Skip to content
NTW2029 - Home

Paper 1

Please start by reading this entire assignment without clicking on the links. Then, click on links as needed to get additional details and guidance on the assignment.

Overview

Write an :expository paper to explain :one or more arguments from Pinker’s chapter, “The Meaning of Life”, in 1500 words or less.

:x expository

An expository paper is one in which you explain someone else’s argument, usually in a way that is simpler and clearer than the original source.

:x parts

Note that the paper will explain and analyze only a few arguments from Pinker’s chapter, not the whole text. See section “Scope” below for details.

Assignment purpose

Paper 1 will help you build skills needed to :contribute to an academic conversation, including explaining and analyzing other people’s complex arguments.

:x conversation

Academic papers are always part of a larger conversation about their research topic. What others have written is the conversation that has happened so far. Authors add to the conversation by first explaining to readers what others have said and then presenting their own ideas.

We can think about this in terms from They Say, I Say. In Paper 1, you will practice the skill of explaining other people’s arguments (what “they say”) so you can master this skill before writing Paper 2, where you will both explain what others say and defend your own original thesis (what “I say”).

Logistics

  • Paper length: 1000-1500 words

  • Follow formatting, citation, and GenAI guidelines

  • Late submission of any part of the assignment may affect your grade up to 1/3 letter grade per day late (extension requests are allowed per class policy).

Scope

Pinker’s text includes :several sections: an introductory section making a general argument about why we enjoy art, followed by additional sections making more specific arguments about why we enjoy particular art forms.

Your paper will explain Pinker’s general argument from the introduction and :one or two specific arguments about a specific art form from :a section you choose.

:x sections

The chapter sections are:

  • 521-26 — introduction
  • 526-528 — visual arts
  • 528-534 — discussion of music structure (do not use)
  • 534-538 — music
  • 538-543 — narrative fiction
:x choose

Choose one of the sections about a specific art form, either visual arts, music, or narrative fiction. Note that the arguments in each section about why we enjoy specific art forms act as illustrations and/or support for Pinker’s argument about why we enjoy art in general.

:x one or two

You may discuss one or two arguments about the specific art form you choose, but no more. This limitation is designed to encourage you to discuss each argument in greater depth.

Your thesis should mention both the general and specific arguments you will discuss. Your paper should explain how the specific arguments support/relate to/fit together with the more general argument.

As an expository paper, Paper 1 will not challenge the source or argue against its conclusions, but it may (optionally) :analyze the argument to reveal its limits, gaps, or ambiguities.

####### :x analyze

Although you will not challenge the source argument, the process of explaining the argument may make you aware of potential problems in Pinker’s argument, such as logical gaps, ambiguous statements, or confusing claims.

If you are having trouble explaining an aspect of Pinker’s argument, consider the possibility that your confusion is due to a weakness in the argument. If you are able to pin down and describe the nature of that weakness, you may add your analysis to the paper.

Goals

In writing Paper 1, aim to demonstrate your mastery of several goals that we have discussed and practiced over the last few weeks:

Your explanation should reflect your :critical reading of the argument rather than a general understanding.

:x charitably

As discussed in class, charitable summaries of other arguments help us build credibility with readers. Further, charitable summaries lead to significant discussions regarding what is actually true, while uncharitable summaries often lead to fruitless arguments about what various people said or didn’t say.

:x accurately

To accurately explain part of the source, you must balance various goals. Your explanation of the source argument should not include every idea in the source material, but only the key ideas most important for your paper. However, while including only some of the source’s ideas, you must also be careful not to mislead the reader about the scope or meaning of the original source.

:x audience

Papers should be written for a generalist, educated audience, such as a first-year NUSC student who has not taken this course. Your paper can assume that your reader has a basic understanding that evolution refers to how species change their traits over time but has no knowledge of its specific mechanisms. For example, don’t assume that the reader knows what the EEA is or what “reproductive fitness” means. Also, assume your reader has never read the specific source the paper discusses.

:x quotations

The paper should balance summary, paraphrasing, quotation, and explication to make your explanation far clearer and easier to understand than the original source.

  • Summarize by omitting details unnecessary for your purposes.
  • Paraphrase to convey ideas using clear wording.
  • Quote when needed for credibility and to identify key terms.
  • Explicate by defining terms and spelling out implicit ideas or assumptions so your non-expert reader can easily follow the argument.
:x critical reading

In the phrases “critical thinking” and “critical reading,” the word “critical” doesn’t mean “criticizing,” but “careful and evaluative”. A “critical reading” is not a reading that criticizes the source or explains why it is wrong. It is one where you use critical thinking to analyze the argument and evaluate whether its claims are true and whether the argument as a whole is persuasive.

Aim to go beyond a general understanding of the source, which is what might be captured in an article abstract: the source’s main conclusions and (sometimes) their main evidence or arguments for those conclusions. Describing these elements in your paper demonstrates only a general understanding of the source.

An explanation that reflects critical thinking will go beyond describing these elements. It will not just the conclusion, but the specific steps that support that conclusion. It will not just provide a surface-level description of the source’s supporting claims, arguments, and evidence, but will “connect the dots” for the reader, explaining these elements more clearly than the original, bringing out implicit assumptions, and identifying key places that the source argument succeeds and fails.

Strategies to use and avoid

Your paper should use :these strategies:

Your paper may use :these strategies (not required, consider these a stretch goal):

Your paper should not challenge Pinker’s argument, so don’t use :these strategies:

:x should

Strategies you should use include:

  • identify Pinker’s :main research question and explain only the parts of the source that address that specific question
  • allocate enough time to understand Pinker’s arguments
    • Since the reading you will respond to is academic writing about a fairly complex topic, you should expect to spend quite a long time reading and taking notes. Your understanding of the argument will develop and deepen as you re-read the source, take notes on it, and write about it.
  • start by assuming that Pinker’s arguments make sense and identify the claims he uses to build his arguments
    • In this paper, you will analyze specific arguments made by the source. Don’t make the mistake of thinking about the source’s argument as a general topic or a main idea. Think about the argument in terms of specific claims that are being made, and specific reasons and evidence that are put forth to support these claims.
  • see if you can “help” Pinker make his case more persuasively, trying to “steelman” the argument, but make sure that you:
    • keep your summary accurate and don’t misrepresent Pinker in trying to explicate his argument
    • make very clear to the reader which arguments are yours and which are Pinker’s
  • illustrate Pinker’s abstract claims with original concrete examples
:x main

Don’t forget that an important part of understanding the source’s argument is figuring out what academic conversation it is aiming to contribute to and what ideas it is responding to. Pinker talks about some topics and asks some questions in the beginning of the chapter that aren’t his main focus. Look for him to explicitly mention what question his chapter will focus on. In this paper, you don’t need to mention other sources Pinker is responding to, but thinking about them may help you understand Pinker’s arguments.

:x may

Strategies you may use include:

:x problems

Possible problems an author can make include:

  • does not explain connections between claims
  • uses a term in different ways in different areas of the argument
  • makes ambiguous claims
  • uses a term in ways that do not match with standard EP usage
:x genres

For example, Pinker mentions different types of music, and one of his arguments explaining the pleasures of music may apply to one type he mentions but not other popular types. Of course, don’t bother discussing examples of very small genres that most people don’t like; stick to discussing broadly popular genres.

:x challenge

Strategies you should not use include:

  • don’t propose an original, alternate answer to the author’s research question.
  • don’t use any sources other than the one assigned source
  • don’t criticize EP as an research approach
    • This chapter comes from a book that argues for the usefulness of EP in earlier chapters, so we will charitably assume that it already dealt with criticisms of EP in general.
  • don’t provide counterarguments or counterexamples showing that Pinker’s claims are wrong
    • This paper’s goal is to explain (and optionally analyze) the source argument, not to disprove the argument. It is fine to use arguments and examples to show the limits of Pinker’s claims, but don’t try to show that his claims are wrong.
  • don’t criticize the source argument for :failing to live up to ideal standards for academic arguments in general
:x standards

Sometimes, pointing out problems with a source advances the academic conversation, but not when the criticisms are generic. Avoid these unconstructive approaches:

  • don’t discuss why some readers would not be convinced by Pinker’s claims
    • Paper 1 aims to explain the intended contribution of the source. The source aims to contribute to an academic conversation about evolution and art, not a conversation about what readers are persuaded by various arguments.
  • don’t make generic criticisms based on word choice or writing style
    • Paper 1 assumes that the source is not completely self-explanatory and clear. The principle of charity suggests that we should aim to steelman the source argument to focus on whether its most persuasive version is true.
  • don’t criticize the source for failing to define every term used
    • Sources can fairly assume that readers know some terms and concepts. Your job is to provide a better explanation of the source argument, so if Pinker is confusing because he doesn’t define a term, you can define it in your paper.
  • don’t fault the argument for ignoring factors that could also affect or explain art activities
    • Sometimes students argue that a source discusses one causal factor contributing to an effect but ignores other factors, e.g. “Boyd says that cooperation evolved but his argument is weak because it ignores that parents also explicitly teach children to cooperate.” This strategy rarely produces an effective challenge to the argument, because every theory or every explanation is going to ignore some factors. No explanation can include everything. It is possible to write a successful academic paper that includes this type of criticism, but it won’t work for the Paper 1 assignment.
  • don’t argue that the source didn’t provide evidence for every single claim in the argument
    • Sources cannot provide evidence for every claim. While it is valid to can argue that a source didn’t provide evidence for a claim central to the argument, this approach is not appropriate in the context of this paper since we are just reading one chapter in a whole book.
  • don’t argue that the source argument is wrong because it makes claims that are not true in 100% of cases
    • Sources have to generalize to make useful claims about the world, and it is almost never the case that a claim (outside of formal logic) is true 100% of the time. It is ok to discuss counterexamples as showing limits to the source argument, but not to show that the argument is wrong overall.

Checklist

Your paper should include:

  • an introduction that meets the guidelines discussed in class
  • a thesis statement
  • a clear statement of the source’s main point(s) or conclusion(s) that your paper will discuss
  • an explanation of the main reasons and evidence the source uses to support their argument
  • correct use and framing of quotes
  • a brief conclusion that simply restates the main points of your paper
  • a correctly formatted reference list (which will include only one source, Pinker)
  • definitions of :key terms

I will be adding to this assignment page, so please check back often. Changes will be mentioned on the website changelog.

:x terms

You can assume your reader knows these basic evolutionary terms:

  • evolution
  • species
  • traits/phenotype
  • survival and reproduction
  • genes/genotype
  • fitness
  • natural selection
  • sexual selection

Note: although you don’t need to define these terms, any claims you make with these terms must still be explained to the reader.

Note: you should (briefly) define the terms ‘adaptation’ and ‘byproduct’ if you use them.