Phi 102 Final Project In your final project, you’re going to write a paper that is at most 3 pages long, single spaced. In this paper, you will write an evaluative critique of a piece of reasoning. That means you’ll read a passage that contains some reasoning and then you’ll write an argumentative response to that passage. You’re playing the neutral referee here, analyzing the reasoning in a real-life example of argumentation. Keep the paper fairly bare bones: don’t do anything outside of the enumerated steps below. I don’t care what format the paper is in—I just want a clean, precise evaluative critique that is well-written. Don’t forget to proof read! Read this entire sheet: There are tips to get your diagram started First, choose one of the following passages: 1. Passages • Passage 1 (13A(b)). If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstrably certain, then these premises [from which it follows] must be certain. . . (1). But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable (2). It is only “a priori” propositions [propositions like “all bachelors are unmarried males,” which are true in virtue of the meanings of the terms involved in the sentence] that are logically certain (3). But we cannot deduce the existence of god from an “a priori” proposition (4). For we know that the reason why “a priori” propositions are certain is that they are tautologies [statements that are necessarily true] (5). And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further tautology can be validly deduced (6). It follows that there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of god (7). • Passage 2 (13A(d)). ¶1 I’m a Catholic and I believe that any marriage is worth saving (1). But I’m also pragmatic and I have even recommended a couple of friends go ahead with their decision to divorce their partners (2). This is because I believe divorce is not always bad (3). ¶2 Worst case scenario for a divorce is spousal abuse (4). Sure, the couple can go to see a counsellor on that matter (5). In many cases, however, it is probably safer for the abused spouse to just leave (6). Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing (7). It might even save one’s life (8). ¶3 Then there is the irreparable di↵erence, unresolved by marriage counseling (9). When the couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand each other anymore perhaps to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings, divorce seems to be the best strategy (10). ¶4 What about children (11)? That’s the hardest factor in deciding to divorce (12). Children do thrive better when their parents are together (13). I remain, however, a little bit 1 skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-term emotional and social e↵ects on children when their parents can’t stand each other anymore (14). Isn’t it the children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy individuals unrestrained by their marital statuses (15)? And don’t children th.

1. Phi 102
Final Project
In your final project, you’re going to write a paper that is at
most 3 pages long, single spaced.
In this paper, you will write an evaluative critique of a piece of
reasoning. That means you’ll
read a passage that contains some reasoning and then you’ll
write an argumentative response
to that passage. You’re playing the neutral referee here,
analyzing the reasoning in a real-life
example of argumentation. Keep the paper fairly bare bones:
don’t do anything outside of the
enumerated steps below. I don’t care what format the paper is
in—I just want a clean, precise
evaluative critique that is well-written. Don’t forget to proof
read!
Read this entire sheet: There are tips to get your diagram started
First, choose one of the following passages:
1. Passages
• Passage 1 (13A(b)).
If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstrably certain,
then these premises [from
which it follows] must be certain. . . (1). But we know that no
empirical proposition can
ever be anything more than probable (2). It is only “a priori”
propositions [propositions

2. like “all bachelors are unmarried males,” which are true in
virtue of the meanings of the
terms involved in the sentence] that are logically certain (3).
But we cannot deduce the
existence of god from an “a priori” proposition (4). For we
know that the reason why “a
priori” propositions are certain is that they are tautologies
[statements that are necessarily
true] (5). And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further
tautology can be validly
deduced (6). It follows that there is no possibility of
demonstrating the existence of god
(7).
• Passage 2 (13A(d)).
¶1
I’m a Catholic and I believe that any marriage is worth saving
(1). But I’m also pragmatic
and I have even recommended a couple of friends go ahead with
their decision to divorce
their partners (2). This is because I believe divorce is not
always bad (3).
¶2
Worst case scenario for a divorce is spousal abuse (4). Sure, the
couple can go to see a
counsellor on that matter (5). In many cases, however, it is
probably safer for the abused
spouse to just leave (6). Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing
(7). It might even save one’s
life (8).
¶3
Then there is the irreparable di↵ erence, unresolved by marriage
counseling (9). When the

3. couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand
each other anymore perhaps
to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings,
divorce seems to be the best
strategy (10).
¶4
What about children (11)? That’s the hardest factor in deciding
to divorce (12). Children
do thrive better when their parents are together (13). I remain,
however, a little bit
1
skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-
term emotional and social
e↵ ects on children when their parents can’t stand each other
anymore (14). Isn’t it the
children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy
individuals unrestrained by
their marital statuses (15)? And don’t children thrive well when
their parents are happy
even when separated (16)?
¶5
In sum, no, divorce is not always bad (17). There are
circumstances where the benefits of
divorce exceed its cost (18). This is, however, not an excuse to
make divorce as the feasible
exit strategy when things go awry in a marriage (19). There are
ways to resolve dilemmas
or problems in any marriage (20). It only takes courage,
patience, and perseverance, and
the desire to save the marriage (21).

4. • Passage 3 (13A(f)).
Look around today and you can see for yourself that most of the
organisms you come across
are not making it into the fossil record (1). It takes a rather
special combination of physical
factors—usually those of swamps or estuaries where remains
can be buried in sediment, be
compacted and, if lucky, remain undisturbed for millions of
years—for the bones or imprints
of an organism to achieve a measure of immortality in stone (2).
To then become part of the
scientific body of evidence, they have to erode in such a way as
not to be destroyed and then
found by someone who recognizes their importance (3).
Furthermore, from what we know
of evolutionary mechanisms, speciation events are likely to
occur in isolated populations
(4), and competition will quickly eliminate the less fit of
closely similar forms (5). Both
processes make it even more unlikely that there will be a
smooth, continuous fossil record
of intermediaries (6). Thus, it is not at all surprising that there
are “missing links” in the
fossil record (7), and this is not good evidence against
evolutionary transmutation (8).
2. Evaluative Critique Steps
These are the steps to writing a evaluative response.
Step 1: Write an overview of the main argument and any sub-
arguments supporting it.
• Try to summarize the arguer’s point succinctly.

5. Step 2: Diagram the macro-structure and micro-structure of the
argument. I’ve numbered
all the sentences in the passages (some are grammatically one
sentence, but I’ve put two
numbers in there because there are two independent thoughts).
Some sentences will not
be part of the argument proper, in which case you can leave
them out. Diagramming will
require you to use some kind of shape function in whatever
word processor you’re using. If
your word processor doesn’t have a shape function, Google
Docs has a free one. You can
either put the diagrams directly in your paper or give them
names (like “figure 1”) and put
them in the back and refer to them in your prose.
• First, diagram the main argument (i.e., the argument without
any sub arguments).
• Then, diagram any sub-arguments.
Step 3: Assess the language of the argument. Don’t consider
noise.
• Note whether any important argumentative terms are vague,
ambiguous, or loaded.
2
• Do any important terms in the argument need definition? Some
of the language in
the above selections is specialized. If you don’t know a term,
look it up in a reputable
source. As a UNLV student, you have access to numerous such

6. sources through the
library (just the online Oxford English Dictionary will get you
pretty far, which you
can find through the library’s website).
Step 4: Assess the argument’s reasoning. This is the biggest
step. You only consider the
premises, conclusions, and inferences from your diagram here—
don’t consider
the noise of the passage.
• Are the premises are acceptable? See the handouts from
module 2, especially handout
8, and refresh yourself by watching the lectures for those days.
If the argument fits
one of our schemes, then also apply the critical questions for
that scheme. You maybe
be faced with multiple schemes.
– This means that you’ll be testing every part of your diagram
that does not have
an arrow going to it for acceptability.
• Are the premises relevant to their conclusions, and su�cient
to prove the main con-
clusion? Again, see the handouts from module 2.
– This means that you’ll be testing each arrow for both
relevance and su�ciency.
• Are any fallacies are present?
Step 5: Weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the given
argument.
• You should refer to step 4 to help with this assessment. What

7. are the major weaknesses
of the argument? What, if anything, could be done to strengthen
the argument?
Be sure to not have one giant blob of text with the steps mixed
together. Start a new
paragraph (at least) for every step and give the reader (me)
signposts for what you’re
doing (e.g., “Now that we’re done assessing the language of the
argument, we’ll move
on to assessing the argument’s reasoning.”).
Scroll to next page
3
3. How to get started
In the past, what you see above, in addition to the examples,
were all the student had to do the
project. I’ve come to the conclusion that this makes the project
a little too di�cult, especially
getting the diagram correct. And if you get the diagram wrong,
the consequences a↵ ect the other
steps. Because of this, I’ve provided information to help you
with the diagram. Below you’ll find
a skeleton diagram along with a list of sentences that you
should use to fill out the diagram. That
means your diagram should look just like the diagram below for
whatever passage you choose except
that you fill in the question marks with numbers that I’ve listed.
How to get started with passage 1. The key to this passage is
that there’s a hidden premise.

8. Here’s the big-picture idea of the passage.
Basically, the author is giving an argument of the form: If A is
true then B must be true. But B
is false. Therefore, A must be false. That is, he is basically
saying: If you were to demonstrate
with certainty that God exists, then the premises of your
argument would have to be known with
certainty. That’s basically sentence (1). But no premises of an
argument for the existence of
God can be known with certainty. Therefore, you can’t
demonstrate the existence of God with
certainty.
The tricky part is is that the author doesn’t explicitly say the “B
is false part”—that is, he
doesn’t explicitly say “But no premises of an argument for the
existence of God can be known with
certainty.” Call this claim Hidden Claim. And then, all of the
rest of the premises support Hidden
Claim.
What this means is that next to (1) you need a hidden premise
that says that “no premises of an
argument for the existence of God can be known with
certainty.” Name it (8).
So the bottom of the diagram will look like this:
Now why is 8 true? I.e., why is it not the case that the premises
for an argument for the existence
of god would not be known with certainty? Well, if it were an
empirical proposition, it wouldn’t be
known with certainty. And the only kind of statements we can
know with certainty are “a priori”
statements, but from those the existence of God can’t be

9. deduced. So the final product should look
like this:
4
Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 2, 3,
4, 5, 6. The rest of the
sentences in the passage are noise
How to get started with passage 2. The idea of the passage is
that divorce is sometimes
justified because there are situations in which the costs of
marriage outweigh the benefits. And
there are three concrete kinds of situations in which that
happens: abuse, di↵ erences that can’t be
reconciled, and some stu↵ having to do with kids. The kids part
then involves a sub argument.
You want something in the end like this:
The main work is figuring out the middle three ?s. There are
three main situations in which the
benefits of divorce outweigh the costs, according to the author.
And then one of those situations
has its own sub-argument.
Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 6, 10,
14, 15, 16. The rest
of the sentences in the passage are noise
5

10. How to get started with passage 3. Look at the last three
sentences of the passage. (7)
starts with a conclusion indicator, and (8) seems to follow from
(7). So the bottom will look like
this:
There are two convergent premise pairs that support 6. 6 says
“Both processes make it even more
unlikely that there will be a smooth, continuous fossil record of
intermediaries.” So we should
expect two premise sets to support 6, each referring to a
di↵ erent process. So things should look
like this:
Use the following sentences to fill in the question marks: 2, 3,
4, 5. The rest of the
sentences in the passage are noise
6