This page holds a finished PHIL-347N Week 1 discussion post, built on one small piece of everyday persuasion with its conclusion separated from the reasons offered for it. Searches like "phil 347n week 1 assignment example", "phil347n week 1 sample" and "phil-347n week 1 example" land here.
What a finished PHIL-347N Week 1 discussion post looks like
The entry opens with the thing itself, three or four sentences of it, quoted or reported closely enough that a classmate could argue with the same words. Then one sentence saying what the speaker wanted the listener to accept. Then the reasons that were actually given, kept separate from the reasons the writer of the post would have given. A sample of this kind reads oddly flat on first pass, because the interesting part of a disagreement is usually the heat and this entry has removed all of it. Strong entries end on the piece that was never said out loud, offered as a question rather than as a finding, since Week 1 arrives before the vocabulary for it does.
How a PHIL-347N Week 1 example is structured
Length limits and reply counts differ by section, and in many classrooms the replies carry their own points. The order that works starts with the source: where the argument was met, in one clause, with no story around it. The words come next, close to verbatim. The conclusion follows, written as a sentence somebody could deny, which is the test that stops a topic from posing as a claim. Under it go the supporting sentences, numbered or bulleted, one idea to a line, with anything that was only background left out. A short closing paragraph names the belief the speaker had to be counting on, flagged as a guess. Replies then do their own work: take a classmate's conclusion, agree that it was the right one to pull out, or name a different sentence and say why that one is the real target.
Where the argument came from
One clause placing it: a podcast, a family dinner, an advertisement read twice. The setting earns nothing by itself, so it stays at a clause.
The words, close to verbatim
Reported speech kept at the length it actually ran, since a tidied version turns into an argument nobody in the classroom can check against anything.
The conclusion, written to be deniable
One sentence a reasonable person could refuse. If nobody could disagree with it, what was posted is a description and the entry has no argument in it yet.
Reasons on their own lines
Each stated reason given a line of its own, with two ideas split apart where they were delivered as one breath, and scene-setting left where it was.
The unspoken step, marked as a guess
A closing line naming what the speaker must have believed for the reasons to reach the conclusion, hedged, because Week 1 has not yet named the machinery for it.
Replies that add a second reading
A reply earns its points by naming a different sentence as the real conclusion, or by producing the reason the original speaker never offered and the poster missed.
Where marks go in PHIL-347N Week 1
Nothing drains a Week 1 entry faster than posting a topic where an argument was wanted: parking fines, tipping, phone policies in class, each named and described, with nobody in the post having tried to convince anybody of anything. A close second is the conclusion nobody can find, buried in a paragraph that retells the whole conversation. Then there is the post that switches sides halfway, spending two sentences on how the other person got there and then defending a position of its own, which is the habit this course spends eight weeks unlearning. Replies that pile on agreement collect the fewest points of anything graded here. And an entry that runs past the section's limit gets read until the limit and marked on what the grader reached.
Get a PHIL-347N Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the exact wording of your Week 1 assignment, the reply requirements and the rubric if your classroom publishes one, and a custom discussion entry written to that instruction comes back inside 24-48h, the first one free. If you already have the exchange you want to use, include it and the example gets built on your material rather than on ours.
PHIL-347N Week 1 questions, answered
Does the argument have to come from something published?
Usually not. Most sections accept anything where somebody was trying to bring somebody else around: a group chat, a sales pitch, a relative at dinner. What matters is that real support was offered, not merely a view stated loudly. An overheard exchange with two reasons in it gives you more to work with than an editorial that only asserts.
Can I use an argument I agreed with?
Yes, and it is often harder, which is the point. Agreement hides the joints: you accept the conclusion, so you stop noticing whether the reasons given would get anybody there who did not already believe it. If you pick one you like, write the reasons out and then read them as somebody hostile would.
How much of the entry should be the quotation?
A third of it at most in the samples we build. The quoted material exists so the rest can refer to it, and an entry that spends two hundred words reproducing a conversation has used its space on material the grader did not ask for. Where a section publishes a word limit, the example is sized to land under it.