CRITICAL ANALYSIS SHEET

1. Identify the article and the authors argument. Use a declarative statement regarding what the author is trying to convince you. Be specific and include an analytic tone.

2. What EVIDENCE is provided to support the argument? Again, use declarative statements that extract the evidence rather than summarizing points. Be specific and include an analytic tone.

3. Was the EVIDENCE compelling? Why? Use declarative statement(s) regarding the strength, validity, depth, scope, etc. of the evidence. Do not use generalized comments. This is not a summary or opinion -- you are making an argument regarding the research. Be specific and include an analytic tone.

4. Was the EVIDENCE insufficient, biased, faulty, emotionally based, etc.? You are analyzing the validity of the argument, as well as the strength of the authors evidence, the bias of points, and the objective vs. emotional basis of the argument. Do not use generalized comments. This is not a summary or an opinion -- you are making an argument regarding the research. Be specific and include an analytic tone.

5. So, given the EVIDENCE, you decide to accept the argument--then what? What questions do you have regarding the outcome, the implementation, the effects etc. of this perspective? The questions are what you would ask the author regarding the issue/argument/solution. You will need to have at least 4 well thought out questions that relate/reflect the argument. You do not have to answer these questions. They are at the end to form not only a critical conclusion, but to stimulate future thought and provide perspective.

Important terms for clarification:

Validity: Validity is a term referring to a definitive quality of an argument: specifically, validity applies to an argument where conclusions are drawn through a logical derivation of points. An argument is the only system to which the term validity can accurately apply. An argument may be valid and false, if the conclusion is based upon false points.

A=B B=C ______ C=A

This argument is valid, despite the fact that we know nothing of the actual values involved. Therefore, validity refers to the relationships between the points and the conclusion, rather than the legitimacy of the values.

Bias: Bias exists in most arguments, as people tend to have stock in a certain set of values. Authors are faulted for bias when it is not properly acknowledged, or credence isnt given to available evidence or arguments in opposition of the authors bias. An author may address bias properly by acknowledging other arguments, and providing points which emphasize their own argument over these. An author who addresses bias improperly may hide points in opposition to their own in order to strengthen their arguments, who fail to reveal the scope of evidence, or who use emotional pleas.

Scope: Scope refers to the range of evidence examined. Specifically, an author who ignores scope is looking at a subset of evidence without examining broader implications. Having too narrow a scope will sometimes weaken an argument by not putting important points into perspective.

Depth: Depth refers to the extent to which a body of evidence or thought is explored. Without depth, an argument is said to be shallow, and feels naturally weak. Depth must be balanced against scope, as authors and readers do not have infinite time and knowledge to examine arguments.