First Draft

Ethics Paper Checklist

Most of these items are linked to a document that describes how to satisfy these conditions in more detail.

Selecting a Topic and Thesis

☐ I have selected a thesis for my paper.

☐ Reasonable and informed people can disagree with my thesis.

☐ My thesis is original, creative, and courageous.

☐ I have enough space in the paper to adequately present the argument and

evidence for my thesis.

Constructing a Strong Argument

☐ My audience of reasonable skeptics would likely accept the premises and inferences of

my argument.

☐ I have constructed a detailed outline/argument map of the main arguments in my

paper.

☐ I have avoided the pile-on approach of listing all of the reasons in favor of my thesis.

Instead, I’ve used the focused approach of fully developing and explaining only my

strongest arguments for my ultimate conclusion.

☐ I have used the evidence rule throughout my paper—I have supported any controversial

or not widely-known empirical claim in my paper with evidence (for example, with a

citation).

☐ I have fully responded to the strongest objections to my argument.

☐ My paper doesn’t just repackage what others have said. Instead, I have come up with

my own points, arguments, examples, evidence, and/or objections.

☐ If my ideas come from another source and I’m paraphrasing what someone else wrote, I

always cite this source.

Style, Clarity, and Organization

☐ I generally write using short sentences in an active voice.

☐ My paragraphs are short and focused, and generally contain fewer than 200 words each.

☐ My paper often uses signposts, indicator words, headings, and examples to clarify my

argument.

☐ I only quote other authors if this is absolutely necessary—for example, if this is

necessary to convey exactly what an author says.

☐ My paper has a straightforward organization. I don’t waste space on extraneous

information but instead only include material that’s necessary to explain and defend my argument.

Using Good Evidence

☐ My evidence comes from sources that have good ways of filtering out misleading or

false claims (i.e. peer reviewed articles, reputable newspapers, etc).

☐ If my evidence in the paper is about whether X caused Y, I have a way of knowing

whether X really caused Y.

☐ A systematic review (meta-analysis) finds that X causes Y.

☐ A randomized controlled trial finds that X causes Y.

☐ A regression discontinuity design that finds that X causes Y.

☐ A natural experiment finds that X causes Y.

☐ A before-after study that finds that X causes Y.

☐ If my evidence is about whether a sample supports a generalization, I have a way of

knowing that this sample is representative.

☐ The sample is large (usually 100s or 1000s of subjects/observations)

☐ It’s unlikely that there’s selection bias in the sample.