philosophy of Nihilism Paper

Setting the Stage

Define Nihilism

# the argument for nihilism

# objections of the the argument

# replies to objections .

Is there a clearly defined roadmap for the reader at the beginning of the paper? By reading the beginning, am I able to predict what the paper will explain/argue/explore?
After reading the beginning, do I have a sense for what kind of paper it is (e.g., historical exposition, analytic argument, critical literature review, mix of historical exposition with original interpretation, etc.)? Diction/Grammar/ Spellin g

Are there grammatical and spelling errors? These kinds of errors are inexcusable in finished work. Each error results in a 1 point deduction. As you know, I am and will be extremely nitpicky about grammar and spelling.
Are the vocabulary choices, phrases, and clauses free of ambiguity, vagueness, redundancy, and wordiness? Use of Sources and Citation

Does the writing rely on appropriate sources (i.e., books or peer-reviewed journal articles written by professional philosophers directly on the topic)?
Is there sufficient use of text/source citations, either in the form of direct quotations or in- text citations?
Does the writing demonstrate comprehension of the sources?
Does the writing demonstrate a reasonable attempt at securing a balance between the use of the text and the writer’s own critical interpretation/appropriation of the text? Argument/Exposition/Objections/Replies

• Is there a discernible argument or exposition that is being developed in the paper?

Does this argument or exposition conform exactly to the expectations that the writer offered in the beginning?
Overall, is the argument presented in its most compelling form?
Has the writer offered insightful objections and attempted to rebut them?
Is the exposition accurate?
Are the connections between steps in the exposition defensible and plausible?
Is the level of detail appropriate for the subject at hand? Organ ization/ Transit ions This category is partly connected with the diction/grammar/spelling category.

Is there a clearly discernible structure to the paper? If I were to perform a “reverse engineering test” on your paper, would the result of such a test be a clear, articulated outline that exhibits a discernible structure with clearly defined transitions?
Are the various parts of the argument/exposition clearly distinct from each other? Here is an analogy. Consider the way that the dotted lines on maps of the United States clearly define the joints of the boundaries of states. Does your paper do the same for the main features of your argument/exposition?
Between these joints in your paper, do you offer the reader a smooth and easy transition that (a) clearly highlights the boundary and (b) moves the reader through the boundary into the next issue?

Do not miss and focus

five pages and 5 reference minmm

Setting the Stage (Introductory Paragraph)
Diction/Grammar/ Spelling
Use of Sources and Citation
Argument/Exposition
Objections and Replies
Organ ization/ Transit ions