24.231, Ethics, Spring 2008

Revising your Second Paper

Stage 1: Comment on another student's paper. You had some practice doing this sort of thing in class a few weeks ago. When we talked about that sample paper there were, broadly speaking, two sorts of ways in which the paper could have been improved. There were stylistic/organizational problems: the paper was unclear in places, the paper lacked a proper introduction. There were also substantive problems: there were replies to the author's objections that he should have considered; he misrepresented Velleman's view. You are to write no more than half a page on the other paper, commenting on what you think is the *one* most important *substantive* way the paper could be improved. For example, you could suggest that the author consider an objection to his argument that does not get mentioned in his paper. Or you could note that she has misrepresented (say) Parfit's theory (and then explain the correct interpretation of Parfit's theory). Do this in a constructive, not a critical, spirit. You task is to help the other student improve his or her paper, not just tell him or her in a negative tone what you think is wrong with the paper.

Stage 2: Revise your paper in light of the comments you received. If, for some reason, you disagree with a recommendation made by a commentor (either student or instructor), and do not want to make a change in your paper in light of it, then you must write on a seperate piece of paper an explanation why. (I expect this to be rare. It is a good idea to see an instructor if you want to do this for one of the comments.)

Grading Criteria for your revision. There are three factors:

1. The quality of your revised paper.

2. How well you improved your paper, including how well you responded to comments by instructors and other students.

3. The quality of your comments on the other student's paper.