A 3-Paragraph Writing Assignment

Since 2018, I’ve been adapting a 3-paragraph writing assignment that I stole from John Roberts at Florida State University. In this post, I’ll explain the assignment, its requirements, my advice to students, and what I like about this assignment. You’re welcome to adapt this assignment for your own purposes, of course.

What Is This 3-Paragraph Writing Assignment?

Here are my instructions to students:

In paragraph 1, construct your best argument for one of the following claims: [fill in your own mutually exclusive claims here]. Do your best to follow the rules of argumentation. You can use this flowchart to iteratively identify and correct weaknesses in the argument until the argument seems to lack obvious weaknesses. (You can adapt an argument from the assigned reading. Appeal to unassigned resources at your own risk.)

In paragraph 2, construct the best objection to the argument from paragraph 1. Remember to use only one of the top three kinds disagreement from the hierarchy in the 4th of my writing tips.

In paragraph 3, construct your best counter-object to the objection from paragraph 1. After explaining the counter-objection, mention your final verdict: should we embrace the original conclusion from paragraph 1 or do paragraphs 2 and 3 suggest that we need to adapt it? If we need to adapt the opening conclusion, how exactly should we adapt it? A clear and concise final verdict could be as brief as one sentence.

What do I Require From Students?

1. Writing style. Write in a way that smart people who have not taken our class will understand. For instance, don’t use jargon like ‘logically valid’ or ‘soundness’ without explaining the meaning of these terms for your reader. You can also just explain concepts (correctly) in ordinary language, without ever using jargon — I don’t need you to mention the technical terminology; I need you to prove that you understand it.
2. Citations. You do not need to cite me or my lecture material. And you can complete this assignment without needing to cite anyone (unless you mention or use ideas of people from the assigned reading). If you quote or even paraphrase ideas from authors we have read about or from any other source, then you need to cite them. Use whatever citation protocol is common in your area of study (e.g., APA, MLA, etc.) and remember that a proper citation involves both an in-text citation—e.g., “So-and-so argues that … (Year, page[s])”—and a list of works cited at the end—e.g., “So-and-So. YEAR. “Title”. Journal/Book. City of Publisher: Publisher, pages.”
3. Name placement. Write your name (and the names of those you worked with) in a place that I cannot see while reading or grading the paper (e.g., on the backside of the final page or else on an entirely separate final page).
4. Teamwork. You can work together (in groups no more numerous than your in-class group) if you disclose the name[s] of people with whom you discussed your paper. (Your group’s papers should not be verbatim copies or even near verbatim copies; at most, they can agree with one another and share some language. So I don’t necessarily recommend writing together I merely recommend planning or revising together). You should feel no obligation to work with anyone; working together is entirely optional.

Advice For Students

A. Read the “Philosophy Writing Guidelines” at the end of the syllabus. (It contains not only the grading standards, but nearly a dozen tips.)

B. Read the “Feedback Shorthand” at the end of the syllabus (to learn about common mistakes to avoid).

C. Refer to your instructor’s comments on your prior writing assignments to learn from prior mistakes.

Why Do I Like The 3-Paragraph Writing Assignment?

• Shorter papers, because there is a 3-paragraph limit (and I grade papers according to their clarity, cogency, and concision (in that order), this assignment tends to produce shorter papers. And shorter papers can be easier to grade (although students tell me they are definitely not easier to write). I also think concision remains an underrated skill.
• Cognitive empathy. By forcing students to generate maximally cogent argumentation from at least two more or less opposing perspectives, I hope students practice charitable debate, where they have to generate the most compelling version of reasons against their own position in a debate.
• Flexibility. I have used this topic in courses about Business, Ethics, Logic, Science, Technology, and more. So it’s basic structure seems flexible enough to use in an wide range of courses that tend to require writing assignments.