DR ALEX CARTER - PRE-UNIVERSITY PROGRAMME, ICE

ESSAY WRITING:
STRUCTURE
& ARGUMENT
THIS SESSION
In this talk, I will cover some of the key aspects of
essay writing.
I give this advice as part of my role as study skills You can find more advice on
bye-fellow at Fitzwilliam College, and as my role my website:
as Academic Director of Philosophy and www.adcphilosophy.com
Including some YouTube
Interdisciplinary Studies at ICE. videos
I am a philosopher by background, but everything
we discuss will be relevant to academic writing in I hope you have also had a
the arts, humanities or social sciences. chance to watch my lecture
on Wittgenstein and the film,
I will focus on essay structure, developing an Arrival.
argument and on maintaining your critical voice.
I hope to have time at the end for questions.
STRUCTURING AN ESSAY I WILL ARGUE...
Avoid suspense… ensure your position/argument
is obvious to the reader form the start.
It also helps you (and the reader) if the structure
is visible, i.e. explicit. FIRSTLY...
- Signpost your argument, e.g. “To make
arriving at an answer easier…” or “The next
thing I need to demonstrate…”, etc.
Keep the argument front and centre by
signposting it throughout
SECONDLY...
- “This data provides the strongest evidence in

I HAVE ARGUED...
favour of my general claim that…”
Don’t use the conclusion to point to “further
questions”.
CRAFTING AN INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of the introduction is to lay out your aim(s) and
methodology.
Avoid falling into a narrative (e.g. “Smith says this, then he says that”) by
making your case from the outset.
Don’t be reluctant to say “I will argue…” (arts) or “We will demonstrate”
(science).
Use the introduction to tailor the question, e.g. “I will interpret S as
defending x by arguing that P.”
- This might involve de ning terms, but avoid dictionary de nitions if at all
possible. It is preferable to borrow terminology from your source(s)
For this reason, it can often help to leave the introduction until last; you may
only know what you will say after you’ve written it!
fi
fi
CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT
This is easier than you might think.
Using active, critical and evaluative language
encourages you to adopt an argumentative style, e.g.
“I will argue that the preferable interpretation is…”.
If you have crafted the introduction well, then you
should be able to refer back to the main argument
at key points.
Be bold: both when making claims and in defending
them.
Make sure everything you say speaks to your
argument and be sure to explain the relevance of
each point.
Otherwise, “kill your darlings”.
 The ‘principle of charity’ provides
at least one way of being both
receptive and critical at the same
time.
In simple terms, academic charity
involves approaching another’s
work with an enforced optimism;
whilst viewing one’s own work
pessimistically.
This prevents us from creating a
“straw man”, and prevents our
readers from thinking of easy
responses to our criticisms.
Crucially, this is not done out of
compassion.
It means showing that, even
viewed in the best light, our

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY
opponent’s views are mistaken.
 QUOTABLE NOTABLES
The fastest way to lose your critical voice is to
rely on others to speak for you.
Therefore, use lengthy “block” quotes rarely.
When you do, make sure you introduce or
unpack the quote in such a way that its
relevance is made explicit.
- Don’t rely on the reader to make the
connection.
- And don’t rely on “fuzzy-thinking”, i.e. mere
suggestion.
Another way to make the relevance explicit is
to use the same terminology as the authors
you are quoting.
PARAPHRASING
ONE WAY TO MAINTAIN YOUR
CRITICAL VOICE, WHILST QUOTING
EXTENSIVELY, IS TO PARAPHRASE
INSTEAD OF USING BLOCK
QUOTES.
THE TRICK IS TO USE THE ANALYSIS
TO INTRODUCE EACH PHRASE
CRITICALLY, E.G. “SMITH (2008)
RIGHTLY NOTES THAT ‘...’ AND
GOES FURTHER BY OFFERING
SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT ‘…’"
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS OPENING
PARAGRAPH?
HOW MIGHT YOU IMPROVE IT?
CONSCIOUSNESS IS A PERVASIVE IDEA, WE
ALL HAVE IT AND WE ALL FEEL WE CAN
EXAMINE IT, BUT WHAT IS IT? THE
PARTICULAR ISSUES HAVE BEEN WITH THE
APPARENT SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF
CONSCIOUSNESS. OUR CONSCIOUS
EXPERIENCE HAPPENS TO US AND US ALONE,
NOBODY ELSE CAN KNOW WHAT IT IS FOR US
TO THINK AND FEEL THROUGH THE MIASMA
OF OUR SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW, OUR OWN
CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNIQUE TO US.
IS THIS ANY BETTER?
I WILL ARGUE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT
BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY SUBJECTIVE FACTS.
THAT IS, THE APPARENT SUBJECTIVE NATURE
OF CONSCIOUSNESS—THE FACT THAT OUR
CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE HAPPENS TO US AND
US ALONE—IS NOT THE DEFINING
CHARACTERISTIC OF CONSCIOUSNESS. BY
RECOGNISING THIS, I WILL SHOW THAT WE CAN
OBVIATE THE MORE CHALLENGING ASPECTS OF
A THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
 WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE
FOLLOWING? HOW MIGHT YOU
CHANGE IT?
THE INTUITIVE NATURE OF JACKSON’S ARGUMENT
TO THE SUBJECTIVE IS PART OF THE REASON WHY
IT SEEMS SUCH A STRONG ARGUMENT. DOESN’T
EXPERIENCING EQUATE TO KNOWING SOMETHING?
I CONTEND NOT. LET US LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE
ARGUMENT AND SEE IF A CHALLENGE CAN BE
RAISED AGAINST ITS INTUITIVE NATURE.
IN THE SAME ARTICLE JACKSON MAKES THE CLAIM
‘IT SEEMS JUST OBVIOUS THAT SHE WILL LEARN
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD AND OUR VISUAL
EXPERIENCE OF IT.’ (JACKSON 1982: 128) I WOULD
COUNTER THAT THIS IS NOT A RELIABLE
STATEMENT. IT IS NOT OBVIOUS THAT MARY WILL
LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD AND OUR
VISUAL EXPERIENCE OF IT.
IS THIS ANY BETTER?
THERE IS REAL INTUITIVE FORCE BEHIND BOTH OF
JACKSON’S THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. AS JACKSON
(1982: 128) PUTS IT: ‘IT SEEMS JUST OBVIOUS THAT
[MARY WILL] LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD
AND OUR VISUAL EXPERIENCE OF IT.’ I AGREE THAT IT IS
OBVIOUS TO US THAT MARY’S KNOWLEDGE (OF
COLOUR) IS IMPOVERISHED BEFORE, AND ENRICHED
AFTER, SHE LEAVES HER MONOCHROME EXISTENCE.
WHAT IS LESS OBVIOUS, HOWEVER, IS THAT THIS
ENRICHMENT COMES IN THE FORM OF KNOWLEDGE OR
NEW SUBJECTIVE FACTS. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT
OBVIOUS TO MARY THAT HER KNOWLEDGE (OF
COLOUR) IS IMPOVERISHED BEFORE, AND ENRICHED
AFTER, SHE LEAVES HER MONOCHROME EXISTENCE.
THIS IS NOT SIMPLY TO SAY THAT MARY "DOESN'T
KNOW ANY BETTER" - RATHER IT IS THAT IT IS WRONG
TO SPEAK OF "KNOWING" IN THIS REGARD.
JACKSON OUTLINES THE FIRST THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AS FOLLOWS:
‘MARY IS A BRILLIANT SCIENTIST WHO IS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IN WHAT WAYS IS THIS AN
IMPROVEMENT?
FORCED TO INVESTIGATE THE WORLD FROM A BLACK AND WHITE
ROOM VIA A BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION MONITOR. SHE
SPECIALIZES IN THE NEUROPHYSIOLOGY OF VISION AND ACQUIRES,
LET US SUPPOSE, ALL THE PHYSICAL INFORMATION THERE IS TO
OBTAIN ABOUT WHAT GOES ON WHEN WE SEE RIPE TOMATOES, OR ONE WAY IN WHICH WE MIGHT DEMONSTRATE THE
THE SKY, AND USE TERMS LIKE ‘RED’, ‘BLUE’, AND SO ON. SHE IRREDUCIBILITY OF QUALIA IS TO SUPPOSE THAT AN
DISCOVERS, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST WHICH WAVELENGTH
COMBINATIONS FROM THE SKY STIMULATE THE RETINA, AND EXACTLY
INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE SAID TO KNOW ALL THE PHYSICAL
HOW THIS PRODUCES VIA THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM THE FACTS PERTAINING TO A CERTAIN PHENOMENON AND YET
CONTRACTION OF THE VOCAL CHORDS AND EXPULSION OF AIR FROM LACK KNOWLEDGE OF SOME KIND. THIS IS THE PURPOSE
THE LUNGS THAT RESULTS IN THE UTTERING OF THE SENTENCE ‘THE
SKY IS BLUE’.… WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN MARY IS RELEASED FROM
UNDERLYING JACKSON’S (1982) THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
HER BLACK AND WHITE ROOM OR IS GIVEN A COLOUR TELEVISION INVOLVING MARY—A BRILLIANT NEUROSCIENTIST WHO
MONITOR? WILL SHE LEARN ANYTHING OR NOT? IT SEEMS JUST SPECIALISES IN THE VISUAL FIELD BUT WHO, FOR
OBVIOUS THAT SHE WILL LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORLD AND
OUR VISUAL EXPERIENCE OF IT. BUT THEN IS IT INESCAPABLE THAT
WHATEVER REASON, LIVES IN A MONOCHROME
HER PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE WAS INCOMPLETE. BUT SHE HAD ALL THE ENCLOSURE. THE FACT THAT MARY APPEARS TO GAIN
PHYSICAL INFORMATION. ERGO THERE IS MORE TO HAVE THAN THAT, SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE WHEN SHE LEAVES HER
AND PHYSICALISM IS FALSE.’ (JACKSON 1982)
ENCLOSURE AND PERCEIVES A TECHNICOLOUR
THIS ARGUMENT REDUCES TO;
- IN THE ROOM, MARY KNOWS ALL THE PHYSICAL FACTS ABOUT
EXISTENCE SHOWS, ACCORDING TO JACKSON, CRANE
(2003), ET. AL., THAT NOT ALL FACTS ARE PHYSICAL
COLOUR.
- HAVING LEFT THE ROOM, MARY LEARNS SOMETHING NEW ABOUT FACTS.
COLOUR. NEVERTHELESS, JACKSON (1982) ALSO REFERS TO THE
- THEREFORE; NOT ALL FACTS ARE PHYSICAL FACTS. (CRANE, 2003)
EXAMPLE OF FRED WHO REPRESENTS…
IN THE SAME PAPER JACKSON ALSO PRESENTS FRED…
 ANY
QUESTIONS?
Follow ICE
@Cambridge_ICE
Follow me
@Philosophy_ICE