The Checklist Page

• Is the argument purely deductive, purely inductive, or a mixture of the two?
• If it is deductive, is it valid?
• If it is valid, are all its premises and assumptions true?
• If not valid, what fallacy does it commit?
• If it is not valid, are the claims at least consistent with each other?
• If it is not valid, can you think of additional plausible assumptions that would make it valid?
• If the argument is inductive, on what observations is it based?
• If the argument is inductive, how probable are its premises and its conclusion?
• In any case, can you think of evidence that would further confirm the conclusion? Disconfirm the conclusion?

• Is your (or someone else's) conduct prohibited or required by a moral rule or principle? If not, then is it probably not morally right or wrong: Morality permit you to act as you please.
• If the reasons for your proposed judgment or conduct are purely selfish, they are not moral reasons.
• Are your reasons an attempt to excuse wrongful conduct? If so, is the excuse a legitimate one?
• Do the reasons you propose for your conduct violate any of the relevant moral rules you accept? If not, then your morality raises no objection to your conduct.
• What is the rule, principle, or standard on which you propose to act?
• Would you be willing to argue openly for the general adoption of whatever rules you accept?
• Would you be willing to argue openly for the general adoption of whatever reasons you accept?
• Do the reasons for your proposed conduct take into account the greatest good for the greatest number?
• do the reasons for your proposed conduct take into account the relevant moral rights of others?
• Would an unbiased observer, fully informed of what you regard as all the relevant facts, approve of your reasons for your proposed conduct?

• Is the court trying to decide whether someone accused of a crime is guilty as charged, or is the court trying to resolve some noncriminal (civil) dispute?
• What events gave rise to the legal controversy in this case?
• What intermediate steps did the case go through before reaching the final court appeal?
• What did the court decide?
• What reasons did the court offer to justify its decisions?
• On what issues do the majority and concurring opinions agree?
• On what issues do they disagree?
• Where does the minority in its dissenting opinion(s) disagree with the majority?
• Which opinion is more convincing, the majority or the minority?
• What are the relevant facts in the case, insofar as they can be determined by what the appellate court reported?
• Exactly what law or laws is the court trying to interpret?
• Are there issues of fact omitted or ignored by the appellate court that, had they been addressed, might have shed light on the decision?
• What evidence does the court cite in favor of its interpretation?
• In constitutional cases, what are the conflicting interests?
• How does the Supreme Court proposes to balance them?
• Why does it strike the balance one way rather than the other?

• Have I stated the problem and indicated that a dialogue is possible?
• Have I stated at least one other point of view in a way that would satisfy its proponents?
• Have I been courteous to those who hold opposing views?
• Have I enlarged my own understanding, to the extend that I can grant validity, at least in some circumstances, to at least some aspects of other positions?
• Have I stated my position and indicated the contexts in which I believe it is valid?
• Have I pointed out the ground that we share?
• Have I shown how other positions will be strengthened by accepting some aspects of my position?

• Is your imagined reader like a typical classmate of yours, someone who is not a specialist in literature but who is open-minded and interested in hearing your point of view about a work?
• Is the essay supported with evidence, usually from the text itself but conceivably from other sources?
• Is the essay inclusive? Does it take into account all relevant details?
• Is the essay focused? Does the thesis stay steadily before the reader?
• Does the essay use quotations, but as evidence, not as padding? Whenever possible, does it abridge or summarize long quotations?
• Are all sources fully acknowledge?

• What is the writer's thesis?
• What claim is asserted?
• What assumptions are made?
• Are key terms defined satisfactorily?
• What support is offered on behalf of the claim?
• Are examples relevant, accurate, and convincing?
• Are statistics relevant, accurate, and convincing?
• Are the authorities appropriate?
• Is the logic - deductive and inductive - valid?
• If there is an appeal to emotion, is the appeal acceptable?
• Does the writer seem fair?
• Are the counterarguments considered?
• Is there any evidence of dishonesty?

Next, ask yourself the following additional questions:

• Do the disputants differ in:
• Assumptions? Interpretation of relevant facts? Selection of and emphasis on these facts? Definitions of key terms? Values and norms?
• What common ground do the disputants have?
• Which disputant seems to you to have the better overall argument? Why?