Midterm Study Guide Rubric

Study Questions

1. In the Apology, Socrates has several charges brought against him. These include atheism, impiety, and corrupting the youth. Explain one of these charges, and what it turns out to be under Socrates’ cross-examination. Finally, there is an overarching narrative to this particular story. Explain how Socrates’ response fits into that overarching narrative.
2. There are three speeches made in the Phaedrus. Explain the differences between these. Look especially at the differences between the first and second speeches given by Socrates. Finally, describe the value of the third speech (Socrates 2) as opposed to the first (Phaedrus/Lysius) and second (Socrates 1).
3. Give a definition for the following keeping in mind the differences between them: statement, proposition, sentence.
4. What is a material conditional?
5. What is compatibilism? Determinism? The principle of alternate possibilities?
6. What is the argument from design? What is one possible response to the argument from design?
7. What is evidentialism, reliabilism? What contribution to these debates did Alvin Plantinga make?
8. What is a theodicy? How is it different from a defense? What is the Irenaean theodicy? How is the Iraenan theodicy a response to the problem of evil?
9. Aristotle writes about friendship. What are the three types of friendships? Which type is the best? Compare the three types of friendships to types of governments. What is the best kind of government and why?
10. Give an argument for cultural relativism. What is the diversity thesis, what is the relativity thesis? What is the epistemological account of ethical disagreement? What is one response to this argument?
11. What is the greatest happiness principle? What is the difference between Bentham’s greatest happiness principle and Mill’s? In other words, how does Mill’s utilitarianism improve the greatest happiness principle?
12. What is the ethics of care? What kind of philosophical theory is it? How is it different from utilitarianism? Give a thought experiment that would best show the difference between utilitarianism and the ethics of care.

Grading Rubric¹

Your paper must offer an argument. It can’t consist in the mere report of your opinions, nor in a mere report of the opinions of the philosophers we discuss. You have to defend the claims you make. You have to offer reasons to believe them.

So you can’t just say:

"My view is that P." 

You must say something like:

"My view is that P. I believe this because..." 

or:

"I find that the following considerations...provide a convincing argument for P." 

Similarly, don’t just say:

"Descartes says that Q." 

Instead, say something like:

"Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought-experiment 
will show that Q is not true..." 

or:

"Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, 
for the following reasons..." 

The following is a grading rubric. A good rule of thumb is to check your answers and see if it meets each of the requirements listed. This includes Critical Acumen, Clarity of Statement, Consistency, Organization, Sensitivity, and Accuracy. What this means is that I will only be grading your tests according to these metrics.

For instance, under clarity of statement, for your answer to receive full marks here, Excellent 4, you need to have a clear statement expressing the main conclusion of your answer. Ask yourself if the main conclusion is clear. You can read it allowed if that helps, or mentally tag what you think the conclusion of your paper is. If you are only concerned with receiving a Good 3, then ask yourself if your thesis is obvious but not clear.

For organization, an excellent answer will be one wherein All sentences are complete and grammatical. All words are chosen for their precise meanings. All new or unusual terms are well-defined. Key concepts and theories are accurately and completely explained. Good, clear examples are used to illuminate concepts and issues. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread, and has no errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang. Once again, you can make a mental checklist:

• sentences are complete and grammatical
• all words are chosen for their precise meanings
• all new or unusual terms are well defined

etc.

Rubric 1	…2	…3	…4	…5	…6
	Excellent 4	Good 3	Needs Work 2	Unacceptable 1	Score
Critical Acumen/Creativity	Thesis is original, interesting, and relevant.	The thesis is interesting and relevant.	The thesis is slightly off-topic, obviously true (or false), or not really worth writing about.	The thesis is totally irrelevant.	4
Clarity of Statement	A clear statement of the main conclusion of the paper.	The thesis is obvious, but there is no single clear statement of it.	The thesis is present, but must be uncovered or reconstructed from the text of the paper.	There is no thesis.	2
Consistency	The paper successfully integrates all relevant parts from various places into a coherent whole. The connections between the parts are clear and insightful.	The paper integrates most relevant parts from various places into a mostly coherent whole. The connections between the parts are generally clear.	The paper integrates some parts from various places into a somewhat coherent whole. The connections between the parts are somewhat unclear.	The parts to be integrated are not clear and/or relevant. The connections between the parts are unclear.	2
Organization	All sentences are complete and grammatical. All words are chosen for their precise meanings. All new or unusual terms are well-defined. Key concepts and theories are accurately and completely explained. Good, clear examples are used to illuminate concepts and issues. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread, and has no errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang.	All sentences are complete and grammatical. Most words are chosen for their precise meanings. Most new or unusual terms are well-defined. Key concepts and theories are explained. Examples are clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread, and has very few errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang.	A few sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Words are not chosen for their precise meanings. New or unusual terms are not well-defined. Key concepts and theories are not explained. Examples are not clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is mostly accurate. Paper has several spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of slang.	Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. The author does not acknowledge that key words have precise meanings. Information (names, facts, etc.) is inaccurate. Paper has many spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of slang.	4
Sensitivity	The paper evaluates the position in question by checking for support in an argument and internal consistency, and by exploring unmentioned plausible alternatives.	The paper evaluates the position in question by checking for support in an argument and internal consistency.	The paper evaluates the position in question by considering its plausibility.	The paper evaluates the position in question by whether the author agrees or disagrees with it.	3
Accuracy	The paper successfully breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts. The connections between the parts are clear and highly accurate.	The paper successfully breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts. The connections between the parts are fairly accurate.	The paper breaks the argument, issue, or problem into parts, but some parts may be missing or unclear. The connections between the parts are somewhat accurate.	The parts identified are not the correct and/or relevant ones. The connections between the parts are completely inaccurate.	3
				Total Out of 24 Possible	75