CRITIQUE OF ANOTHER PERSON'S ARGUMENT WRITING A

Critique
• A critique is an evaluation. A critique or critical essay evaluates what someone has said.
• Some critiques are analyses of writing, as when one critiques a novel or poem for an English
course.

Content of Critique
Although thinking cannot be strictly divorced from matters of language use, here we are going
to focus on evaluation of the rationality of a person's position, not on evaluation of the person's facility
in communicating it. To put it crudely, this sort of critique focuses on content and not presentation.

Critiquing a Persuasive/Argumentative Essay

The simplest type of argumentative essay is one that simply criticizes the position of an
opponent. There are only a limited number of strategies to adopt with this sort of essay.

Your thesis will be very straightforward. It will take one of these forms:

✓ Person so-and-so is wrong to conclude __________.

✓ Person so-and-so is hasty in concluding __________.
✓ Person so-and-so fails to prove that ____________.

Getting Started
Before one starts writing, he has to study and take apart his argument for his position. One must
look for the parts of his argument.

An argument consists of three things:

➢ Assumptions
Assumptions are undefended beliefs one holds in order for the argument to make
sense.
➢ Premises
Premises are reasons given to prove that an arguer is correct.
➢ Conclusions
Conclusions are reasons given for an arguer to be believed. A reasoned judgment. The
necessary consequence of propositions taken as premises.

Three basic strategies for criticizing the argument once you have identified it.
✓ Deprive them of their premises and/or assumptions (take away their support).

The simplest critique will focus exclusively on the assumptions and premises, arguing
that one or more is false. To be effective, therefore, the essay will start by identifying the central
premises and assumptions. (So the first stage of the evaluation is to summarize your opponent's
argument) The essay will then focus on the ones that you think are weakest, discussing them
one at a time and giving reason not to agree with them. Don't just say that you agree or
 disagree! That simply identifies your position as different (resulting in a "compare and contrast"
essay), but it does not provide evaluation of the other person's position.

3 Strategies To Show Agreement To An Assumption/Premise

• We can give good reasons to regard it as false.

• We can show that it directly contradicts something we know is true.
• We can show that there are no good reasons to believe it.

1st Strategy to show that a claim is false…

These are the best strategies for arguing that a premise or assumption is false:

• Describe a personal experience you've had that shows it is false.

• Cite a reliable authority who says it is false.
• Assume that it is true and then show that this assumption leads to something else that is false or
highly questionable. (Technically, this is to construct a reductio ad absurdum.)

2nd Strategy in showing an argument is false

Show that there's a hole in the argument

(show that the conclusion simply does not follow from what has been said)

• Sometimes we cannot find good objections to the premises and assumptions, but we can show
that the conclusion does not really follow from the ones offered by the arguer. This happens
when the evidence might be true, but the arguer does not offer enough of it or the right
kind. Perhaps their evidence only supports a different but weaker thesis.

TYPES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES

➢ Ad Hominem
-attacking the person rather than the argument
➢ Ad Ignorantum
-when you argue that something is true because it has not been proven to be false
➢ Ad Populum
-Bandwagon
➢ Argument from Authority
-An argument that concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness
has said that it is
➢ Hasty Generalization
-drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence

➢ Slippery Slope

-a fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot
be prevented.

➢ Straw Man
-When a person ignores one actual position, and presents an exaggerated one
➢ Red Herring
 -ignores question asked
➢ False Dichotomy
-argues there are only two options when really there may be many
➢ Begging the Question
-Often called circular reasoning, __ occurs when the believability of the evidence
depends on the believability of the claim.

➢ FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by
assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.

Example:

A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile
accident later that same afternoon.

Example:

Every time I wash my car, it rains. Our garage sale made lots of money before Joan showed up.
Obviously, she scared off all the customers.

➢ SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also
be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.

Example:

Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest
sorority on campus.

Example:

I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.

➢ FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or
situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.

Example:

The private school down the street has better teachers and children get a better education
because 100% of their seniors get into a college. (Reality: The private school only has to accept
some students, not all.)

Example:

That group of teenagers is up to no good - they are out after dark, and they are wearing dark
clothes and baggy pants. (Reality: This is a stereotype - the group of teenagers could be a sports
team or church group.)

➢ EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the
course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with
the same thing as the premise(s).
 Example:

“A man is the only intelligent animal on the planet. And, since a woman is not a man, we can say
that women are not intelligent.”

Example:

Taxes are a true headache. Pain killers will make a headache go away. Therefore, pain killers will
make taxes go away.

➢ TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or
error committed by another.

Example:

Linda, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you both smoke cigarettes and
drink alcohol?

Example:

Parent said, “You have to clean your room, it’s too messy.” Child: “But your room is messy too,
so why should I listen to you?”

This is a textbook example. In discussions between a parent and a child there are different
factors that affect the relevance of a claim, such as a parent’s authority and dissimilar needs due
to the age difference.

➢ NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails
to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-
sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in
which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim.

Example:

I put coins inside my shoes when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well on the test.

Example:

Last night's lottery winner hit the jackpot after buying tickets from three different stores. The
strategy for winning the lottery is to buy tickets from a variety of locations.

3rd Strategy Show that the conclusion itself is not believable…

This approach ignores the premises and assumptions in favor of focusing attention on the conclusion.
The problem with this strategy is that you will have to have a very good reason to deny the conclusion is
true when you cannot point to flaws in the reasoning that supports it! It suggests that you are just being
stubborn and refusing to look at the evidence! About the only thing that you can do in this case is to
construct a powerful reductio ad absurdum. Other strategies (offering evidence that it is false, or
showing that reliable authorities reject it) are weak here because they still leave the opponent's
evidence right where it was, supporting the conclusion, leaving the impression that there are good
arguments both ways. We might conclude that the matter is undecided and not that the opponent's
thesis is false.

So, while a direct assault on the conclusion is a questionable strategy, it is powerful when paired with
one or both of the other two.

Example:

Here is a short argument : "Frank is jerk. Anyone who fails to pay child support for their own daughter is
a jerk."

Suppose that's all that's said to prove that Frank is a jerk (which is the conclusion). So the only premise is
"Anyone who fails to pay child support for their own daughter is a jerk." But there are at least two
assumptions. One is that Frank has a daughter. The other is that Frank isn't paying child support for that
daughter. This offers three places to begin criticizing the argument.

Reductio Ad Absurdum-Reduction To Be Absurd

This argument strategy takes an opponent's claim (either a premise or assumption or conclusion) and
argues that its truth would lead us to accept something completely absurd, ridiculous, or impossible.

Example:

Someone defends vegetarianism by saying that it is unethical to live by killing.

A reductio ad absurdum might go something like this…

You say that it is wrong to live by killing. But there are 6 billion people in the world today. If it is wrong
for anyone to live by killing, then these 6 billion will have to find food sources that don't kill anything,
including plants. We will only be able to eat parts of plants that we can get without killing the plant
(some fruits and vegetables), plus plants and animals that die naturally (we could eat "road kill" and
harvest potatoes and carrots after the plant dies). But people could not harvest wheat and similar grains
in sufficient quantity to make up for the meat and other food that they currently eat, since that involves
killing the plant to get the grain. So your recommendation would withhold food from most of the
world's six billion people, because there will not be enough "ethical" food to go around. But a course of
action that will result in most people starving themselves to death is not ethical, so it does not make
sense to claim that t is wrong for anyone to live by killing.

HOW TO WRITE A CRITIQUE

❖ The critique is a rigorous critical reading of a passage. As such, it picks up where the objective
summary leaves off. In fact, a critique often includes a brief summary so that its readers will be
able to quickly grasp the main ideas and proofs of the passage under examination. Critiques
come in all shapes and sizes, but a good way to get used to writing critically is to plan your
earliest critiques along the following lines.
❖ First, read the passage thoroughly. Make plenty of notes, ask lots of questions, and highlight or
underline anything you may wish to quote in your paper. Spend some time on this step. It is
impossibly to adequately critique something if you don't fully understand it.

❖ Next, write a summary. Identify the author's main point (thesis) and list the types of proofs he or
she employs to persuade the reader to believe or accept the thesis. For example, does the
author use historical anecdotes, quote noted authorities, provide statistical evidence, or appeal
to a reader's sense of patriotism or generosity? These are all common types of proofs used in
persuasive writing. You should also try to figure out why the author is writing, and to whom.
Remember that the purpose of a paper and its intended audience can affect the way the paper
is written.

❖ Now, set your own agreement or disagreement with the author aside for a moment and
investigate the validity of his or her argument.

❖ Does the author provide complete and accurate information? Some authors may leave
important facts out of their presentations in order to avoid dealing with them, or they may give
inaccurate data either through ignorance or in a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.
Does the author provide information that is relevant to the issue

❖ Does the author define key terms adequately and clearly? Just because someone uses the words
"freedom," "rights," or "harm" in an essay, does not necessarily make those terms universal.
Some people might interpret "harm," for example, as "injury," while others might interpret it as
"offense."

❖ Finally, is the author's argument logically consistent, or is it supported on fallacious logic such as
the "straw man," the "slippery slope," or the "false dilemma"?

❖ Once you have examined carefully the passage you intend to critique, use the information you
have collected to draft a response to the passage. Do you agree or disagree with the author's
views and proofs? Be sure to discuss specific reasons why you agree or disagree with something.
The critique's value as an academic document rests on your ability to say precisely why you
agree or disagree.

❖ Finally, draft the critique. You should include:

❖ An introduction which introduces the passage and its author. This introduction should clearly
state the author's thesis and the arguments you intend to make about it. The introduction
should also provide your reader with a little background so that he or she will understand why
this critique is worth reading. What do you know about the author? About the issue under
discussion? Is it of current or historical interest? Is it at the heart of a controversy? What is the
author's intended audience? These details can strengthen your introduction
 ❖ A brief summary. You should already have drafted a summary. Now you can include it in your
draft of your critique, making sure to use adequate transitions so that the writing flows
smoothly.

❖ Your analysis of the author's presentation. Present your reader with an in-depth analysis of the
validity of the author's logic and use of evidence, as discussed above. Be sure to present your
information in a form which is easy to follow, using transitional elements whenever necessary to
preserve the smooth flow of your writing.

❖ Your own response to the argument. As discussed above, you may agree or disagree with the
author's views, and this is the part of the critique where you make your own views on the issue
clear. Remember that your own arguments must be well-supported. You must give compelling
reasons for your agreement or disagreement with the author.

❖ A conclusion. Evaluate the author's overall success or failure in achieving his or her purpose.
Also, remind your reader of the strengths and weaknesses of the passage.

❖ Once the critique is drafted, revise it, making sure you have emphasized the most salient points
in your discussion. Check your sentence variety, your organization, and your word choice. Is the
critique all it can be? Have you edited the critique to eliminate errors in spelling, sentence
structure, and agreement?

REFERENCE:

Theodore Gracyk 2003.