the editorial

For Your 1st Paper (Paper 1a Due Monday 10/21/19) I am looking for a critical summary and evaluation of the editorial linked above.  I will not be providing hard copies of these papers to you.  You must read and/or print them from the website.  You have until 11:59 to upload your paper to Blackboard.  You do not need to bring a copy of this paper to me in class.

As you complete this assignment, you may also want to look at the following editorial:

Who Should Pay for Higher Education?

By HOWARD COHEN

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/collegespecial2/coll_aascu_povcohen.html (Links to an external site.)

Two Parts:

Part One; Critical Summary:

Summarize the article:

A.) Outline the Major thesis that the author is attempting to establish. (What is the Conclusion he is trying to establish?  What’s his Big Point?)

B.) Outline what reasons he gives to support this. (What are his premises?)

Part Two; Critical Evaluation:

Evaluate the argument:

A.) Support Question- If his premises were true, would they support the conclusion? Would the make the conclusion more likely?  Would they give one good reason to accept his conclusion?

B.) Content Question- Are his premises good (clear, true, non-controversial /reasonable)?

Clarity: To be a good premise it must be clear.  It must not contain vagaries and ambiguities which prevent the reader from understanding what is being asserted.  One cannot deterime if the premise is true if it admits of multiple interpretations.  However, note two things:

1. It is not enough to merely claim that a premise is vague or contains a vague term. If you make such a claim, you must defend it.  Why do you say the premise is vague?  What is the troublesome term or terms and why are they troublesome?  Why does this vagueness prevent you from determining whether the sentence is true or reasonable?
2. As we discussed in class, where an author uses a vague term, it is appropriate to extend to him or her the “principle of charity” and try to guess what a reasonable, intelligent person might have meant by the term. It is a weakness of the argument is the author is vague, but in the interest of advancing the dialog it becomes the reader’s responsibility to try to “fill in the blanks.”