For the next three weeks you will be gathering disciplinary insights, and beginning to critically evaluate them. This assignment will be a ‘check point’ for you. You will complete this exact same assignment next week, but with different sources. 

Process

You should already have a list of sources from your Proposal. Start by getting those sources and reading them.

After reading the article, you will summarize it (put it in your own words). Remember that you should do this in such a way that it will actually be of help to you later on when you write your paper. You will also include full bibliographic information. Use  Purdue OwlLinks to an external site. if you are not sure how.  You may use any standard citation style (APA), but you should do so consistently. 

You will find plenty of citations in any scholarly source you are reading, and you might decide to read one of those next!

Product

You should submit a list of the sources you have read so far. For each source that was helpful–one that you might actually use in your paper–you should include a summary of the article, what discipline it comes from, the key insight/take-away, and a (short) critical evaluation. You might also include ‘future reading’.  You need this level of detail for AT LEAST three sources.

Example

List of Sources Read so Far:

Greene, J. (2003). From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology?  Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4: 846-849.

Greene, J. (2009). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment. In  The Cognitive  Neurosciences IV, ed.  Gazzaniga, M. S., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Greene, J. (2014). Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics.  Ethics,  124(4): 695-726.

We can handle this paper for you

We Guarantee ZERO Plagiarism ZERO AI

Done by Professional writers from scratch