Argument and Critical Thinking

Feedback on Essay 1
What follows is a brief compendium of some of the most significant errors we’ve
encountered in marking this assignment.
1. Some students lose marks for not using three sections with headings:
1. Introduction
2. (Useful Heading)
3. Conclusion
Examples of useful headings might include ‘Irrelevant Premises’, ‘Scant
Evidence’, ‘A Circular Argument’, etc. An essay of this length doesn’t require
more than one middle section.
2. Many students make the mistake of not stating their main conclusion in the
introduction. This is a failure of ‘logical signposting’. Foreshadowing your
conclusion is a crucial aspect of effective communication that alerts your
audience to what’s coming and helps focus their attention as they read.
Some students give a misleading impression of their argument. For example, if
you intend to argue that X makes a convincing case for gun control, it would
be a mistake to say in your introduction, ‘I believe gun control is justified’.
This is taking sides. Instead, say something like, ‘My essay will show that the
author’s argument for gun control is very convincing’.
A related error is vagueness about your main conclusion, for example, ‘I will
explore an argument about gun control’. Try to say something more precise,
as in the example above.
3. Some essays contain too much exposition, with lots of space devoted to
describing an argument and not enough to evaluating it. To avoid this
problem, make sure you present just a single argument and try to strike the
right balance between i) identifying the parts and the structure of the
argument, and ii) subjecting it to a careful assessment and critique.
4. Another problem is over-dependence. If you quote an author, be sure to use
quotation marks and provide a reference. But you must also be careful not
to paraphrase too closely. The aim is to demonstrate your understanding of
an argument, and the best way to do that is by explaining it in your own
words. For that reason, we recommend you don’t quote the article at all.
5. It’s also possible to provide too little exposition. For example, you might say:
In the reading, the author begins with a circular argument. Then they
commit the ad hominem fallacy. In the next paragraph we see the use of
ambiguous language…
You might be right about these errors, but you haven’t explained in detail
how the author goes wrong. A critical analysis looks more like this:
In the reading, the author argues as follows: [summarise in your own
words]. This is a circular argument, because, as we can see, the
conclusion [state the conclusion in your own words] is just a re-
statement of one of the premises [state the relevant premise in your own
words]. Another issue is that when the author argues [state in your own
words] they are attacking the origins of their opponent’s view, not the
opponent’s argument itself. This in no way shows that the view in
question is incorrect. In the next paragraph it is claimed that [in own
words]. The use of the word [‘x’] is significant here. It could mean [y1] or
it could mean [y2], so it is ambiguous. If it means the former, then the
author’s statement is correct but irrelevant to refuting the opposition. If
it means the latter, then the author’s statement is false. Either way, the
author’s argument is unsuccessful…
You don’t have to address these specific problems, but any criticisms you do
make must be substantiated by spelling out the details of the argument.
6. Some essays contain entertaining rhetoric, for example: ‘The author is an
intellectual desperado who is trying to bamboozle us with his fancy style.’
This makes for lively reading, but it’s not an example of scholarly writing and
has no place in your essay. To refute someone, you must develop an
argument against their position, not against them. You fail to do so if your
critique is just abuse of the opposition.

Jonathan Opie
Jenny McMahon
Esther Speight
Chris Mortensen