove (or help prove)?”
2. Next—and probably a longer job—the warrant.    You’re trying to answer the question “HOW does fact X supposedly prove claim Y?”  What propositions do you have to buy—and what facts do you have to be familiar with already—for this connection to actually make sense? 

Dealing with the warrant is really the meat of the assignment:  Your job is to reconstruct the chain of reasoning that’s supposed to connect the evidence to the claim.  There will probably be more than one step here— there were four in the Chuck Hagel example, and they included both assumptions (propositions you would have to accept) and facts. 

And once you’ve reconstructed it, your job is to consider other interpretations (counter-warrants):  What if you didn’t accept one of the propositions?  What proposition would you substitute for it?  Poke around until you find the counter-warrant that seems the strongest to you. 

Process:  The paper

This is going to be less an essay and more a report:  You’re just walking me through the process you went through in filling out the worksheet.  The questions you had, how you figured out the answers, and what you might have learned or felt along the way.

Your first paragraph will simply introduce the pieces of evidence that you’re starting with. 

Then, you’re just going to walk me through the steps you took in dissecting each argument: 

• how you chose the piece of evidence that started the whole thing off (why this one?),
• what information you (might have) had to research in order to understand what was going on,
• how you pieced together the chain of reasoning, and
• how you found your way to the counter-warrant (i.e., why this one seemed the strongest, or why the others were weak).

 After you sum up your investigations into both arguments, you’ll offer a reflection.  I wouldn’t call it a “conclusion” because I don’t expect you to necessarily come to a conclusion, or to try to argue a point. 

I just want you to record your own responses to the arguments as you analyzed them.  Were you confused or troubled because there were strong arguments on both sides?  Were you impressed by the way one or both of the arguments were put together?  Did you find your gut pulling in one direction and your head in another?  Or did the process help you clarify your own beliefs?  Did you end up mad at somebody?  Sad?  Bored?  You tell me. And tell me why. 

That’s it!   Hit me with any questions you've got.  Best of luck on all of the work you'll be doing in the next couple weeks, and have a great holiday.