🍐 我们总结了美国代写中—— Philosophy代写的经典案例，如果你有任何Essay代写的需要，可以随时联络我们。CoursePear™ From @2009。
这些提示旨在继续发展我们在过去几周的课堂上所学的几项技能–即仔细阅读原始资料、重建论点、将论点与外部实例联系起来，以及评估作者立场的优势和劣势。在谈及提示本身之前，这里有一些适用于这两个提示的一般性说明。
1）一定要回答所有的问题。在一篇文章中，最容易丢分的方法之一是跳过提示中的一个部分。如果提示提出了几个相关的问题，请确保你对每个问题都做出了回答。
2）你不需要使用外部来源，但如果你使用，请注明来源。不引用外部来源，即使是偶然的，也是剽窃行为。虽然这些提示是为了让你能够在不参考外部材料的情况下回答问题，但你绝不会因为引用了你所参考的作品而失分。
3）引用我们的文本可以在括号里给出。如果你引用的是柏拉图的某篇对话录，请随意列出文本的标题和行号作为括号。例如，（Symposium, 172b3-5）。如果你使用的是外部来源，请按照芝加哥风格在脚注中给出参考文献（你可以在owl.purdue.edu找到芝加哥风格的完整指南）。除了这些脚注之外，你不需要一个书目。
4）请不要把你的名字写在论文的任何地方。这将使我能够对你的论文进行匿名评分。我对没有匿名的论文扣1分。
5）论文应该至少有750字（大约3个双倍行距的页面）。我没有一个最高限度，但根据经验，超过1200字（大约5页双倍行距）的论文可能太长。
提示1
从研讨会上选择一对演讲，其中一位演讲者直接挑战另一位演讲者的一个或多个主张。可供选择的几对演讲包括Phaedrus/Pausanias、Pausanias/Eryximachus、Pausanius/Agathon、Agathon/Socrates以及Aristophanes/Socrates。你的论文陈述应该回答以下问题：哪个演讲者对爱的叙述更有说服力，为什么？为了回答这个问题，你的论文应包括以下内容。
1）对第一个说话者的观点进行重建。一个好的重构将尽可能准确地说明说话者观点的主要论点，并通过有关观点的各个子点进行阐述。同样，一个好的重构将包括文本证据，并且在适当的时候，可以借鉴演讲者本人提供的例子和/或使用外部例子来阐明有关的观点。这一部分可能需要1-2段。
2）接下来，论文将描述第二位发言者对第一位发言者的观点的反对意见。如果你找不到具体的反对意见，你很可能选择了一对不符合提示标准的发言者。这一部分应该用几句话到一整段，取决于你选择的是哪一对。
3) 然后，本文将按照上文所述的关于第一位发言者的准则，对第二位发言者的观点进行重建。这一部分也应占1-2段。
4）最后，论文将对哪种观点更有说服力作出评价。一个好的评价将提供具体的理由，说明为什么我们应该接受论文的论点，而不是仅仅依靠个人的品味/观点（关于这一点，见我的讲座）。欢迎你在这里发挥创意。也许你觉得这两种观点都没有说服力，或者你想论证一种观点更有说服力，但仍有缺陷。
These prompts are designed to continue developing several skills that we have worked on over the last several weeks of class—namely, giving close readings of primary source materials, reconstructing arguments, relating arguments to external examples, and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of an author’s position. Before getting to the prompts themselves, here are a few general notes that apply to both prompts:
1) Be sure to answer all of the questions. One of the easiest ways to lose points on an essay is to skip over one of the components of the prompt. If the prompt asks several related questions, be sure that you have responded to each one.
2) You do not need to use outside sources, but if you do, please cite them. Failing to cite outside sources, even accidentally, is plagiarism. While the prompts are designed for you to be able to answer the questions without consulting outside materials, you will never lose points for citing work you have consulted.
3) Citations from our texts can be given in parentheses. If you are citing from one of Plato’s dialogues, feel free to simply list the title of the text followed by the line number as a parenthetical. For example, (Symposium, 172b3-5). If you are using an outside source, please give a reference in a footnote following Chicago style (you can find a full guide to Chicago style at owl.purdue.edu). You do not need a bibliography in addition to these footnotes.
4) Please do not put your name anywhere on the paper. This will allow me to grade your papers anonymously. I deduct 1 point from papers that are not anonymized.
5) Papers should be a minimum of 750 words (roughly 3 double-spaced pages). I do not have a maximum, but as a rule of thumb, papers that go over 1200 words (roughly 5 pages double-spaced) are probably too long.
Prompt 1
Choose a pair of speeches from the Symposium in which one speaker is directly challenging one or more claims made by the other speaker. A few pairs that would work include Phaedrus/Pausanias, Pausanias/Eryximachus, Pausanius/Agathon, Agathon/Socrates, and Aristophanes/Socrates. Your thesis statement should respond to the following question: which speaker’s account of love is more convincing, and why? In order to respond to this question, your paper should include the following components:
1) A reconstruction of the first speaker’s view. A good reconstruction will state as precisely as possible the main thesis of the speaker’s view and will work through various subpoints of the view in question. Likewise, a good reconstruction will include textual evidence, and when appropriate, may draw on examples given by the speaker himself/herself and/or will use external examples to illuminate the view in question. This section will probably take 1-2 paragraphs.
2) Next, the paper will describe the second speaker’s objections to the first speaker’s view. If you cannot find a specific objection, you have likely chosen a pair of speakers who do not fit the criteria of the prompt. This section should take a few sentences to one full paragraph depending on which pair you have chosen.
3) The paper will then give a reconstruction of the second speaker’s view following the guidelines outlined above regarding the first speaker. This section should also take 1-2 paragraphs.
4) Finally, the paper will make an evaluative claim regarding which of the views is more compelling. A good evaluation will provide specific reasons as to why we should accept the thesis of the paper which do not merely rely on personal taste/opinion (see my lecture for more on this). You are welcome to be creative here. Perhaps you find neither view compelling, or perhaps you want to argue that one is more compelling but still has flaws.
CoursePear™是一家服务全球留学生的专业代写。
—-我们专注提供高质靠谱的美国、加拿大、英国、澳洲、新西兰代写服务。
—-我们专注提供Essay、统计、金融、CS、经济、数学等覆盖100+专业的作业代写服务。
CoursePear™提供各类学术服务，Essay代写，Assignment代写，Exam / Quiz助攻，Dissertation / Thesis代写，Problem Set代做等。