I choose claim: It is permissible for UＳ electronic commerce companies to elude paying internet sales tax.
Format: Claim: A single well-worded declarative statement. E.g., “Should American companies hire underage workers in countries that legally permit it?” is not in declarative form, and therefore is not a claim. Questions do not assert anything. The claim must have moral significance. For example, “Many US companies hire underage workers in countries that legally permit such hires” is a factual claim and does not have moral significance. “It is economically advantageous for US companies to hire underage workers” is a pragmatic claim and doesn’t have moral significance. On the other hand, “It is permissible for the US companies to hire underage workers in countries that legally permit such hires.” does have moral significance. The claim must pertain to business ethics. Common problems: Vague claims; claims posed in the form of a question; too broad or too narrow claims; non-moral claims; more than one issue in the claim. Claims about abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, legitimacy of war, cloning, religion, minimum wage, government regulations, etc., are NOT relevant business ethics claims.
Explanation of the claim: You should explain very carefully and in common-sense vocabulary what you mean by the claim itself and by the terms involved in the claim. For example, it is not immediately apparent what is meant by “US companies should not hire underage workers in countries where it is legally permissible.” I do not know (or pretend not to know for the purposes of grading) what is meant by “underage”, by “countries where it is legally permissible”. Common problems: assuming that the terms your use are self-explanatory. The reader of your paper will assume no prior knowledge of your subject on his part, If your do not explain your terms, concepts, relationships you will start losing points. Arguing in the explanation part of the paper, rather than explaining what you mean by your claim.
Reasons For the Claim: Each reason for the claim should be numbered with Arabic numerals (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). You should provide at least four reasons for your claim. Each reason must be unpacked in a whole paragraph. Each reason must have moral significance. Common problems: sketchy arguments; pragmatic rather than moral arguments; insufficiently developed arguments; argument borrowed from other sources (even if documented); arguments that appeal to psychological rather than moral considerations, weak or not well-thought out arguments.
Reasons Against the Claim: Here you step into the shoes of your hypothetical opponent and think of reasons why your claim doesn’t hold. Each reason against the claim should be numbered with Roman numerals (I), (II), (III), (IV). You should provide at least four reasons against your claim. Each reason must be unpacked in a whole paragraph. Each reason must have moral significance. Common problems: same as above; attempting to rebut the arguments presented in Reasons For the Claim – this belongs to the Rebuttal section.
Decision: At this point in the paper you must decide which set of reasons (i.e., Reasons For or Reasons Against the Claim) is a stronger set. You must explain why you think a particular set of reasons is stronger. This part must be a full paragraph rather than a couple of sentences.
Rebuttals: At this point in the paper you must provide a counterargument against each reason in the set of reasons that you found to be weaker (in the Decision part of the paper). For example, if you found Reasons For the Claim to be a weaker set of reasons, you must counter-argue against (1), (2), (3), (4). Conversely, if you found Reasons Against to be a weaker set, you must counter-argue against (I), (II), (III), (IV). Each counterargument must be unpacked in a whole paragraph.