Fall Analytic Essay InstructionsFall Analytic Essay (40%)
Due: in last tutorial of fall semester.Length: about 3000 words.
Topic:
To whom are corporate managers morally responsible and in what respects?
Is their social responsibility to maximize returns to investors? Why/why not? Under what circumstances and subject to what conditions?
This is an analytic paper rather than a research paper: there is no need to consult materials outside of the assigned readings. You do need to discuss and refer to the relevant readings on the stakeholder-stockholder debate (i.e., materials for weeks 2-9). To do well you will need to be able to explain, in detail and in your own words, the logic of the arguments in the readings. You will need to explain how the arguments of the different readings relate and respond to one another as part of an on-going debate. The more readings you
effectivelyincorporate in your analysis the better, BUT discussing many readings superficially just for the sake of increasing the number of articles you mention will tend to reduce rather than enhance your grade.
Two key points:
First, this paper should focus on
normativeanalysis. A descriptive or positive account of how business works or what the law is will not meet the terms of the assignment. Facts will be relevant to your normative argument, but need to be connected to your thesis by normative warrants or premises. For example, that a company was established by its founders for the sole purpose of making money is not, in itself, a reason why it
oughtsolely to seek that goal.
Second, you need to make an
argument. That means you need to defend a definite thesis. The thesis may be qualified and nuanced, but it should be clear what view you are for and why it is preferable to rival views. To make an effective argument you have to understand the relevant arguments for and against your thesis in the readings. Summarizing the readings is not the same thing as addressing (entering a dialogue with) their arguments, and expressing an opinion is not the same as arguing for a thesis. A paper that merely summarizes the readings, however accurately, with or without the interjection of personal opinions, will not get a high grade. Nor is a list of “pros and cons” an argument.
The substantive grading criteria are: depth and accuracy of comprehension; interest and cogency of critical analysis. Papers should be well organized and clearly written in proper academic style. For tips on writing analytic papers, and for a fuller sense of what I’m looking for, see: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Grading Criteria
“A” Paper:
* Demonstrates clear, comprehensive grasp of the concepts and arguments in the material under discussion, including where relevant their relation to concepts and arguments in other course materials.
* Exposition focuses effectively on particular points for analysis, explained in the context of the argument as a whole and their relation to the broader debate.
*Analysis characterized by insightful, original and cogent critical engagement with arguments in the materials, in context of concepts and arguments from other course materials.
*Fluent, polished writing. Sentences are clear, accurate, uncluttered, economically organized, and precisely worded. Sentences are logically ordered and linked, so that the writing flows.
“B” Paper:
*Demonstrates solid understanding of the concepts and arguments in the materials under discussion, but may miss some subtleties
*Good exposition of main point(s) and key elements and structure of the argument in the materials under discussion.
*Analysis goes beyond exposition, to critical engagement with the arguments in the materials under discussion.
*Competently written. A few vague or awkward passages and/or minor grammatical or wording errors.
|
“C” Paper:
*Demonstrates some comprehension of the general positions or ideas in the readings under discussion, but hazy on arguments or reasoning.
*Point-by-point summary of material under discussion; no attention to the structured relationship among points, their relative importance (main vs. subordinate/supporting points), or their different roles in the argument (evidence, objection, response to objection, etc.).
*Underdeveloped analysis: mainly description of reading plus opinions regarding the general topic of reading, but doesn’t engage with the complex specifics of the arguments in the materials under discussion.
*Writing serviceable but awkward, rough or careless. Some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors; frequent diction/word choice and sentence construction problems.
Uses vague or unnecessarily wordy round-about expressions.
“D” Paper:
*Confused about main points.
*Exposition haphazard, confusing, points taken out of context.
*No analysis, only description/ summary of the materials.
* Writing style so rough as frequently to obscure sense. Many grammatical errors.
“F” Paper:
* Does not address the assignment.
* If there is evidence of plagiarism, the university policy will be invoked.
|
Please star this essay with proper question of the argument, and you plan to support the argument and that question (introduction is very important).