This needs to be a fully original work that is not based on any AI or taken off the internet. The pa ...

---

This needs to be a fully original work that is not based on any AI or taken off the internet. The paper needs to be 1200 words (+50/-50) words is fine. Prompt: Socrates argues in the Crito that he has tacitly agreed never to break the laws of Athens, and that it would be wrong to break this agreement. State his argument for that conclusion, as clearly, concisely, and accurately that you can. Is the argument sound? If you think it isn't, try to identify its flaws. If you think it is present the best objection you can think of, and show how this argument can be defended. (Link to Crito https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pd...) Rules about citing - Any attributions of claims to Socrates should be documented with textual reference, even when not quoting directly, use numbers in the margin to cite. If you quote directly be sure to use quotation marks, quotes longer then five lines should be set off from the main text indented and single spaced. Specific tips - - Strive for simplicity in style and avoid jargon - First paragraph should set up the problem youlll be addressing and state the position you'll be taking on it. It should contain a well defined and specific thesis statement stating the position you'll be arguing for( and perhaps hinting at the reasons you'll give" - You don't need a separate concluding paragraph - Avoid plot summary, you may assume the the reader has read Crito and knows basic backgrounds around socrates, so no need to say things like "socrates was an ancient greek philosopher" etc. - A paper is successful 1. it has a clear and interesting thesis, 2. It gives sufficient grounds to support the thesis If the thesis is uninteresting, 1 is not achieved. If the thesis is too ambitious, 2 is not achieved. Be illuminating in the paper - Call attention to something that might not be obvious to an attentive reader. For example: a problem raised by a passage a passage that answers a query the reader may have had about another part of the text the structure of an argument a flaw in an argument a way of making sense of something that is initially puzzling