The OU has now posted the updated question for TMA 06 as the first question caused some confusion regarding terms and actual meaning.
The last TMA actually looks like about 6 separate sections,
1. Introduction,
2. Definition of Terms,
3. Discussion of Premise 1,
4. Discussion of Premise 2,
5. Discussion of Conclusion,
6. Essay Conclusion
Premise 1:
Citizens only have obligations towards their state if that state is broadly
just.
Basically carve out the arguments from Chapters 1 & 2 to present this as Premise as TRUE.
Premise 2: States
that exhibit large economic inequalities between citizens are not broadly just
Find arguments from Chapters 3 & 4 to refute this Premise and show it to be FALSE.
The argument is VALID but it is not sound because PREMISE 2 is FALSE
It is going to be difficult keeping this below 2,000 words
2 comments:
Hi,
you have said in your essay plan to examine premise 1 and 2 and the conclusion. However, in the assessment guide I believe it says to examine in detail only one of the premises, as the word limit will not allow for a detailled argument about the entrie statement. Hope this helps.
Hi bellatrix,
Thank you for taking the time to comment, I've read the assessment guide properly now and can see what you mean. It makes perfect sense as I was wondering how this could be done in 2000 words.
You've saved me heading off in the wrong direction and wasting a lot of time.
Hope the course is going well for you, not long to go now.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment