This is a summary of a good way to write a short philosophy paper. You should not try to follow all the instructions to the letter. What follows are rules of thumb.

Good philosophy papers normally have (1) an introduction, (2) a body, and (3) a conclusion, though many good papers vary considerably in form as well as content and it is not strictly necessary to present all three in identifiable sections. Also, your TA may want to give different or more detailed instructions for individual homeworks (which would be provided in sections).

1. Introduction. Put in your own words the position of the author in the reading--or the part of his/her position--that you plan to discuss. Then either give a brief statement of your opinion about it, or tell us why you think it is an important view. You may also want to say why your reading of the text is right as opposed to other possible readings, backing up your claims with brief references. In all cases, try to formulate a strategy to back up the main point your paper tries to achieve. In general, an introduction states what one intends to do in a paper, whether one spells out or not how one intends to proceed. It is good practice to revise--rewrite--the introduction after you've completed the body of the paper. (You may need to rewrite more than once.)

2. Body. Make sure that you give a clear statement of the position at issue, the view or question that your paper addresses. Then defend and justify your opinion on it, whether that be in league with or opposed to the views of an author that you are writing about. In other words, you should begin by rehearsing, or reconstructing, an author's own argument or justification for a position. Your response, your evaluation or opinion on the topic the author is addressing, should normally follow. Or, all you may need to do is to interpret clearly what the author is up to, using your argument skills only in supporting your interpretation (without saying what you think is right or wrong about what the author holds). Particularly when the reading or topic is difficult, this may be all that you need to try to achieve. In this case, you may want to consider an alternative interpretation and argue that your reading is superior.

3. Conclusion. Briefly tie together the points you have made in the body, and say what your paper has accomplished. Do not repeat word-for-word what you said in the introduction.

In sum, your paper should state as briefly as possible a position or view in focus as well as one or more considerations that are relevant to forming the right position on the topic, position, or your own interpretation of what an author is saying. Make sure you show that you understand any reading targeted in a homework question. Clarity is an enormous plus. Also, avoid repetition. Use simple sentences: torturous constructions do not score well with us. Be straightforward and clear.

Reconstructing and evaluating an argument consists of pointing out precisely what considerations an author has mentioned in his/her defense or justification of a particular view and, in some cases, considerations (hidden premises) that are not mentioned but are crucially assumed. Sometimes an author is attacking an opponent's position, and so you would need to state what fuels the attack. You should also try to see the author's chain of reasoning, and wonder whether all the considerations put forward are really relevant, really help the author's case. A principle of charity is often useful: interpret an author's argument in the way that makes it strongest.