Auth: Using an authority. There are no authorities in philosophy; that is, just because some person says that something is true does not make it the case that that thing is therefore true. In general, if the only argument for a point is that someone has made it, then there is no argument for the point and it is best dropped.
BQ: Begging the question. One begs the question when one fails to answer it, usually by answering another similar question instead. Example: Suppose the question is, "Can one keep a promise by accident?" The following answer would beg every question of interest here: "If by 'keeping a promise' one means just physically doing what one has said one will do, then keeping a promise by accident is perfectly possible." This begs the question because everything that is interesting (and hard) about the original question lies in whether keeping a promise does involve just and only physically doing what one has said one will do. In other words, don't assume as a premise the very conclusion one is trying to establish.
BRQ: Bad rhetorical question. It is a good idea to avoid rhetorical questions altogether in writing philosophy. My experience is that just at the point students think that everything is obvious and express this in rhetorical questions, major difficultiesarise. However, rhetorical questions can be used legitimately. They are so used when the answer to the question is obvious and this obvious answer is correct. One gets a bad rhetorical question when one or the other of these conditions is not fulfilled. Actual example: "Who would ever suppose that a person should act from duty alone?" The "obvious" answer was "No one." The correct answer is, "To take one example, the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant."
EA: Emotional appeal. Such appeals do nothing to substantiate a claim. Though it may be good to be emotionally involved in supporting certain issues, and though the views you hold may be correct, logical argument alone will suffice to determine that those views are true or false, correct or incorrect.
EN: Example Needed. This occurs when an illustration would greatly increase the effectiveness or intelligibility of a claim.
E!: English! That is, bad English. I am not here referring to splitting infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition, which does not matter at all. Bad English in students' papers is usually a matter of ambiguity or unintelligibility with a grammatical origin.
FN: Footnote. I write this when a footnote is needed to cite a reference, such as a quotation. It is never permissible to quote a source without proper reference, including the title and date of the publication, and the page number.
GN: Gender Neutrality. Achieve neutral gender-referring language in your writing. For example, the following two statments are sexually biased: "Man has still not fully recognized his debt to Aristotle", and "When a person is motivated to find truth, she will usually favor seeing over not seeing". There are a number of ways to write these sentences, and any others that refer to human beings and/or persons, in a nonsexist manner. Many times, you will be quoting passages from works which do contain sexist language. You may not, of course, alter the language in a quote. However, I would ask you not to continue the practice of using sexist language even if the person you are writing about does. Experiment on your own, prior to turning in your paper(s). Adopt the style you feel most comfortable with, as long as it's gender-neutral.
GR: Give reasons. I write this opposite any statement of belief or opinion (true or false) for which you fail to provide reasoned argumentation. For example: if you write, "I believe abortion is always morally permissable in cases where the fetus possesses an XYZ chromosome pattern", you must indicate the evidence you have for holding such a belief. There may well be very good evidence, but you need to make it explicit.
IS: Incomplete sentence. Every sentence must express at least one complete thought. Many times the origin of this error is grammatical.
MST: Muddled Style. I write this when there is a muddle in your paper which is, I suspect, stylistic in origin and not philosophic. To correct it, just think through what you want to say more clearly.
NOB: Not obvious. I write this when you offer something as obvious when it is in fact not at all obvious.
NS: Non-sequitur. You have a non-sequitur when you say, or imply, that one statement follows from another or some others when it does not.
PU: Punctuation. I write this when any sentence is punctuated in such a way that detracts from the understanding of the idea(s) being expressed in the sentence. This error is commonly remedied with the placement of a comma(s) in the appropriate place(s).
R: Relevance. When you write a philosophy paper, go through afterwards and ask yourself of every sentence whether it bears on the original problem and whether it moves us further toward the solution of that problem. If any sentence does not fulfill both of these conditions, delete it.
TBS: True by stipulation. Example: Someone says, "By 'pain' I mean that state someone is in when they moan and groan and cry out." It then follows that no one can ever pretend to be in pain by moaning and groaning and crying out. But the solution is spurious just because it is not correct that what "pain" means is the state someone is in when they moan and groan and cry out. The possibility of pretense has been stipulated out of existence, which is not a useful way to solve a philosophical problem.
TNE: This needs explaining. A special case of WEM. Any ambiguous or obscure point needs to be fully explained in the simplest possible terms.
TNS: This needs support. I write this opposite any statement which is offered as obvious, or anyway is unsupported, and which needs some form of support. A special case of NOB.
URP: Unreferred pronoun. A common mistake, but worth emphasizing. When you read over a draft of any paper you write, always ask yourself, of every pronoun, whether or not it is completely unambiguously referred to some suitable noun or noun phrase.
UTT: Unexplained technical term. This is a special case of WEM. When you use a term in an unusual or special sense, it is necessary to explain exactly what you take the term to mean. Failure to do this prevents the reader from fully understanding your point.
WEM: What exactly does this mean? Problems of intelligibility occur when one uses a term or makes a point that is obscure or ambiguous. This problem can be avoided by a more clear and precise formulation of one's points.
WMS: Words mean something. I write this when you seem to assume that words mean nothing or can mean anything one chooses they shall mean, or one of the many variations on this error.
Never assume that the reader knows your mind. Only you know what you're thinking. Try to write in as simple and unambiguous a way as you can. Clarity is a major goal in writing. There are differences between various term papers written for different courses. A philosophy paper ought to be critical rather than reportive. However, when you are reacting to a certain philosophical position identified by a certain philosopher's work, then you must be careful to report just what that position is, with all the accuracy and detail possible, given the scope of the paper you are writing.
Generally, philosophy papers deal with philosophical problems. You should be especially careful about formulating the problem with which you are concerned, including how the problem arises. There must be an attempt to solve/resolve the problem, although it is not to be presumed that you will accomplish the final (Q.E.D.) resolution. Most of our work is continuously being revised, at least in our heads, and we must not push for the "Absolute Truth" until such time as we can clearly demonstrate that all the other possibilities have been discredited. Realize that I am asking you to do philosophy in each paper. Your considered opinion is vital, but not to the exclusion of what other thinkers have had to say on your chosen topic.
I can recommend a number of books that will be helpful in reading, writing, and doing philosophy. They are: