Suggestions and Guidelines
for Peer-Group Editing
of Position Paper #2

1. When you get into your small groups, introduce yourselves quickly, and share copies of your papers with each other.

2. Choose one paper to discuss first. (Suggestion: Go in alphabetical order by family name.)

3. After spending about 10-15 minutes on the first paper, move on to the next, going back to step (2) above, changing roles. Spend no more than 15 minutes per paper (because you've only got about 45 minutes at most). Perhaps one member of the group can be a timekeeper.

4. For each paper, ask as many of the following questions as you have time for:
   1. Did the author state whether the argument from premises 1-3 to conclusion 4 was valid?
      1. If they thought it was invalid, did they suggest a missing premise that would make it valid (if that's possible)?

   2. Did the author state whether the argument to conclusion 6 was valid?
      1. Did they correctly identify its other premises besides premise 5? (Very few real arguments can have only one premise.)

      2. If they thought it was invalid, did they suggest a missing premise that would make it valid (if possible)?

   3. Did the author state whether the argument to conclusion 7 was valid?
      1. Did they correctly identify its other premises besides premise 6? (Note that sentence 6 is both the conclusion of the previous argument and a premise of this one.)

      2. If they thought it was invalid, did they suggest a missing premise that would make it valid (if possible)?

   4. For each premise, ask whether the author stated whether and why they did or did not agree with it.

      1. If the author agreed, then it is preferable (but not necessary) that they give reasons for agreeing. If they did give such reasons, do you agree with those reasons? Why?

      2. If the author disagreed, then it is necessary that they give reasons for disagreeing, so do you agree with those reasons? Why?

   5. For each argument, if the author thought it was unsound, did they state whether they believed its conclusion anyway, on independent grounds (i.e., for different reasons)?
      • And, if so, do you agree with those reasons?

5. Keep a written record of the questions and replies. This will be useful to the author, for revision.

6. At home, over the next week, please revise your paper to take into consideration the comments made by your fellow students (i.e., your "peers"): Perhaps defend your claims better, or clarify statements that were misunderstood, etc. For help, see Albert or me.