Hi, to understand the question, I live in Quebec, a province in Canada that has Cegep which is a pre-university formation for after high school student.
This philosophy course is mandatory for every pre-university program, so its like having a mandatory english course but it is philosophy. The real course is called philosophy and rationalism and we have three of these in total to take for the completion of our program since it is mandatory for every cegep student. And this work is to write  an argumentative text.

5 paragraph in total

1.An introduction
a) I have to bring the problem and introduce the subject

b)I have to say the stakes and show the two possible positions including morals and values that motivates each position.

c)I have to present the question and reformulate the question in my own words.

2.Analyzing the concepts
This paragraph is simply to definite the important concept in the QUESTION , in order to understand the question.

MAIN PART**MOST IMPORTANT

3.MY POSITION (SO THE ARGUMENT THAT IS FOR)
The argument need to follow three structure:
-The sentence that explicit the argument
-Explanation of the argument
-Example that illustrates the argument
-ONE argument FOR which will be explaining my POSITION about the question.

4.THHE OBJECTION WHICH IS THE AGAINST ARGUMENT
The argument need to follow three structure:
-The sentence that explicit the argument
-Explanation of the argument
-Example that illustrates the argument

The two arguments NEEDS to be coherent and pertinent, and have credibility with the questions.

**As for one of the argument, it is mandatory that I use one quote from three of these philosophers (Pythagoras, Thales, or Bertrand Russell) with the source of the work of these philosophers, that will support one of the explanation of one of the argument.

5. RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION (COUNTERARGUMENT)
The argument need to follow three structure:
-The sentence that explicit the argument
-Explanation of the argument
-Example that illustrates the argument.

This last argument  is going to be the COUNTERARGUMENT , that has to CRITIC (find a critic) to  the OBJECTION ARGUMENT. And it has to be concluded with the main position or thesis that I took part of.

Apply David Mcnally’s analysis of the relationship between debt, discipline, and dispossession to the film The End of Poverty. In what ways do you see the themes of debt, discipline and dispossession appear in the film in a global context? How do race and class relate in the context of the IMF and world bank’s debt-based development regimes? Pick up on any of these questions and write a one paragraph analysis applying Mcnally’s reading and the interview with Professor Thornton to any of the themes and narratives covered in the documentary.