The following abbreviations will allow more numerous and detailed comments on your paper than time would permit otherwise. Furthermore, the time saved can be used to add more individualized remarks. All of the problems listed here affect your paper’s grade. In general, if an abbreviation includes a number, the higher the number, the more serious the defect within that group. This list of abbreviations is adapted (with minor additions) from one developed by Peter Horban of the SFU Philosophy Department, which was in turn modeled after one developed by Martin Hahn of the SFU Philosophy Department.
 
 

TRUTH: Truth is desirable in any paper. In a philosophy paper, though, the truth with regards to a particular topic is likely to be in dispute. That means that the position you wish to maintain must be well defended. It is necessary to marshal arguments on behalf of it, and to anticipate and respond to (argue against) objections that might reasonably be raised by a critic.

T1 This is not obviously true; you need to argue for it. 

T2 Your opponent would almost certainly deny this claim. You must argue for it here.

T3 This seems to be false; at any rate, most people would deny it.

T4 This is false as it stands. Either you have failed to say what you intended, or else you are misinformed.

ARGUMENTATION: The comments in this section pertain to how you have argued. In the first three of these cases, the conclusion you want does not follow from the premises you have presented. That is, it is logically possible that the conclusion be false, even if all of the premises you have presented are true.

Arg[check] Good argument.  You've clearly identified your premises, and the conclusion follows logically from them.

ArgX There is something wrong with this argument.  The conclusion does not follow from what you've said here.  There may only be a premise missing, or there may be a more fundamental problem.

Arg? It is not clear what your argument is here. 

BQ This argument begs the question, meaning that you have assumed what you are trying to prove.  Unless your reader already grants the conclusion, he or she will not likely accept the indicated premise(s).

NS This is a non-sequitor. You have stated that there is a logical implication between these ideas (either implicitly or explicity by using words like 'therefore' or 'since' or 'because'); however,  there is no such logical implication from one idea to the next. Either you have misstated what you intended to say, or there are one or more missing premises.

RELEVANCE: The problems here range from simple padding to a lack of understanding as to what is at issue in your paper.

RO Omit the indicated material. It does not advance the argument of your paper. Remember the goal is to trace a clear line of argument from your premises to the conclusion.

RR This is just repetition. You’ve already said this and it doesn’t bear repeating.

RV The indicated passage is verbose. Remember to be economic in your wording.

Rel? This may or may not be relevant to your thesis.  You should either show exactly how it furthers your argument or leave it out.

R1 This is not directly relevant to your thesis.  It may be realted to the general topic at hand, but it does not further your specific argument.

R2  You're getting way off topic here. 

EXAMPLES: Examples are often a very effective way of making your point, especially in papers on ethics. Examples are used primarily for two purposes: to illustrate a conceptual point or to support an argument. When used to support an argument, one is using the example to draw out a person's intuitions on a particular subject matter. Thus, an example is most effective if it appeals to an intuition that everybody shares, or at least that the intended target of the paper would share (so, for example, if you are writing for a North American audience, you can appeal to intuitions that all or most North Americans would share).

E[check]  Good example.  This nicely illustrates your point and/or helps to make your case.

EA This is not the best example to support your argument. It is not likely that most people would have converging intuitions on this.

EC You need to do more to explain just how this illustrates the conceptual point you are trying to make.

E? It's not clear what role this example is playing in your exposition.  You need to say more about what we are supposed to learn from it.

ED You have put too much detail into this example. One difference between narrative and philosophic writing is detail. In philosophic writing, you want to describe only those aspects of the case that are germane to the present argument (especially when there is limited space).

CITATIONS: This category deals with the way in which you have (or have not) cited an author. Inexperienced writers tend to quote too frequently and give credit too seldom. The tendency to quote at length likely indicates a failure to understand the material for yourself. Putting someone else’s argument into your own words, acknowledging where the argument came from, indicates that you understand it. 

C[check]  Good use of textual evidence.  You have selected a passage well-suited to your purposes, you interpret that passage, and you show how it helps your case, while still doing most of the substantive work in your own words.  (Note: if you see this accompanied by a negative comment, it means that you have chosen a good pasasge, but have the specific problem mentioned, such as not using your own words or not interpreting it).

CQ You are relying too heavily on quotation here, falling prey to "exposition through quotation."  Remember, most of the substantive explanatory and argumentative work should be done in your own words, while of course giving credit where credit is due for a specific line of reasoning.

CM A reference is missing. You must indicate where this passage comes from.

CO It is not clear how much of this is original to you. You must indicate precisely what you are attributing to another source. (What specific words, claims or arguments are you are using? And where can these be found?) Failure to do so can result in a charge of plagiarism.

C1 The author would likely deny this. Either you have not quoted the source accurately, or you have not understood the author's position.

C2 It's not clear how this passage helps your argument. You need to interpret the passage and explain exactly what role it plays in your argument. If you cannot do this - if the information contained in the passage is not necessary to proving your point - then you should leave it out.

MEANING and clarity: In a philosophy paper, clarity is essential. Whatever the characteristics of your individual style, there is no such thing as a piece of good philosophical writing that is muddled and unclear. Unclear writing is usually the product of unclear thinking. The abstract nature of your subject matter demands that you take great care to say exactly what you mean. A rough idea of what you have in mind simply will not do. I cannot read your mind. I cannot even ask what you mean. Your paper must stand on its own.

M[check] You have done a good job clearly explaining a difficult point/subject.

MA This expression is ambiguous. The wording is such that it can be taken to mean at least two different things (the two meanings may or may not be indicated). It must be reworded to eliminate the ambiguity.

MR The meaning is not clear because the reference (usually of a pronoun) is not clear. What are you referring to with the indicated term?

M? I can't determine what you're trying to say.  There may be a coherent thought in here, but you need to take greater care with how you express your point, otherwise the reader is left trying to guess at your meaning.

M1 I think I know what you are trying to say here, but it isn’t very clear.

M2 I think I know what your are trying to say here, but what you actually say is quite different (perhaps even false or incoherent).

M3 Insofar as I can make sense of this, there is a serious problem (e.g. the claim is false, contradictory to what you've said elsewhere, irrelevant).  Perhaps you've just badly misstated what you're trying to say. 

M4 This is mere mush and slop—not the stuff of clear thought or expression. No philosophy paper containing passages like this merits a passing grade.

LANGUAGE: This section is closely related to the previous one on meaning and clarity. The correct use of English is essential for getting your meaning across. The English language is the medium for expressing your thoughts in this course. That requires more than simply using the right words. They must be combined in accordance with established rules of grammar and punctuation. The comments in this section typically deal with more specific units (individual words, sentences, technical terms, etc.,) than do those in the section on meaning.

WC This is not the best choice of words here. An alternative may be given.

WM This word is clearly misused here. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.

WE This is not an English word.

RQ Do not use rhetorical questions.  Rhetorical questions are questions that either (a) you don't intend to answer or (b) have an obvious answer, for example: 'Do we really want to say that it is permissible to torture small children for fun?'). Rhetorical questions do not serve any argumentative function. Rather than ask questions, you should make statements.

GQ I realise you mean this as a genuine question, but it is better to put it in the form of a statement, for example: 'The question is whether Homer intended to cause harm to Bart or whether his actions were  merely accidental'.

AWK  The indicated sentence/section is awkward and should be reworded.  This is not simply a point about grammar; rather, the wording makes it is difficult to grasp the point your are trying to make.

SL This sentence is too long. Its meaning would be clearer if it were broken down into smaller units.

GR1 There is a serious grammatical flaw here; this is not an English sentence. Check to see whether it expresses a complete thought when considered in isolation. Perhaps it needs to be written as two sentences.  Perhaps it is missing a subject or a predicate.  It may be a run-on or a comma-splice.

GR2 This contains a grammatical error.  Check for such things as agreement in number (singular or plural) between subject and verb, and between pronoun and antecedent. Is it clear what the subject of the sentence is and what the predicate is? Grammatical errors may be dealt with in greater detail if time permits, and recurring mistakes will likely be noted and corrected at least once.

TT? You are using a technical term here without indicating clearly what it means.

TTX You have misused this technical term. In the context at hand, the term has a clearly defined technical sense; but you are not using it that way.

SP This word is spelled incorrectly. For the most part I will leave it to you to look up the correct spelling. Recurring mistakes will likely be noted in the first instance only.

SQ Why the scare quotes? Scare quotes function to indicate that you are using a term in a non-standard way.  Their legitimate uses are quite rare. 

IL The indicated passage constitutes inappropriate language or tone for a scholarly paper. Certain minimum standards of formality ought to be maintained, and the overall tone should be one of simple dignity.

Transition sentences bring out the logical relation between ideas. You want your paper to read like a continuous argument. Good transitions help facilitate this, so it is a good idea to link paragraphs and ideas with transition sentences. Words like 'however', 'so', 'additionally' do indicate a logical relation between paragraphs, but they are weak. A strong transition makes the relation clear.

T[check] Good transition sentence.

T? It's not exactly clear how these ideas are related.  The exposition could be improved through the use of a transition sentence.

TW It's good that you have a transition here; however, this particular one is rather weak (see below).
 

No transition: In some cultures sympathy plays a role in moral decision-making.

Weak transition: However, conflicts between principle and emotion more often occur when there is a conflict between the moral values of different cultures.

Strong transition: While conflict between morality and sympathy can occur in the context of a single cultural code, it more often arises in cross-cultural conflicts.

You also want to avoid using pronouns like 'this' to refer to an entire idea.

Weak transition: Even if this is wrong, relativism does not necessarily promote human well-being and justice.

Strong transition: Even if a society is able to collectively define its culture and establish its own moral code, relativism does not necessarily promote human well-being and justice.

Return/transfer to Writing a Philosophy Paper.
Return/transfer to the Philosophy 120 home page. 

Top of Page