E.g., if the word is not correctly spelled for the intended use, but would have been correctly spelled if you had meant something different, a spell-checker will not pick up the mistake. What we're looking for here is mainly an understanding of what the author you're writing on is trying to say, and of the possible complexities which may arise in determining this. We want you to think seriously about the philosophical issues which the author raises. What we are concerned about is the quality of reflection which goes into your answer, not which side you wind up on. In fact, in philosophy there is probably a tactical advantage in picking a topic on which you can disagree with the lecturer.
Intelligent disagreement tends to be much more interesting than agreement, however intelligent.
To treat a philosopher's views philosophically is to reflect on them critically . What that requires, in the first instance, is asking whether what the author says seems to be true and well-argued for. If it seems to you true and well-argued for, you need to consider what objections to that view might be plausible and how you might defend the view against those objections. Take the length limits seriously. If your paper is longer or shorter than that, we will ask you to write it over again.