Writing a Critique: overview

1. Writing a Critique: overview • Discuss the relationship between critical reading and critique writing • Identify 2 categories of questions to ask when preparing a critique • Define “critique” • Enumerate writing purposes and 3 ways to assess information in a text • Analyze some questions to ask of a text when preparing a critique • Identify the five parts of a written critique

2. Critical reading requires you to • summarize - reproduce / restate basics of content and argument • evaluate (more complex than summary) - give your assessment of content and argument • in post-secondary work, you read to gain and use new information - but “you must learn to distinguish critically among sources by evaluating them” (WRAD, p. 68)

3. Critiques and Critical Reading(notes from WRAD, Ch. 3) A critique • is a “written analogue” (p. 68) of critical reading • requires all the skills of critical reading: • “discernment… • sensitivity… • imagination… • a willingness to become involved in what you read” (p. 68)

4. Definition of “Critique” • a spoken or written discourse that presents “a formalized, critical reading of a passage” (p. 89) • a personal response, but rigorous, organized, and containing supporting evidence • purpose: “to turn your critical reading of a passage into a systematic evaluation to deepen your reader’s (and your own) understanding of that passage.” (p. 89)

5. Organizing a critique (pp. 90-91) Consider a five-part organization: • introduction • summaryof the author’s/ text main points, including author’s purpose • analysis of validity of the author’s / text’s presentation • your response to the presentation • conclusion - your conclusion about the overall validity of the text

6. Critiques consider • what an author says • how well points are made (including use of appeals, language, evidence) • what assumptions underlie the argument • what issues may be overlooked • what implications can be drawn from such an analysis (p. 89)

7. Critiques answer 2 types of questions: • Questions about Author’s / Text’sPurpose • What’s the author’s purpose in writing? • Does the text succeed in achieving this purpose? • Questions about Your Evaluation • To what extent do you agree with the author? • What evidence do you have to support your position? • Whose interests are served by the text?

8. CRITIQUE PART 1 - CLOSE READING: AUTHOR’S / TEXT’S PURPOSE • “All critical reading begins with an accurate summary” (p. 68) that will identify the chief purpose of the text you’re critiquing: • locate thesis • identify content and structure • understand specific purpose (inform, persuade, entertain) NOTE: only informative & persuasive writing is considered in detail in our Academic Writing course • Only after doing this work can you determine how successful author & text have been… • … because you need to use different assessment criteria for diff. writing purposes

9. How to Assess Informative Writing(p. 69) • accuracy • Is the information trustworthy? • significance • Does it make a difference? • why or why not? • fair interpretation • Distinguish between facts (figures) and author’s interpretation. • Facts can be valuable, but author’s interpretation may not be fair or valuable.

10. How to Assess Persuasive Writing(pp. 70-71) • To make a persuasive case, writer must have an arguable assertion (thesis). • An arguable assertion is a statement • about which reasonable people could disagree (p. 70) • that can be debated using reason. • Which of the ff. are arguable assertions? Why or why not? • Children under 18 should avoid caffeinated beverages. • Coffee is better than tea. • [note: assume that these facts are true] When both are brewed according to manufacturer’s directions, 8 oz. of tazo Zen Green tea contains more caffeine than 8 oz. of Starbuck’s Macholicious coffee.

11. How to Assess Persuasive Writing,cont. • Thesis statements in persuasive discourse are conclusions drawn after research and thinking. • Writers organize evidence to • support one conclusion • oppose or dismiss another / others. • You can assess validity of arguments by determining if the author has • defined key terms clearly (pp. 76-77) • used information fairly (p.77) • argued logically, without fallacies (review pp. 77-82 & Mod. 10 notes)

12. How to Assess Persuasive Writing,cont. • Does the author clearly define terms? • it is clear what’s being discussed? • see Fromm, pp. 269-270, on definitions of “authoritarian conscience” and “humanistic conscience” • Does the author use information fairly? • is data accurate & up to date, given the topic? • is representative - does it include context? • Fromm doesn’t mention the Cuban missile crisis of Oct. 1963; is it fair for a reader in 2006 to criticize him for this omission?

13. How to Assess Persuasive Writing,cont. • If bias is present, is it a valid bias? • a “biased argument…weighted towards one point of view…may be valid as long as it is logically sound” (p. 79) • “an argument should be governed by principles of logic - clear and orderly thinking” (p. 79) • Are ethos and pathos used fairly? (see Mod. 8 notes) • Does the text avoid fallacies? (see Mod. 10 notes)

14. (reminder) Common argumentative fallacies • Emotionally loaded terms • Ad hominem argument • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc / Faulty cause and effect • Either / Or reasoning • Hasty generalization • False analogy • Begging the question & circular reasoning • Non sequitur • Oversimplification

15. CRITIQUE PART 2 - STEPPING BACK: YOUR EVALUATION • Analyze Author’s / Text’s Purpose • What’s the author’s purpose in writing? • Does the author succeed in achieving this purpose? • Give Your Evaluation • To what extent do you agree with the author? Why or why not? • Whose interests are served by the text? • After you analyze whether and how a text achieves its purpose, the second step in a critique is to evaluate and present your response

16. Your Evaluation… • is • the heart and soul of your critique • your response “to the author’s main assertions” (p. 85) • clearly distinguishes your critique from a simple • summary • statement of specific features of or fallacies in a text. Take care to distinguish a summary (simple restatement) from evaluation (your analysis).

17. Your evaluation, cont. • Distinguish between • your evaluation of the author’s purpose and author’s success at achieving it • your agreement or disagreement with the author’s views. (p. 85) • some possibilities: • You agree with the author’s position but find evidence lacking or shaky. • You find evidence and logic solid but resist the conclusion. (p. 85)

18. Your evaluation, cont. • Present your response to an author’s assertions by (pp. 85-88) • identifying points of agreement and disagreement • evaluating assumptions made by the text / author • asking “whose interests are served by the text? - see “critical literacy” questions on p. 89

19. How to identify points of agreement / disagreement • summarize author’s / text’s position • “state your own position & elaborate on your reasons for holding it” (p. 85) • “Your elaboration • …becomes an argument in itself” (p. 85) • needs supporting evidence to be effective: WHY did you agree, disagree, etc.

20. Agreement / disagreement, cont. • Two ways you can elaborate are by identifying and discussing • your own & author’s assumptions (pp. 85-86) • any fallacies in the text you’re assessing • (CL) In a critique, your “voice” or thesis must clearly be heard over the “voice” and ideas of the text you’re assessing • The structure of your critique is the structure of YOUR thoughts, not that of the text you’re discussing.

21. Using critical social theory with care • “Whose interests does the text serve?”is (CL) a post-modern version of checking the text’s assumptions • “Whose interests does the critique serve?” will always also be asked by the author of a credible critique. • Interrogate the text (see p, 89), but be prepared to analyze yourself just as rigorously. Examples: • Who’s telling the story? (Who’s analyzing the text?) • Whose voices are heard? (Whose voices were there but failed to be heard by you?) Whose are left out? Whose voices don’t belong in this text?)