|
7. How does the text's argument establish itself?
How would you classify the purpose of the text?
What is the goal of the text? Is it primarily concerned with knowledge? (e.g.
philosophy, theology, history, mathematics, etc.)
Is it more concerned with practical outcomes? (e.g. political policy changes, social
changes)
If theoretical or practical, is it concerned with empirical study? (e.g. biology,
chemistry, etc.)
Can you interpret and define the author’s key terms?
Can you locate the author’s leading propositions?
What kinds of support (proof) are being offered for each claim?
- Deduction or argument from principle applied to specific cases
- Definition, esp. stipulative definitions established by the author
- Cause-effect relationships
- Symptomatic signs
- Induction from representative cases
- Analogy -- historical, literal, or figurative
- Authority deriving from ethical, political, expert, or religious claims
- Emotional appeals to an audience's motivations
- Emotional appeals to an audience's character or values
Are the warrants (assumptions behind an argument) for such supports explicitly stated or
implicitly assumed? If they are, do you find them convincing?
Does the author provide any additional backing to make the warrant more acceptable to
her audience?
If the text does not provide warrant or backing, would it help clarify the argument to
speculate as to what it is?
Does the author qualify the case?
How much does the text acknowledge that its claims are built on the presence or absence
of such qualifications? Do you agree?
Could the text still make its argument without these exceptions?
Does the author acknowledge, accommodate, or refute other counterarguments?
Are these in any way essential to the arguments being made? If they are, do you find
them convincing?
Is the author uninformed or misinformed about the facts of the matter?
Is the argument illogical? If so, what contradictions are present?
Is the argument incomplete in its analysis? If so, what important steps are left out?
What else would be needed to actually make the claim that the author makes?
Are the claims based on authority unjustified? If so, why?
Is the author mistaken about either the validity or nature of the authority in question?
Are the appeals uniformed or misinformed about the nature of the audience?
Do they contradict each other in any way?
Do the appeals overlook other equally important appeals?
|