come up with a good thesis to connect 3 different ideas in one essay. (I attached my 3 papers). do not copy it in the new essay!! just get the ideas and think how to gather all three together with a very obvious and strong thesis.
Length: The paper should be from 8 full pages minimum to10 pages maximum. All papers must be typed and double-spaced (indented quotes, etc. should be single-spaced if you use them). Mechanics: I strongly suggest that you write an outline of the paper. The point of writing an outline is to organize your ideas before you write in the form of an essay. That way, you will be able to spot premises that are out of place or missing from your reconstruction. Be sure to work through all three parts of the assignment in your outline. When writing the paper, you may feel a temptation to spend most of your time explaining the ideas and reconstructing the arguments of other and very little time on your own thesis. Don’t fall prey to this temptation. All parts of the assignment are equally important so you should devote a reasonable amount of space to each of the goals you are trying to accomplish in your paper.
The quality of your paper as a piece of writing (spelling, punctuation, style, grammar, and–especially–clarity) will count in the determination of your grade. Essential to expressing your ideas effectively is writing clearly and with precision. All I have to go on in evaluating your arguments is what you have written down. You may think you have it ‘clear in your head’, but you need to lead the reader step by step through your argumentation. It might help to have a friend read the paper to let you know where the paper lacks clarity.
You’re trying to develop reasoned arguments to justify a position. So try this test: cross out all occurrences of ‘I think’, ‘I personally believe’, ‘I feel’, or ‘it’s my opinion that’; then you’ll see if you have backed up your opinions with reasons and evidence. The reader is not interested so much in the fact that your convictions are yours, but rather the clarity and cogency of the reasons, arguments, and evidence you have in support of your opinions (so that your opinions are well-founded). The main place that you will need to identify the arguments as your own is in the last section of the paper, so this is the primary place that you will need to refer to what you’ve written as your own position.
Don’t waste time and space with Vague Generalities (e.g. ‘Inherent Value is often cited by moral philosophers as being important,’ ‘the question of responsibility has perennially plagued thinkers,’ ‘Leopold did a really good job arguing…’). Rather, dig right into the arguments: ‘Emerson holds that…and argues for it by claiming that…’ ‘An objection to the above premise is…’ ‘I will argue that…’ etc. Cross out anything that might be considered ‘FLUFF’ in your rough draft.
Try to capture the arguments in your own words. The use of too many quotes is a sign that you have not taken the time to think through the ideas in your own terms. If you do use the phrasing of other authors, you must quote and footnote them or it is plagiarism. NOTE: this is not a research paper, your time will probably be better spent going over the relevant passages in the original texts and developing the argument rather than exploring the secondary literature. If you do choose to consult any secondary literature (of any form–including the internet), you must include a citation to the source in the notes and in a bibliography even if you do not quote the source.
I. Framing the questions and developing your thesis:
A. Pick one of the main arguments in Leopold’s “The Land Ethic,” and get to work on that argument. The goal of the short paper is to start a line of inquiry for the sake of trying to improve upon one of the main arguments Leopold is trying to develop. Start by clarifying the questions he is trying to address and the theses he is putting forward as answers. Then, reconstruct the main premisses in the argument he is developing. Having reconstructed the line of inquiry you have chosen, consider an objection to one of the main premisses in that arguments. Draw on the readings in ecology and on complex systems to dig deeper into the conceptions of community and interdependence that figure so prominently in Leopold’s central arguments. Try to explain how we might use some of these ideas in order to further refine these conceptions. Having examined some of the resources we might draw from ecology and the study of complex biological and social systems in order to refine the key conceptions in the argument, provide a sketch of how you might draw on a few of the illustrations and examples in the A Sand County Almanac, or in Austin’s The Land of Little Rain, or in Muir’s Yosemite to show how the more “poetical” points concerning the beauty and sublimity of nature might help to more fully respond to the objection and thereby strengthen the arguments.
II. Use the case study on water issues in Flagstaff to illustrate how the philosophical questions bear on the practical issues we face.
III. Finally, draw on Emerson’s Essays and/or Thoreau’s Walden in order to develop the arguments and to formulate responses to possible objections. Don’t try to draw on both. Make a choice, and then use a clearly articulated set of ideas in order to bolster the response on Leopold’s behalf. Your goal is to try to improve upon Leopold’s and Wilson’s arguments by filling in some of the gaps and strengthening the reasons. If you are feeling ambitious, see what you can do to build an argument that draws on Leopold, Wilson, and Emerson or Thoreau in such a way that you construct the best response that you are able to the objection you are considering. In doing so, ask yourself, how might you push the arguments in new directions? Finally, step back from the arguments and objections you’ve considered and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the main points you are considering.