I wrote this advice for my students, who are undergraduates doing philosophy/politics. I think most of it would be useful for any humanity/essay-based subject, particularly in the first half, while the latter suggests argumentative techniques - though I guess some of them could be employed in history, some literature studies, etc.

1. Writing Essays (the basics)

Philosophy essays generally require you to develop a line of argument. It isn't enough simply to report what other people have said - you need to take a stance on the question (though it needn't be an extreme one, sometimes fence sitting is ok).

Think carefully about what the question is asking. Does it refer specifically to anything you've read? Is there any assumption in the question you'd like to challenge? Make sure you answer it.

Do you have your own answer to the question - either before or after doing some reading? If so, write it down in one or two sentences.

Now think how you can build in what you've read. Don't just include authors who agree with you. Include the opposition too, but remember you have to say what's wrong with their arguments, or find some way of defending your position.

Don't think just of what you've read in the current week. Think what else might be relevant from other weeks (or even papers).

Plan what you're going to say in each paragraph (this can be done in bullet points). There should be a logical thread running through your case - so it reads like you developing an argument, not making a series of loosely connected points. Think about a logical ordering of points.

Write an introduction that sets out what you're going to do. Not too much waffle. Set out what the question is (how you interpret it, what big issues it's getting at), and how you're going to tackle it.

Include 'signposts' through your essay to keep the reader on track. For example, if you have said there are three points in favour of an argument, make it clear what they are ('firstly… secondly… thirdly…'). If you're switching to present the other side of the case, make this clear ('one could criticise this by arguing…')

Your essays are short enough they won't generally need sub-sections, but if you think they'd help - e.g. you're answering a question in two parts - then use them. Similarly, feel free to number propositions, set out arguments logically, etc.

Always consider both sides of the argument, and try to anticipate objections. An argument often takes a dialogical structure. Person 1 says X because X1. Person 2 asserts Y because Y1. Person 1 defends X1 as more plausible than Y1. Person 2 criticises X1 and offers a new reason (Y2) for believing Y. Person 1 defends X1 against the criticism, arguing it is more plausible than Y2. Etc.

Often you can go someway by 'playing off' the authors you have read against each other, but try to go one step further yourself - be critical of what you read, what can be said against their arguments?

Similarly, anticipate, and try to rebut, criticisms that may be made of your own position. ('This may seem implausible because… but that objection fails because…')

Remember that 'X says…' is not sufficient argument for anything!

Make sure your essay follows the path you set out. (This is why planning is important). The body should do what the introduction says you will, and the conclusion should follow from (and be consistent with!) what you've argued throughout.

2. Useful Argumentative/Philosophical Strategies.

Make distinctions. If someone has said all Bs are Cs, question this. It may be that most Bs are Cs, but there may be a sub-category of Bs that aren't - or that are also Ds (where this is relevant to the question in hand).

Consider the strength/scope of all claims. If someone makes a universal claim, a single counter example is enough to falsify it. Remember this when attacking others, and advancing your own position - make yours as strong as you can, but not too strong.

If someone says X and Y therefore Z, and it seems logically valid, consider the truth of the premises. If you think not-Z, then perhaps it's because you think either not-X or not-Y. See if you can find a fault in their starting points. (It's easy to reach controversial conclusions from controversial premises).

When interrogating a claim, always ask why a given philosopher says what he does, and what follows from it. Sometimes a philosopher's ideas are easier to understand if you can put them in the context of their broader thoughts.

Sympathise with your opponent. Some things philosophers say may seem paradoxical at first, but few will be obviously false or absurd. Remember, you're reading (mostly) very clever people, who've thought a lot about their ideas, and heard many objections. If you think you can dismiss something easily, it's more likely you don't understand. Try as hard as you can to get into your opponent's way of thinking, to be sure you appreciate the fully force of their argument.

On the other hand, not everything you read will be 'right'. Far from it - if there are two sides to a debate, generally at least one must be wrong (more usually, both are partially true). If there are six sides, at least five are wrong!

When reading two sides of a debate, beware of mis-representation. Imagine a range of positions on some single dimension (e.g. left-right) issue, which we can number from 1 to 20. This is the usual pattern of disagreements:

X says: 13 is/represents the truth.
Y says: 15? You're crazy. More like 7.
X says: You've mischaracterised my view as 17. It's really 12. As for your view the truth is 5, that's ridiculous...

Also beware of two philosophers 'talking past each other'. Do they really disagree, or are they actually talking about different things? Perhaps what one means by a contested term - like 'justice' or 'morality' - is quite different from what the other means.

Look for inconsistencies. Not just in one person's account, but between different values or intuitions. The reason one person gives up (an intuitively appealing claim) X may be that it is inconsistent with (what they consider more appealing) Y. Think: Are X and Y really inconsistent? Is Y really more appealing than X?

I hope this is some help, particularly to those just starting university.

I owe thanks to all those who taught me, particularly Fiona Ellis, Krister Bykvist and Jerry Cohen.