What I'm Looking For: Organizing It
So much on what I am looking for in general. Here's how I want you to organize it. The response paper should be organized into two parts: a brief introduction, and the body of the paper giving the argument.
The Introduction to the Response Paper
The introduction of any response paper you submit to me should do four things: state the thesis the paper will argue for or against, say where it is found in the reading, tell me whether you'll argue for or against it (and, if you'll argue against it, tell me what your alternative thesis is), and give a one-sentence summary of your main reasons for either the text thesis or your alternative thesis. A good introduction would look like this:
"In his Chapters on Socialism, John Stuart Mill considers the utopian-socialists' thesis that the only genuinely productive form of labor is the production of physical commodities (p. 390). In this paper, I shall argue, against this thesis, that other forms of labor are also genuinely productive. My main reasons will be that one main goal of economic activity is to satisfy people's desires, and that any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity is genuinely productive labor."
That introduction tells me everything I want to know: what is the definite thesis found in the reading that you'll argue for or against, where in the reading you find it--the page number is sufficient, because I know which book and edition you got it from--, that you're arguing against the thesis, what your alternative thesis is, and a one-sentence summary of your main reasons against the thesis. An introduction like that will get top marks.
Here, by contrast, is an introduction that does not tell me what I want to know:
"Since at least the time of Aristotle, philosophers have debated which forms of labor count as genuinely productive, and why. This question was especially important for the 19th-century socialists. For they wished to argue that the capitalism of their day unjustly rewarded unproductive labor and failed to sufficiently reward genuinely productive labor. So they needed a plausible criterion for productive labor, one which would give them the results they sought. However, their quest for a criterion presupposes that we can clearly distinguish between productive and unproductive labor. In this paper, I want to challenge this presupposition. I shall argue that all forms of labor are genuinely productive, on the grounds that all labor is exertion aimed at attaining some end, and that all such exertion is genuinely productive."
This introduction is admirable in many ways. It proceeds crisply to a definite argument. It bespeaks a good and accurate knowledge of the history of thought about productive labor. It displays a good knowledge of why the 19th-century socialists sought a criterion to distinguish productive from unproductive labor. It reveals a firm grasp of important theoretical concepts, like distinctions, presuppositions, and criteria. And it bespeaks a command of how to state a definite thesis and summarize how you will argue for it. But it does not do what I want response papers to do: it does not explicitly state and then summarize how it will argue for or against a definite thesis found in the reading. Instead, it proposes to challenge a presupposition of a theory or set of theses found in the reading. So I would be reluctant to give this introduction top marks.
Contrast that with this introduction:
"Since at least the time of Aristotle, philosophers have debated which forms of labor count as genuinely productive, and why. The 19th-century socialists are an example. They decried the injustices of capitalism in their time, and for them productive labor was very important. They took the side of the working class, and set themselves against the capitalists and the aristocrats. However, there is much to be said for capitalism's way of conceiving of productive labor, in which any labor is productive if somebody pays someone else for it."
This introduction is much less admirable. While each of its sentences displays a good knowledge of its particular subject, and while each sentence reveals a good command of the relevant concepts, the sentences do not hang together well. Nor do they do what I want an introduction to do. First, this introduction doesn't make clear what thesis it will deal with. The thesis could be what the introduction calls capitalism's way of conceiving of productive labor. But then again, it could be something else. Second, the introduction doesn't tell us where any of the possible theses it covers are to be found in the reading. Third, it doesn't tell us what it will argue for or against. And fourth, it of course doesn't summarize how it will argue that claim.
So of these three examples, the easiest way to a good paper is to emulate the first and avoid the third. Pursue the second at your own risk!
The Body of the Response Paper
As we saw, the introduction to your response paper should be brisk. It should get down to business fast. You want to have as much space as possible to give the argument for your claim--that either the thesis you're considering is true, or that there is an alternative thesis that is nearer the truth. The body of the paper should give the full version of the argument you sketched at the end of the introduction. It should explain how the reasons you mentioned, if true, allow us to reliably infer your claim. Why, given your premises, do we have good reason to accept your claim? What form this should take depends on what your premises are. If their meaning is clear and they seem uncontroversial, then you can spend your time explaining why and how they support your claim. If their meaning is not clear, then you will also need to state what they mean: you will have to say something about definitions. If your premises seem controversial, then you will have to justify them: you will have to give us reasons for thinking the premises are true. Take, for example, the argument sketched in the good introduction we considered above. There, you would probably need to do all three things. First, you would need to show why the claim--that some labor is genuinely productive without being the production of physical commodities--is reliably inferred from the premises. Second, you would need to say something about the terms in this premise: "That any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity is genuinely productive labor." You would need to say something about what is meant by "a main goal of economic activity" and "genuinely productive labor." Third, you would need to say something about why we should accept that premise. Why is the nature of productive labor so influenced by the main goals of economic activity? So the body of your paper might be organized like this:
"What are the main goals of economic activity? I think it will be agreed that one of them, at any rate, is the satisfaction of desires. But if so, then it seems to follow that some labor is genuinely productive without being the production of physical commodities. For any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity is genuinely productive labor; and there are some forms of labor--like legal services, for example---that satisfy desires, but are not the production of physical commodities. By "a main goal of economic activity," I mean "one of the prime objects that most people have when they engage in activities aimed either at production for use, or production for exchange." I take it that all economic activity falls under one or other of those two heads. Given this, we can see why it makes sense to say that all labor that achieves such main goals is genuinely productive. For labor is genuinely productive whenever it achieves a prime object people have in engaging in production for use or exchange. The reason is that such labor is doubly productive: on the one hand, it achieves an important object people have, and on the other, it achieves that object by engaging in production. So any labor that achieves this object in this is genuinely productive. And since one of the prime objects people have for laboring in this fashion is satisfying desires, it follows that desire-satisfaction is a main goal of economic activity. But there clearly are forms of labor besides physical-commodity-production that achieve this goal. So some labor is genuinely productive without being the production of physical commodities."
That is all you need to do in the body of the response paper. You do not need to, nor should you, consider objections to either your argument or your thesis. You don't need any passages of the "Somebody might say, against this premise, that..." variety. If you have more words available, use them to justify any questionable premises, or to clarify any still unclear terms. The deeper your argument goes, the better. The response paper is not an exercise in debate.
Notice that this argument works by appealing to more general ideas and principles in order to defend its claim. It derives the specific from the general. But you could also argue the claim in the opposite direction: you could argue that the thesis you're challenging has unacceptable consequences, and hence is false. An argument of this form would go like this. "I shall argue that some labor is genuinely productive without being the production of physical commodities, on the ground that the contradictory thesis--that all genuinely productive labor produces physical commodities--unacceptably implies that housework is not genuinely productive. For there is no labor more productive than the upkeep and care of a livable home." To run this argument, you would want to say why the thesis must imply that housework is not genuinely productive, and why there is no labor more productive than the upkeep and care of a livable home. (So, although here you are arguing against the thesis from its alleged consequences, instead of from general principles that entail it, you still have premises to justify. So again, the deeper your argument, the better.)
What I'm Not Looking For in Organization
Multiple arguments! Just make one argument for your claim. I don't want multiple independent arguments for it. Some students, for example, might argue for the claim above as follows. "I shall argue that some labor is genuinely productive without being the production of physical commodities. I have two arguments for this claim. One is that it unacceptably implies that housework is not genuinely productive. The other is that one main goal of economic activity is to satisfy people's desires, and that any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity is genuinely productive labor." Although this is admirable in its ambition, it runs afoul of the word limit to the response papers. If you make multiple independent arguments for your claim, you won't have the space to make any of them more than a shallow and superficial rationale. A shallow rationale is not an interesting rationale--or at least, it's not what I'm looking for in the response papers. I'm looking for non-shallow rationales. Remember that, when engaged in theorizing, it is always better to have one deep and powerful argument for a claim than multiple shallow and weak arguments for it. (That may or may not be true in debate, in courtroom argument, or in other fora where the purpose is to persuade. But, in theorizing, the goal is to make the deepest and most powerful arguments we can in the space available.)