+

Critically Evaluating Arguments

February 13 – 18, 2020

Daidrah Telfer, PhD

School of Humanities & Social Sciences
+ Lecture Guide 2

1. What is the critical review?

2. Skills required for the critical review
3. Analyzing and evaluating the argument
• Identifying the author's claim
• Identifying the author's premises
• Identifying the type of argument & intended audience
• Analyzing and evaluating the evidence
• Analyzing and evaluating writing style
4. Questions that guide the critical review

D. Smith
+ 3

The Critical Review

LECTURE OBJECTIVES

At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:

1. Explain the Critical Review
2. Identify key skills needed for the Critical Review
3. Summarize an argument
4. Analyze and evaluate an argument

D. Smith
+ 4

The Critical Review

1.How would you define the Critical Review?

2. What are the different elements of a Critical

Review?

D. Smith
+ What is a Critical Review?
5

A writing task that asks you to summarise,

analyze and evaluate a text.
An evaluation of an academic text.
The critical review can be of a book, a chapter,
or a journal article.

D. Smith
+ The Critical Review - Skills required 6

Summarizing Analysis

Critical
Evaluation
Reading
Skills
required

 How would you distinguish analysis from evaluation?

D. Smith
+ 7

What is a Critical Review?

 You are expected to summarize, analyse and make
judgments, strengths and weaknesses, positive or
negative, about the text using various criteria.
 It involves critical reading:
- You more than likely will have to read the text several
times to get a clear understanding
- Taking notes and asking yourself question about the
material will stimulate thinking.

D. Smith
+ What the Critical Review is NOT
8

Simply a look out for what is negative in a piece

of work;
Simplya summary; the summary is merely a
precursor to the review;
Intended to bash someone else’s work; an
appropriate (respectful and fair) tone is
required

D. Smith
+ Critical Reading
9

 Being critical begins from the reading

process
 It requires you to question the information
and opinions in a text and note anything you
agree or disagree with or are not sure about.

 Critical reading includes being on the

lookout for faulty arguments (fallacies)

D. Smith
+ Analysing 10

 Separating content and concepts of a

text into their main components

 Understanding how component parts

interrelate, connect and possibly
influence each other.

D. Smith
+ Analysing 11

 You ask the following questions of the text:

- What does it say? How can it be summarized?

- What type of evidence is used?
- What strategies are used by the author?
- What is the author’s purpose?
- Who is the intended audience?

D. Smith
+ Evaluation 12

 This
involves identifying the strengths
and weaknesses of a text.

 Thisis usually based on specific

criteria.

 Understanding the content of the

text/article and what makes a good
argument are central to the
evaluation of the text. D. Smith
+ Evaluation 13

You ask the following questions of the text:

Is it logical? Is it adequately developed?
Does it achieve its purpose?
How effective are the methods used by the
author?

Analysis and evaluation are usually done

simultaneously.
D. Smith
+ Writing the Critical Review 14

In writing the review, you will have to:

 identify the author’s claim & main premises
 identify the type of argument & intended audience
 analyse and evaluate the author’s:
- evidence
- the argument
- rhetorical appeals & specific rhetorical strategies
(Writing Style)
D. Smith
+ Understanding the argument

 Different levels of comprehension (literal,

interpretive/inferential, applied) are crucial at this
point

 Implied vs. stated ideas

 The introduction and conclusion of the piece usually

provide clues for the main ideas.

D. Smith February 18, 2020

+ Analysing & Evaluating Content 16

 Providing a brief summary: identifying the claim and premises

 Identifying the types of evidence used

 Identifying the type of argument used

 After identifying these, you need to determine their effectiveness.

This is done in light of the claims that are made by the author and
the type of reasoning used. For e.g., does the evidence sufficiently
support the claim?

D. Smith
+ Identifying the author’s claim

Ask yourself the following:

 “What is the ultimate point the author is making?"

OR

 "What does the author want me to believe or accept?“

 Another strategy you could use to identify the main idea is to

first identify what the issue is, then identify the author's
position on the issue. These two things combined usually is a
clear indication of the main idea.
February 18, 2020
+ Identifying the author’s premises

The author's premises are his/her reasons or supporting

point/details given in support of his/her claims.

To identify these, ask yourself the following:

 "What are the reasons given in support of the main

idea?"

OR

 "Why does he believe/argue for X?“ (X being the

D. Smith claim) February 18, 2020
+ Identifying the author’s premises

The nature of the claim will determine what the premises will be.
Ensure that you do not list specific pieces of evidence as
premises. When presented with evidence, ask yourself:
 "What is the point being made by this evidence",
OR
 "What does this evidence show?"
OR
 "What is the reason behind the author's use of this piece of
evidence?"

D. Smith February 18, 2020

+ analysing & Evaluating the argument 20

 Different types of arguments are evaluated differently:

- deductive arguments are evaluated for soundness, which is

based on both validity and truth;

- inductive arguments are evaluated for strength (based on the

strength of the evidence)

- Arguments by analogy are evaluated for strength of the

similarities of the things being compared.

 Fallacies have to be taken into account here

D. Smith
+ Some types of Evidence 21

 Statistics

 Fact/examples of real life situations

 Expert opinion
 Anecdotes: (a brief story told by an individual about a
personal experience)
 Testimonials: (an anecdote that describes the supposed
merits of a product or service)
 Hypothetical situations
 Documentary evidence
D. Smith
+ Analysing Evidence 22

In order to analyse evidence you have to:

1. identify the claim (the point the author is trying to prove;

2. identify the evidence (the specific facts the author gives to
support the claim);
3. explain why the author uses this evidence/how the
evidence is supposed to relate to the claim.

Once you understand the link between claims and evidence, you
are better able to evaluate the argument

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 23

 Credibility/Reliability- Is the evidence true, real,

honest, trustworthy, convincing or believable? Can you
verify where the evidence comes from?

 Who is the author? What are the author's credentials

(educational background, past writing, experience) in
this area? Have you seen the author's name cited in other
sources or bibliographies?

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 24

Credibility/Reliability: Authority
Is the content a first-hand account or is it being
retold? Primary sources are the raw material of
the research process; secondary sources are
based on primary sources.

Who published the source? Is it a university

press or a large reputable publisher? Is it from a
government agency? Is the source self-
published? What is the purpose of the
publication?
D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 25

Credibility/Reliability: Authority
Where does the information in the source come
from? Does the information appear to be valid
and well-researched, or is it questionable and
unsupported by evidence? Is there a list of
references or works cited? What is the quality of
these references?

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 26

 Currency- is the evidence up-to-date? Does it

still apply to the time the article is written? Is
information provided by the author that allows
you to assess the currency of the evidence?

 Beguided by the 5 year time span used in the

Social Sciences to determine currency.
 Anyevidence within 5 years of the publication
date of the article is considered current.

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 27

Currency cont’d
 Evidenceoutside of that time span has to be
considered on a case by case basis.
 A distinction needs to be made between
currency of the evidence and currency of the
issue.

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 28

 Relevance – Is the evidence definitely

related /appropriately linked to the claims
made by the author?

Is it really about the claim the author wants to

prove, or did they go off on a tangent,
providing facts that do not have anything to
do with the claim?

D. Smith
+ Evaluating Evidence 29

 Sufficiency - Is there enough evidence to

convince you? Do you need more evidence
to feel convinced? “Generally speaking, of
course, more evidence is better, and more
types of evidence are better.”

D. Smith
+ 30

Readings - Fallacies

Read Unit 3 in Workbook and come prepared to

discuss fallacies next class.

D. Smith
+ 31

The End

D. Smith
+ References
32

Seyler, D.U. (2005). Read, reason, write: An argument text

and reader (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill

University of California Library. (2016). Evaluating the quality

and credibility of your sources. Retrieved from https://
library.ucsc.edu/help/research/evaluate-the-quality-
and-credibility-of-your-sources

UNSW Australia. (2015). Writing a Critical Review. Retrieved

from https://student.unsw.edu.au/writing-critical-review

D. Smith