1. PAPER Introduction to Philosophy

2. The Paper Reading: “The Apology.” Thesis: “The purpose of this paper is to summarize and critically evaluate Socrates’ Horse Trainer Analogy and Unintentional Argument.” Issue: Do Socrates’ two arguments refute the charge that he is a wrongdoer who corrupts the youth? Label the 4 sections  Introduction  Summary  Argument  Conclusion Drafts Plagiarism

3. Writing the Introduction 5 points 125 words or less. Content  Thesis  Summary Statement  Position Statement  Argument Statement  Minimal Background

4. Writing the Summary 45 points 350 words+ Objective: summarize the text  Clearly  Concisely  Accurately  In your own words.

5. Writing the Summary Outline  Charges  A doer of evil who corrupts the youth  Does not believe in the gods of the state but has his own divinities  The Corrupter of the Youth  Socrates will prove Meletus is A doer of evil Pretending to be earnest Is eager to bring men to trial  Questioning Meletus  Meletus claims to think a great deal about the youth  Socrates asks Meletus to tell the judges who improves the youth  Every Athenian, except the sole corrupter Socrates, improves the youth

6. Writing the Summary Socrates’ Horse Trainer Analogy  One is able to do the horses good  The trainer does the horses good  Others injure the horses  This is true of horses and any animals  The youth would be happy with one corrupter and everyone else improving them  Meletus shows he has never thought about the young.

7. Writing the Summary The Unintentional Argument  Meletus Agrees  It is better to live among good citizens than bad  The good do their neighbors good, the evil do evil  No one would rather be injured than benefited  No on likes to be injured  Meletus accused Socrates of intentionally corrupting the youth.  Meletus admitted the good do good and the evil do evil  Socrates knows that if he corrupts a man he has to live with, he is likely to be harmed  Socrates either does not corrupt or corrupts unintentionally.  Either way Meletus is lying  If his offense is unintentional, Meletus should have corrected him  Meletus has no care about the matter.

8. Grading the Summary Excellent Summary (A) (41-45 points)  Clearly and concisely presents all the key points in your own words.  Clearly shows the connections between the key points.  Presents the summary as a coherent whole.  Clearly presents the arguments in the text and shows their structure and relation to the whole.  Is extremely well organized. Good Summary (B) (36-40 points)  Does most if what an excellent summary does, but has some flaws that prevent it from being excellent. Adequate summary (C) (32-35 points)  Presents all the key points.  Is adequately clear and organized.  Does not achieve the quality of a good summary, but does not have any major flaws.

9. Grading the Summary Poor Summary (D) (27-31 points)  Leaves out some key points.  Leaves out some key arguments.  Is unclear and /or presented in a disorganized manner.  Has a few major flaws or numerous minor flaws. Failing summary (F) (0-26 points)  Leaves out most key points.  Is very unclear and/or disorganized.  Has many major flaws.

10. Writing the Argument 45 Points 500 + words Position Statement  Does the HTA (Horse Trainer Analogy) succeed as an analogy?  Does the HTA refute the original charge?  Does the HTA refute the modified charge?  Does the UA succeed as an argument?  Does the UA refute the original charge?  Does the UA refute the modified charge?

11. Writing the Argument Assessing the HTA  Form  Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.  Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.  Premise 3: X has property Z as well.  Conclusion: Y has property Z.  Assessment  The number of properties X & Y have in common.  The relevance of the shared properties to Z.  Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.

12. Writing the Argument Assessing the HTA  Form  Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.  Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.  Premise 3: X has property Z as well.  Conclusion: Y has property Z.  Assessment  The number of properties X & Y have in common.  The relevance of the shared properties to Z.  Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.

13. Writing the Argument Does the HTA respond to the charge?  Original Charge: Socrates corrupts the youth.  Modified Charge: Socrates is the sole corrupter of the youth.

14. Writing the Argument Assessing the UA  Assessing the premises  Key premise: “if he corrupts a man he has to live with, it is very likely he will be harmed by him.”  Assessing the premises using an argument from example.  Historical examples for/against  Assessing the premises using an argument from analogy  Dog analogy  Assessing the reasoning  Do the premises support the conclusion?  Overall Assessment (premises & reasoning)

15. Writing the Argument Does the UA respond to the charge?  Original Charge: Socrates corrupts the youth.  Modified Charge: Socrates is an intentional corrupter of the youth.

16. Grading the Argument Excellent Argument Section (A) (41-45 points)  Clearly and concisely presents your position on the issue.  Presents effective and well-developed arguments.  Presents the argument section of the work as a coherent whole.  Clearly presents how the arguments impact on the overall issue.  Is extremely well organized. Good Argument Section (B) (36-40 points)  Does most of what an excellent argument does, but has some minor flaws.  Adequate Argument Section (C) (32-35 points)  States your position.  Presents basic arguments that are relevant.  Does not achieve the quality of a good argument section but does not have any major flaws. Adequate Argument Section (C) (32-35 points)  States your position.  Presents basic arguments that are relevant.  Does not achieve the quality of a good argument section but does not have any major flaws.

17. Grading the Argument Poor Argument Section (D) (27-31 points)  Does not clearly present your position.  Presents weak or poor arguments.  Contains some fallacies.  Is poorly organized.  Is incomplete.  Has some other major flaws or has numerous other minor flaws. Failing Argument Section (F) (0-26 points)  Contains very poor arguments.  Contains fallacies.  Is unclear.  Is poorly presented.  Is very poorly organized.  Is incomplete.  Has many other major flaws.

18. Writing the Conclusion 5 points 125 words or less. Content  Thesis  Summary Statement  Position Statement  Argument Statement  Final Relevant Remark

19. Checklist & Comment Sheet Checklist Comment Codes Grade +5