Paper Response #3 Religious Studies 2001 - Introduction to World Religions Fall 2011
Due Date: Tuesday, Nov. 29th
Possible primary text/source: Shabana Mir, Manusmriti, On the Difference Between Men and Women, Leviticus reading, Shira Dicker, Genesis 18-19, Judges 19-20 Possible theorists to apply: Mary Daly, Mary Douglas, Jeffrey Stout, Daniel Helminiak, John Hick (using his theory in our second text reading by him, Bruce Lincoln
I.
Purpose of the Assignment The third paper assignment is to summarize a theorist's arguments; analyze a primary source by applying the theorist to your understanding of the text; and finally, explain the significance of your analysis for our understanding of the texts. You may discuss any theorist you have not summarized in your first two response papers. For this assignment, you need to have a clear thesis statement that explains your argument. You must also 1) identify a theorist(s) who helps you make sense of the primary text, 2) correctly apply that theorist's ideas to a primary source, and 3) support your application through direct and indirect citations of both texts, as you did in the second response.
II.
General Requirements & Deadlines A. Length: 700-900 doubled words, spaced. B. Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, etc., (i.e., well-written). C. Response paper must include a clear thesis statement that explains your argument and its significance, and the argument must be clearly developed throughout the response. D. Response paper must include properly cited direct and indirect quotations. E. You may apply a theorist we have or will discuss in class, but s/he must be different than those whose arguments you summarized for the first two response papers.
III.
In preparing your response, review the questions on the previous response guideline sheets, and ask yourself: What contribution to our study of religion does my analysis make? How does my analysis help explain the content of the texts? How does my analysis illuminate themes we have discussed in the course? What am I arguing? Why do I think my analysis is important? Is there evidence to support my claims? What evidence supports my argument? How can I use this evidence to construct a clear and sound argument?
Have I clearly stated what my argument is and how it is significant to my/our understanding of the texts? Can I support my argument with relevant evidence from the texts?