Dan Hausman
5197 Helen C. White Hall
Office Hours:
Monday 12-1
Wednesday 2:20-3:20

Philosophy 524 Syllabus


   Economics is of philosophical interest in three different regards.  First, much of economics embodies a theory of rationality, and rationality is of great interest to philosophers both in itself and because of its role in theories of knowledge and ethics.  Second, although they sometimes deny it, most economists are committed to a distinctive theory of human well-being and to a related view of ethics; and ethics is, of course, a part of philosophy.  Third, the problems and practices of economics are of great interest to epistemologists and philosophers of science.  Any discipline that attempts to acquire knowledge of its subject matter is of some epistemological interest, but economics is special because it is a social science with many of the characteristics of a natural science.  It is of particular interest to those concerned about the possibilities of scientific studies of human beings.

   Although I personally am interested in all three of these areas of overlap between economics and philosophy, the focus this semester will be on the third area, that is on questions concerning the methodology of economics and the status and peculiarities of economics as a science.  Since the three issues are not fully separable, we will spend some time with questions concerning rationality and ethics, but the emphasis will be on questions in philosophy of science and philosophy of social science as these arise with respect to economics.

Course Goals:

   1.  To provide an introduction (a) to parts of philosophy of science (especially to the works of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos), (b) to parts of economics (particularly standard microeconomics and general equilibrium theory) and (c) to some philosophical work devoted specifically to economic methodology.

   2.  To provide an introduction to philosophical argument in general: This course should help you to appreciate how philosophy and economics bear on each other and how knowing philosophy can contribute to doing economics.

   3.  To help you to develop your analytical abilities and your ability to present and to criticize arguments both in discussion and, in particular, in writing: Every good essay, regardless of the subject matter, is an extended argument for some thesis or conclusion.  The only thing special about philosophy essays is the extent to which one focuses upon the logic of the argument.  This course should help you to write more sharply organized, focused and effective essays.

The extent to which these course goals can be achieved is largely up to you, but it is important that you appreciate what I am trying to accomplish.  If you cannot see how any particular lecture or reading assignment relates to the goals of the course, please be sure to ask about it.  In abstract matters it is especially important and especially difficult to be clear on what the point is.  Keep asking "So what?"  Since this course is as concerned with mastering skills as with acquiring information, it demands your active participation.

What this course does not aim to do:

This course does not aim to provide a detailed introduction to economics, to philosophy of science, to the theory of rationality, or to ethics--all of which are complex and intricate subject matters.  Although you should learn something about each of these, you should be aware that these subjects are much more complicated than it might appear from the introductory material we will consider.

Note: Students are encouraged to discuss problems concerning the teaching of this course with the instructor and/or the TA. If students wish to pursue a complaint with someone else, they should contact James Anderson, Assistant to the Chairperson, Philosophy Department, 5185 H.C. White Hall, 263-5162.


Course Reader
D. Hausman, The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, 3rd. edition

Both will be on sale at the Underground Textbook Exchange located at 664 State Street and on reserve in the College Library.

Course Web Site:

A variety of material, including the syllabus and some other materials in the xeroxed collection will also be available on the web. Some of it will be on a public web page: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/Fall2008/524-Fall2008.htm. Other resources (such as student access to grades and discussion forums) will be available via Learn@UW.

Course Requirements:

LECTURES  Attendance is expected, and contributions to discussion that are polite and useful will help to boost your semester grade. The five-minute essays, discussed below, provide extra credit for excellent attendance and a penalty for poor attendnace.

INTRODUCTORY PAPER The introductory papers should be approximately three double-spaced pages or 800 words in length.  A rough draft of your introductory paper is due on Monday, September 29. The final version is due a week later on Monday, October 6. When you hand in the revised version of your introductory paper, you should also hand in a brief explanation of how you revised your rough draft. The introductory paper assignment will count for 10% of your semester grade and is intended as a diagnostic and teaching exercise rather than as a way of assessing your accomplishments. Your grade on the introductory paper will depend both on the rough draft and on the revised version, but you will not receive feedback on your rough draft before you hand in the revised version.

TERM PAPER The term paper should be approximately 8 double-spaced pages or 2000 words in length. It counts for 50% of your semester grade is due relatively early in the semester on Friday, November 7 so that you will have time, if you choose, to hand in a revised version. Optional revised versions are due on Friday, December 5.

EXAMS There will be a midterm exams on Monday, October 27, that will each count for 15% of your semester grade, and a final examination during the scheduled examination period that will count for 25% of your grade.

FIVE-MINUTE ESSAYS There will be at least 15 of these, and there could be as many as 30. If you complete all of them, you will receive 3 points of extra credit. If you complete all but one, you will receive 2 points extra. If you complete all but 2, you will receive one point extra. If you complete all but 3, there will be no extra credit. Beginning with the fourth five-minute essay missed, each missing essay will lower your semester grade by 1%. If you are absent for a five-minute essay, you can make up the credit by studying someone's notes for that class and writing a substantial precis of the missed lecture, which must be emailed to me within two weeks of the missed class. Those who are ill or who are otherwise unable to come to class on a particular day can thus avoid any grade penalty, and the tasks required -- basically studying someone else's notes and thinking through what was missed -- are in any case necessary. Details are discussed later in the syllabus.

WARNING!! Philosophy challenges complacency. It’s hard to know what the truth is concerning hard questions like the ones we will be addressing this semester.

Course Outline:

Wednesday, September 3: An introduction to economics and to the course

PE, Introduction, pp. 1-4, 22-31.

Friday, September 5: A quick overview of philosophy of science

PE, Introduction, pp. 1-22.

Monday, September 8: An overview of economic methodology

PE, Introduction, pp. 1-34.

Wednesday, September 10: Empiricism, confirmation, and induction

David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sections II-IV; xerox, pp. 1-10

Friday, September 12: Empiricism, confirmation, and induction

David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section V; xerox, pp. 11-14.

Monday, September 15: J. S. Mill on direct vs. indirect confirmation in economics

John Stuart Mill, On the Definition and Method of Political Economy, PE, pp. 41-58.

Wednesday, September 17: J.S. Mill: Squaring empiricism with economics

John Stuart Mill, On the Definition and Method of Political Economy, PE, pp. 41-58.

Friday, September 19: Lionel Robbins, neoclassical economics and the deductive method

Lionel Robbins, "The Nature and Significance of Economic Science," PE, pp. 73-89

Monday, September 22: Lionel Robbins, neoclassical economics, and utility theory

Lionel Robbins, "The Nature and Significance of Economic Science," PE, pp. 89- 99.
Dan Hausman and Michael McPherson, "Certainty and Ordinal Utility Theory," xerox

Wednesday, September 24:  On the differences between the natural and social sciences

Max Weber, Objectivity and Understanding in Economics, PE, pp. 59-72.

Friday, September 26: Facts versus values: objectivity in the social sciences

Max Weber, Objectivity and Understanding in Economics, PE, pp. 59-72
D. Hausman and M. McPherson, "How Could Ethics Matter to Economic?" xerox

*Monday, September 29: Marxian views of economics and social reality

Karl Marx, Selected Texts on Economics, History, and Social Science, PE, pp. 108-120.

First version of introductory paper due

Wednesday, October 1: Marx's views on economic methodology

Karl Marx, Selected Texts on Economics, History, and Social Science, PE, pp. 120-128.

Friday, October 3: Ideology in economics

Joseph Schumpeter, "Science and Ideology," PE, 207-221

*Monday, October 6: Positivist and instrumentalist views: Friedman

Milton Friedman, The Methodology of Positive Economics, PE, pp.145-78, esp. pp. 145-62

Revised version of introductory paper due

Wednesday, October 8: Friedman's views

Milton Friedman, The Methodology of Positive Economics, PE, pp. 145-78.

Friday, October 10: Critiques of Friedman's views

Herbert Simon, Testability and Approximation, PE 179-82.
Dan Hausman, Why Look Under the Hood? PE 183-87.

Monday, October 13: Karl Popper and falsifiability

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, xerox

Wednesday, October 15: Falsifiability and scientific method

Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, xerox

Friday, October 17:  Lakatos and sophisticated methodological falsificationism

Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, xerox, pp. 91-122

Monday, October 20: Kuhn's critique: What is science really like?

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, xerox

Wednesday, October 22:  Can Kuhn and Popper be reconciled? Lakatos' metholodology of scientific research programmes

Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, xerox, pp. 122-137, 154-59, 184-89

Friday, October 24: Popper, Lakatos, and economic methodology

D. Wade Hands, Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology, PE, pp. 188-203.

*Monday, October 27: Midterm

Wednesday, October 29:  Econometrics: statistical testing in economics

Kevin Hoover, Econometrics as Observation: The Lucas Critique and the Nature of Econometric Inference, PE, pp. 297-314.

Friday, October 31: The relationship between microeconomics and macroeconomics

Kevin Hoover, Does Macroeconomics Need Microfoundations? PE, pp. 315-334

Monday, November 3: Testing microeconomic and macroecomic theories

Kevin Hoover, Does Macroeconomics Need Microfoundations? PE, pp. 315-34

Wednesday, November 5: Experimentation in economics

Vernon Smith, Economics in the Laboratory, PE, pp. 334-355
Dan Hausman, Some Anomalous Experimental Results (xerox)

*Friday, November 7: Some results of experimental economics

Vernon Smith, Economics in the Laboratory, PE, pp. 334-355
Dan Hausman, Some Anomalous Experimental Results (xerox)

Term papers due

Monday, November 10: Neuroeconomics

Colin Camerer, Neuoeconomics: Using Neuroscience to Make Economic Predictions, PE, pp. 356-77

Wednesday, November 12: Austrian economics

James Buchanan and Viktor Vanberg, The Market as a Creative Process, PE, pp. 378-98

Friday, November 14: Subjectivism and the possibility of economic science

James Buchanan and Viktor Vanberg, The Market as a Creative Process, PE, pp. 378-98

Monday, November 17: Institutionalism and economic methodology

Geoffrey Hodgson, What Is the Essence of Institutional Economics? PE, pp. 399-412

Wednesday, November 19:  Rhetoric vs. methodology

Deirdre McCloskey, The Rhetoric of This Economics, PE, pp. 415-430.

Friday, November 21: Realism and economic methodology

Uskali Mäki, Realism, PE, pp. 431-38
Tony Lawson, What Has Realism Got to Do with It? PE, pp. 439-53

Monday, November 24: Economics, economic methodology, and feminism

Julie Nelson, Feminism and Economics, PE, pp. 454-75

Wednesday, November 26: Catch-up day

Monday, December 1: Models in economics

Robert Sugden, Credible Worlds: The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics, PE, 476-509

Wednesday, December 3:  Models, theories, laws, and confirmation

Robert Sugden, Credible Worlds: The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics, PE, 476-509

*Friday, December 5: Welfare economics and the foundations of cost-benefit analysis

Dan Hausman and Michael McPherson, Certainty and Ordinal Utility Theory, xerox
Lionel Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science, PE, pp. 89-96
Nicholas Kaldor, Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparions of Utility, PE, pp. 222-225

Revised versions of term papers due

Monday, December 8: Welfare economics and preference satisfaction

Dan Hausman and Michael McPherson, The Philosophical Foundations of Mainstream Normative Economics, PE, pp. 226-50

Wednesday, December 10: Philosophical foundations of cost-benefit analysis

Dan Hausman and Michael McPherson, The Philosophical Foundations of Mainstream Normative Economics, PE, pp. 226-50
Robert Frank, Why Is Cost-benefit Analysis So Controversial? PE, pp. 251-69

Friday, December 12: Summary and review

Five-Minute Essays:

By distributing to you brief and often provocative questions and giving you a few minutes to jot down your thoughts, these assignments encourage more active and thoughtful discussion. I do not appraise your five-minute essays, but I do note whether you've completed them or not, and in that way you get credit for course attendance. You will receive 3 extra credit points if you complete all the five-minute essays, 2 if you complete all but one, 1 if you complete all but two, and no extra credit if you complete all but 3. After having missed 3 each additional missing five-minute essay will lower your semester grade by one point. So, for example, if there are 20 five-minute essays, and you complete 18 of them, you will get 1 point of extra credit. If, however, you complete only 10, you will lose 7 points.

This way of grading the five-minute essays obviously gives you an additional reason to come to class. But (of course) absences are often unavoidable. In that case, there is a way to make up the missing five-minute essay. Because absences can be made up, it is not necessary to notify the instructor of your absences or to explain the reasons, unless you are unable to make up the absence within the two-week deadline. No reasons for absences relieve you of the responsibility either to attend or to make up the missing five-minute essay. In case of prolonged illness, special accommodations can of course be made.

To make up the missing five-minute essay, you need to get hold of the lecture notes of another student in the course and complete the following form. Note that five-minute essays must be made up within two weeks of the missed class.




Name of student whose notes were used:

Date of the lecture:

Topic of the lecture:

Readings discussed:

Precis of the lecture, including careful presentation of any explicitly formulated arguments.


The precis must be at least 500 words, and it must be accurate in its spelling, grammar, and punctuation. The completed misssed lecture make-up form should be pasted into an email message (NO ATTACHMENTS). Precis that are late, that have significant problems with their writing, spelling, grammar or punctuation, that do not cover the material addressed in the missed lecture, or that are shorter than 500 words will not receive credit.

Missed-lecture make-ups are due within two weeks of the date of the missed lecture, but not after the last day of class.

Office Hours:

If my office hours, (Monday 12-1 and Wednesday 2:20-3:20) are not convenient, see me after class to arrange another time to meet. My job is to help you to master the skills and material with which this course is concerned, so feel free to come see me.

The Use of Email:

Email can be a great convenience, but it can get out of hand. Feel free to email me at dhausman@wisc.edu with any specific questions you have about substance, assignments or requirements. If the question and answer are relevant to others, I will post them anonymously on the course discussion page. If you do not want your question posted, you should let me know. Otherwise I will assume that in emailing me, you’ve given me permission to post your question. That way I can serve as many students as possible. Some questions are not appropriate. For example, "Could you please restate the last three lectures?" Some questions are of course better discussed in person than over email. I’ll do the best I can to be helpful.

A Note on Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is a serious offense. All sources and assistance used in preparing your papers must be precisely and explicitly acknowledged. If you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism, please come talk with me. Ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism is not a defense. It is your responsibility to be sure. The web creates special risks. Cutting and pasting even a few words from a web page or paraphrasing material without a reference constitutes plagiarism. If you are not sure how to refer to something you find on the internet, you can always give the URL.  It is generally better to quote than to paraphrase from material on the web, because in the absence of page numbers it can be hard to find passages that are paraphrased rather than quoted.

Grading Scheme:

For the graded assignments, I employ a point system; and even though the grades at the end of the semester are limited to A, AB, B, BC, C, D, and F, I will draw finer distinctions on particular assignments. Here is the point-to-grade conversion table I will use:

Grade A+ A A- AB B+ B B- BC C+ C C- D F
Percentage (points) 99-100 95-98 92-94 89-91 86-88 83-85 80-82 77-79 74-76 71-73 68-70 60-67 0-59

On assignments with letter grades, such as papers, I will record the grade as the middle number in the range, except for A+ (100), A (97) and F(50). So, for example, someone who gets a B on their term paper and does not hand in a revision will have 21 points in the tp (term paper) column and 21 points in the tpr (term paper revision) column, because 21 is 84% of 25 points. Assignments that are not handed inwill get zero points. The table for converting total points for the semester to final letter grades is given on the Learn@UW web site.

The column labeled "5-miss" will list the dates of missing five-minute essays. I will update this columns only every few weeks.

The Role of Readings in the Course:

I will devote some lectures to the exposition and discussion of the readings, but the lectures will often present an independent perspective on the issues. Critically engaging with the arguments in the lectures is your most important task, but you may have a hard time understanding my arguments if you do not study the readings carefully. I selected the readings to represent a variety of different perspectives, and even when the readings are mistaken, there are valuable lessons to be learned from understanding their mistakes. The examinations will ask not only that you have mastered the material in the lectures but that you be able to relate the arguments in the lectures to the arguments in the readings and to respond intelligently to questions concerning the important arguments in the readings.

Some Hints on Writing Philosophy Papers:

Although you may not be able to understand completely the most difficult philosophical texts such as Hume's Inquiry, you should aim to master the readings. Here are some detailed hints about how to do so:

1. Use your highlighter very sparingly. It is much more useful to pencil in marginal notes summarizing or querying specific points than to highlight passages. Actively engaging the author is much more valuable than merely marking passages. If you do use a highlighter, only highlight a small percentage of the text. (There is not much point to highlighting everything, apart from adding color to the page!)

2. The assignments are usually short, and you should plan on reading the assignments at least twice. During the first reading you should ask yourself:

a. What is the author's position?

b. What is the general structure of the paper? Is it a collection of separate arguments, or does it aim to make one main argument?

c. What are the author's main assumptions? (Where is the author coming from?)

d. Against whom does the author take him/herself to be arguing? What is the context in which the piece was written?

e. What is the main line of argument (or what are the main lines of argument)?

f. What objections does the author address and how successful is the author in answering them?

g. How does the author's position relate to your views? To what extent does the author reinforce or challenge your views?

h. How do the author's arguments relate to the arguments developed in lecture and in other reading assignments? What criticisms would the author make of arguments developed in lecture or in other readings? To what extent is the position of the author open to criticisms made in lecture or in other readings?

During the second reading of the assignment, you should proceed more slowly and critically. Rather than asking, as suggested above, questions about what the author's purposes, organization, and argument are, you should try to assess all of these and particularly the author's arguments

General Directions on Writing the Papers

Style and references:

1. You are expected to give references when you cite detailed claims or arguments made in the readings, and your papers should, where appropriate, show familiarity with relevant materials from the lectures or reading for the course. But you are expected to write essays, not examination answers. So don't introduce irrelevant matters to demonstrate that you have done the course readings. (But you must not ignore relevant supporting arguments and, particularly, objections in the readings.) Cite the readings only when they are relevant. Be sure that your paper is a well organized argument for some clearly articulated thesis.

2. When you quote, paraphrase, or make use of a point made by others, be sure to document the source. We are not particular about what style you use. All that matters is that your references be precise and usable. If you say that Hume says that knowledge is impossible, it should be clear on what page Hume supposedly says that. The easiest way to give a reference is simply to put the source and page number in parenthesis. Papers without clear references (where needed) will be marked down.

3. Papers must be typed or printed double-spaced with wide margins (at least one inch) on all sides, so that there is plenty of room for marginal comments. Be sure to keep copies of your papers. Please do not use binders.

4. Papers for the course must be essentially correct in their "mechanical" aspects-- spelling, punctuation, grammar, typing, and so forth. Papers with more than 3 or 4 errors per page will be marked down, and if they are very messy, they will not only be penalized, but they will also be returned for correction before they are graded. Obviously spelling and typing are of no intrinsic importance, but messy papers are hard to assess; and it is not unfair to expect you to take responsibility for making sure that your papers are correct in these regards. If you have difficulty with the mechanical features of paper writing, please get someone to proofread your paper before you hand it in.

Hints on essay writing:

1. The paper topics are not recipes for writing your essays. You have to decide what you want to maintain in your essays. Do not regard the paper topic as an essay examination question. Although your papers must be on the assigned topic, the point is to write a well-organized and unified argument for some clearly enunciated conclusion.

2. The task of writing a good essay is virtually identical with the task of thinking out a clear thesis or conclusion that you want to defend and then elaborating and defending it. You should be able to say clearly and precisely not only what your paper is about, but also what your paper maintains or shows. Be sure each of your papers has both a thesis--that it asserts something definite--and a logical organization. Once it is clear what you what to show, you will have a criterion to decide what is relevant and the basis for organizing your paper. Can you put your main point clearly in a sentence? Can you say clearly in a sentence what your paper shows or proves? Are all the parts of your paper relevant to your main point? Is the structure of your argument clear? No good essay merely summarizes things you have read and then offers your remarks or points of comparison or differences you noticed. Every acceptable essay integrates its remarks into an argument of its own. Exposition of the views of others should always be part of your argument for your thesis.

3. Note that a well-organized paper is not merely orderly. For example, a paper that argues that Friedman argues claims 1, 2, and 3 and that one can defend claim 1 as follows, claim 2 as follows, but not claim 3 is certainly orderly, and it certainly has a thesis. But it would only be well-organized--truly one paper rather than three--if the discussions of the three claims bore some relations to one another and if the paper added up to some unified and substantive statement. Please do not put section headings in your papers.

4. Avoid first paragraphs that say things such as, "First I will discuss the views of Kuhn and Lakatos. Then I will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Then I will compare their conclusions and formulate my opinion." Passages such as these make it sound as if your argument will begin only on the last page. Exposition of the views of others has to find its place within your argument, not as a preface to your argument. If you think in terms of what you want to establish, and outline your paper in terms of stages in your argument, your essay will be much stronger.

5. Try to say exactly what you mean. Pay careful attention to your language. Sentences such as "Popper is a mistaken principle" are unacceptably careless. Value your words and use them accurately. Do not use complicated philosophical language unless you are completely comfortable with it. Try to write so simply that an intelligent sixth grader could understand you.

6. To help in organizing your thinking, you should attempt to answer the following three questions:

1. What is your thesis--that is, what is it that you are trying to maintain or show or prove? What is your main argument for your thesis?

2. What is the most important objection to or criticism of your thesis that you need to consider? Formulate that objection or criticism as an argument.

3. What is your argument in response to the objection or criticism mentioned in answer to question 2?

If you cannot answer these questions clearly and easily, then there are serious problems with your paper. Do not regard your papers as finished or acceptable until each clearly implies answers to the above questions. (But an essay is not, of course, a list of answers to any set of questions.) Taking the task of answering these questions seriously can make a big difference in the quality of your paper.

Special considerations in writing philosophical papers:

1. In a political debate, the point is to win, and one consequently tries to make the arguments of one's opponents sound as ridiculous and worthless as possible. In a philosophical debate (or in writing a philosophy essay), in contrast, the objective is to learn the truth. So you should try to make the arguments conflicting with your views as compelling as possible, before you answer them. If there are any objections to what you are maintaining that you cannot answer, then you cannot be sure that you are right. Work hard at trying to see "the other side".

2. Although many historical, sociological and economic facts are relevant to the issues you are addressing in your essays, be careful to keep your focus philosophical. If you aren't sure whether your papers are philosophical or not, check with me.

Seeking help:

When working on the final versions of your essays, feel free to come to me for help. You do not need to do further research, but you can consult with me if you want references for further reading.

There are some excellent resources on the web for writing philosophy papers. I particularly recommend:

www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm This is brief, clear, and helpful.

http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/writing.html Excellent, but much lengthier.

www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/philosophy.html For those who are serious about philosophy.

www.cofc.edu/~portmord/tips.htm Contains lots of references for further study.

A terrific general source on writing is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. The first edition is available on the web at http://www.bartleby.com/141/

Paper grading criteria

An "A" paper typically has all of the following virtues, although in exceptional cases papers with only five of the six virtues might merit an "A"

1. It has a well-defined thesis and a logical organization.

2. It shows good sense, intellectual honesty and struggle. It attempts to defend a defensible thesis and takes seriously objections to that thesis.

3. It is well-informed. If there are passages in the assigned readings for the course that are particularly relevant to the matters under discussion in the essay, these are cited and discussed. The paper shows an awareness of conceptual dis-tinctions and clarifications developed in the course.

4. It is intelligent, logical, and careful. The argument is carefully articulated and developed. Obvious difficulties are anticipated and answered, and gaps are closed.

5. It is significant. The issues discussed, although typically matters of detail, are of some importance, and their importance is made clear within the essay.

6. The paper is written in a lucid and grammatical style.

A "B" paper has the following virtues:

1. As before.

2. As before.

3. As before.

4. It is logical and not careless. The argument is well articulated.

5. It is not trivial. The essay provides some motivation for its topic.

6. The paper is grammatical.

A "C" paper has at least the following virtues:

1. It is orderly and has some focus.

2. It shows some serious concern with the issues it deals with.

3. It is not uninformed. Where relevant, it shows awareness of the content of the course.

4. There are some definite and cogent arguments in the essay.

5. The paper has some point.

6. The paper is readable and minimally grammatical.

A "D" paper

1. Has some intelligible organization.

2. Shows some concern with the issues it deals with.

3. Shows minimal awareness of the course content.

4. Makes some relevant and sensible argument

5. Has some point.

6. Is comprehensible.