Write a 1000-1200 word critical analysis of one of the following readings:
1.
0. Berlitz, C (1974) The Bermuda Triangle, pp 1-20 Download Berlitz, C (1974) The Bermuda Triangle, pp 1-20
1. Kolosimo, P (1974) Not of this World, pp 194-217 Download Kolosimo, P (1974) Not of this World, pp 194-217
2. Velikovsky, I (1950) Worlds in Collision, pp 51-78 Download Velikovsky, I (1950) Worlds in Collision, pp 51-78
Before starting this assignment please review your Essay 1 feedback, including any in-text comments. Don’t forget that if your grade for Essay 2 is the higher of the two grades, it will be applied to both essays.
FEEDBACK. By default, we won’t offer any feedback on this essay. If you would like to receive detailed comments, please write ‘Comments Requested’ at the top of your paper.
Writing an Essay provides advice about philosophy essays. The staff at the Writing CentreLinks to an external site. are available to help you plan and deliver a good essay.
Overview
Your task is to find, summarize, and critically analyze two arguments from a single reading above.
• In your first analysis, use the Marks of Pseudoscience (Radner & Radner 1982, pp 27-52). Download Radner & Radner 1982, pp 27-52).
• In your second analysis, use the SEARCH formula (Schick & Vaughn 2020, pp 231-80). Download Schick & Vaughn 2020, pp 231-80).
The arguments in these readings can be hard to make out. You may find it difficult to identify the author’s premises and conclusions. Try putting yourself in the author’s shoes and consider what it is they want you to believe. You will need to be on your guard against fallacious reasoning, rhetoric, and cognitive bias.
As with Essay 1, you must decide how well the author defends their conclusions. Don’t say whether you agree or disagree. It is not your job to decide whether these conclusions are correct, but to defend a view about the quality of the author’s arguments.
Essay Structure
Your essay must have four sections, with headings:
1. Introduction
About 50 words. Briefly summarize the topic of your essay and foreshadow your main conclusions, that is, state clearly what view about the quality of the two arguments you will defend.
2. (Useful Heading)
About 300 – 400 words. Begin with a summary, in your own words, of an argument from the reading. Your critique of this argument must rely on the Marks of Pseudoscience.
3. (Useful Heading)
About 500 – 600 words. Begin with a summary of another argument from the same reading. Your critique must rely on SEARCH together with appropriate criteria for good explanation, such as Schick and Vaughn (pp 180-90), or those discussed in Lecture 8.2.
4. Conclusion
About 50 – 100 words. Don’t introduce any new arguments here. Briefly restate the conclusions you defended above, and review your arguments for those conclusions.
submit your essay in either Word (.doc or .docx) or Acrobat (.pdf) format. Make sure you stay within the word-limits or you may lose marks.
Quotation and Referencing
don’t use quotations in this essay. There’s no need to cite the article you are analysing, but since you will be relying on the work of Schick and Vaughn, and Radner and Radner, you will need to cite them and include their work in a reference list. See Writing an Essay for advice about how to cite and reference a book.
Assessment Criteria
• Required structure (sections, headings, paragraphs).
• Brief statement of your main conclusion in the introduction.
• Balance between summary and analysis of the argument.
• Clarity of English expression, grammar and spelling.
• Identifying and accurately summarizing two arguments.
• The approach you adopt in your critical analysis, such as:
o Do the author’s arguments show any Marks of Pseudoscience?
o How do the author’s hypotheses fare when assessed using SEARCH?
Are there alternative explanations that do better?
o Are there counterexamples that show the weakness of either argument?
o Are the arguments fallacious in any respect, or does the author show
signs of cognitive bias or the use of rhetoric?
o Does the author rely on assumptions that weaken their argument?
PreviousNext
