10/26 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Wednesday's class is canceled. This confuses a few things logistically, so here are the changes:

• Group #1 should be prepared to present their consensus session on Friday, October 28th.
• Group #2 should be prepared to present their consensus session on Monday, October 31st. 
• Other groups should be prepared to present on their originally scheduled dates.

Consensus Email Tips

I'd like to clarify something. In the email your group sends me a week before your consensus session presentation, I only want two things:

1. A formal premise/conclusion version of the main argument in your article.
2. Your group's systematic evaluation of this argument (check each premise and the argument's structure).

That's it! Furthermore, this is basically what I expect you to do in your group presentation: present and explain the main argument in the article, and lead a class-wide evaluation of this article using the thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting system.

In other words, I don't expect your group to give a general presentation on your topic. There's no need to go into a detailed explanation of the topic, or explain the science behind your issue, or whatever. Nor do I want you to make up your own argument for what you believe on the issue.

I just want you to present the author's argument as you understand it. I don't care whether you like or dislike this argument; your job is to (fairly) explain it to the rest of the class. If you dislike the arg, you can mention reasons why when you lead the class-wide evaluation of it.

So here's an example of the type of email I expect:

To: slandis@camdencc.edu, other members of your group
Sent: at least 1 week before our presentation
Subject: Ethics Group #1's Argument

Our Version of Mary Anne Warren's Argument
P1) A fetus is at best a potential person.
P2) A full-fledged person’s rights always outweigh a potential person’s rights.
P3) A pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion outweighs a fetus’s right to life.
C) Abortion is morally acceptable.

Our Evaluation of Her Argument
P1: we buy her definition of 'person,' but others might not...
P2: questionable! While persons' rights IN GENERAL might be more important than non-persons' rights, it's not clear this is ALWAYS true.
P3: this is supported by P2. We actually buy this, but not for the reason that Warren does. Her arg for this isn't the best.
Structure: good!

That's it! It doesn't have to be a long email. Just give me the argument and your evaluation of it.

Consensus Session Guidelines

During the 2nd half of the semester we’ll be holding group presentations on specific issues we’ll be discussing in class. Your group’s assignment is to figure out the main argument from a specific article, then present that argument to your classmates in class and lead a discussion about whether the argument is good or bad. More specific directions are below:

Preparing for the Consensus Session
First, your group’s job is to understand and evaluate the argument contained in the readings for your issue.

Understand
1. Figure out the argument in your assigned article, and summarize it in a clear premise/conclusion format.
NOTE: Try to keep the argument concise and easy to understand.

Evaluate
2. Evaluate the argument as a group. Check each premise, and check the argument’s support.
3. When evaluating, play the back & forth game. That is, consider as many responses to the argument and your criticisms of it as you can think of. Is the argument misguided? Mistaken? Can you revise the argument to overcome the criticisms you come up with?
4. Try to reach a group-wide consensus on your evaluation of the argument.
NOTE: It doesn’t matter which side you end up on! The goal isn’t to show there’s something wrong about the argument. Nor do I want you to defend the argument no matter what. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

Your group must email me (1) your version of the argument and (2) your group's evaluation of it one week before you’re scheduled to lead a session. I will provide helpful feedback, and make sure you’re on the right track.

Running the Consensus Session
During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your article’s argument to the rest of the class, and lead a class-wide consensus session on each argument. Each group member should present about the same amount.

Presenting the Argument
1. Explain the main point of the reading.
2. Explain the author’s argument in support of this main point. (Explain it slowly and clearly, like you’re teaching it to the class. Explain what each premise means in easy-to-understand language. Point out exactly where each premise came from in the reading. Explain why the author believes each premise is true.)
3. Hold a small question and answer round with the class to explain and clarify the argument before evaluating it.

Consensus Voting
4. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up/thumbs down vote) with the rest of class where you evaluate the first premise of the argument.
5. Call on students to explain their evaluation (especially those who voted thumbs down or in the middle).
6. Go back & forth with every dissenter with the goal of trying to reach a consensus (complete agreement for the whole class). At this point, you can briefly explain your group’s evaluation of the premise, along with why your group evaluated it the way you did.
7. Based on the class-wide discussion, revise, defend, or clarify the argument as needed. Revote on any revisions.
8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 to evaluate each remaining premise and the argument’s support.

Group Presentations

Here are the groups for your consensus session presentations, along with the date of each presentation, the due date of your email, and the article your group is assigned to:

Embyronic Stem Cells
-Group 1 on October 26th (email due October 19th): Hyan article – pages 316-319: Christopher, Dana, Kendal, Megan
-Group 2 on October 28th (email due October 21st): Magill & Neaves article – pages 319-323: Brittney, Danny, Gabi, Phi

Genetic Control
-Group 3 on November 2nd (email due October 26th): Davis article – pages 285-294: Lakeisha, Melissa, Sangsu, Shanice

Cloning
-Group 4 on November 4th (email due October 28th): Kass article – pages 401-406: Alyssa, Avery, Eric, Potsy
-Group 5 on November 7th (email due October 31st): Strong article – pages 406-411: no one

Homosexual Parenthood
-Group 6 on November 9th (email due November 2nd): Hanscombe article – pages 406-409: Hannah, Leigh, Rhea, Robyn

Impaired Infants
-Group 7 on November 14th (email due November 7th): Engelhardt article – pages 543-548: no one

Euthanasia
-Group 8 on November 18th (email due November 11th): Callahan article – pages 596-600: Kelly, Marissa, Nick S., Tamara
-Group 9 on November 21st (email due November 14th): Rachels article – pages 585-589: Andrea, Ashley, Kim, Shana

Animal Research
-Group 10 on November 30th (email due November 23rd): Cohen article – pages 203-209: Greg, Joe, Lauren, Nick D., Tiffany

Race and Gender
-Group 11 on December 5th (email due November 28th): Dula article – pages 798-894: no one

The Economics of Health Care
-Group 12 on December 9th (email due December 2nd): Daniels article – pages 713-716: Becky, Lorraine, Mark, Pinky

If your name isn't on this list, please let me know as soon as possible so we can figure out what group you're in.