ALL CITATIONS OR SOURCES ((((FROM THE BOOK ITSLF ONLY))))
Please be certain, however, to follow these general requirements. The length of the assignment, as detailed on the syllabus addendum, is 5 full pages (double-spaced, Times-Roman font, 12pt, one inch margins). Please include a cover sheet noting your name, the paper’s title, the course and section, the date and an acknowledgement of the Honor Code.
Remember: the exercise is explanatory and analytical, so rote summaries are to be avoided. Your paper should advance a complete, cohesive answer to the overarching prompt given below. Be sure that your introduction clearly states your thesis, and that your conclusion provides some sort of resolution.
I expect you to cite the text actively through paraphrased references and quotes. In particular, use potent quotations to validate your interpretation. Do not rely so heavily on quotes that your words are drowned out. Regardless, active references show me that you are researching your answer within the book, and this is something critical to a successful paper. For the purposes of citation, you are only to use the parenthetical method. Failure to properly cite will negatively impact your paper’s score. If you are unfamiliar with how to cite in a formal paper, a useful reference may be found online: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/turabian/turabian-author-date-citation-quick- guide.html.
Hint #1: Divide your paper into three sections: one dedicated to Appiah; another that focuses exclusively on Foucault; and, finally, conclude with your analysis of the compatibility of their criticism. I recommend two pages each for your treatment of their critical themes, while reserving a single page for your analysis.
Hint #2: When discussing their criticism, you cannot possibly discuss every detail. Start by discussing broad themes, and then tighten your focus on examples from the chapters that clarify how their criticism works.
Hint #3: The discussion of their critical arguments and your analysis should not involve personal reactions or opinions. The paper is not about whether either is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, appetizing or unappealing. Remain neutral throughout the paper.