Lexicon Lumina

Unveiling the Essence of Non-Fiction Mastery through Erudite Review and

Analysis

Version: 1.0
Template Written on: 04 December 2023
Template Written by: Matthew David van der Hoorn (Mr. Hoorn)
Template Author’s Contact: (e-mail; md.vanderhoorn@gmail.com | phone, for WhatsApp or
Telegram; +31 6 18206979)

Review Written on: …

Review Written by: …
Reviewing Book: …
Table of Contents
Template Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
When to Use this Template (and When Not to).................................................................................4
Template Goal....................................................................................................................................5
Template Advice.................................................................................................................................5
Template Basis...................................................................................................................................6
Ethics and Other Principles for Book Reviewing.................................................................................6
Understanding before Criticizing....................................................................................................6
Criticize to Find Truth.....................................................................................................................7
The Points of Objective Criticism........................................................................................................7
The Author’s Soundness.................................................................................................................8
The Clarity of the Work..................................................................................................................9
Review..................................................................................................................................................12
Questions from the Orientation Phase.............................................................................................12
Questions from the Conceptualization Phase..................................................................................13
Questions from the Investigation Phase...........................................................................................14
Actual Criticism.................................................................................................................................14
The Author is Unclear Here and Here, and this is Why.................................................................14
The Author is Illogical Here and Here, and this is Why.................................................................14
The Author is Misinformed Here and Here, and this is Why........................................................14
The Author’s Analysis is Incomplete and this is Why....................................................................14
The Author is Uninformed Here and Here, and this is Why..........................................................14
Other Thoughts............................................................................................................................14
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Rating a Book Fairly and Objectively................................................................................16
Method.............................................................................................................................................16
Gathering and Calculating the Clarity Variable.................................................................................16
Table of Contents (ToC):...............................................................................................................16
Style:.............................................................................................................................................17
Index:............................................................................................................................................18
Organization:................................................................................................................................19
Calculation:...................................................................................................................................19
Gathering and Calculating the Logic Variable...................................................................................20
 Logical Fallacies:...........................................................................................................................20
Logical Consistency:......................................................................................................................21
Argument Validity:........................................................................................................................22
Calculation:...................................................................................................................................23
Gathering and Calculating the Misinformation Variable..................................................................23
Gathering and Calculating the Analysis Variable..............................................................................24
Problem Solving:...........................................................................................................................24
Material Utilization:......................................................................................................................25
Making Distinctions:.....................................................................................................................25
Calculation:...................................................................................................................................26
Gathering and Calculating the Uninformedness Variable.................................................................26
Final Calculation...............................................................................................................................27
Normalizing the Numbers.............................................................................................................27
Applying the Weights...................................................................................................................28
Interpreting the Numbers.............................................................................................................28
Template Introduction
When to Use this Template (and When Not to)
The reader may want to use this template when he wants to increase the chances of his learned
knowledge going into his long-term memory. He may also want to use this template if he wants to
improve the quality of his book recommendations to friends and family, and prevent the following
piece of dialogue:

- Reader: “Mom, you should read this book! It’s so good.”

- Mom: “Why?”
- Reader: “It’s a good book…”
- Mom: “That doesn’t tell me why I should read this book, why should I read it?”
- Reader: “Euhm… [thinking] You know, it’s a good book, it’s about reading a book well.”
- Mom: “Yeah that’s what the title says, but what have you learned? Can you give me a
summary of the book?”
- Reader: Scratches head and walks away…

The previous dialogue is highly inspired by an example Nishant Kasibhatla gave in one of his
inspirational talks (Kasibhatla, 2019).

The reader may not want to use this template if the reader is reading for leisure, fiction or pleasure
in general, or when he is reading for information as opposed to enlightenment or understanding. The
difference between the latter and former as explained by Adler is the following: reading for
information is when the reader has a specific question, or set of questions, for the book to answer
which are usually simplistic in nature and do not require a lot of thought whereas reading for
understanding or enlightenment is for the reader to extend the limits of his knowledge and requires
deep thought and analysis of the material, it mutates the cognitive schemas and can even turn the
reader’s world on his head, provided the right substance.

Note that this is a translation of what the author said into my own words without losing the essence
(this is different from paraphrasing). For those who wonder, the authors specifically distinguish
between the two reading goals in terms of intelligibility; if what you read is understandable by you
immediately but you did not know the knowledge beforehand, you have acquired new information,
however, when you read something and do not understand it immediately, and also not knew the
information beforehand, you have acquired knowledge. You have extended either the breadth or
depth of your understanding. Should it turn your world on its head and alter your worldview to a
significant degree, you have gained enlightenment. (Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 6ff).

The reader may also not want to use this template if he is lazy or not resilient. Gaining more
understanding, or enlightening oneself, requires deep thought, analysis, and learning. And, as Ahrens
has said, “the one who does the effort does the learning” (Ahrens, 2017). One cannot gain a solid
understanding without putting in the effort. As Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011) also indicates,
learning is increased tremendously when optimized intrinsic load (working memory devoted to
creating and automating cognitive schemas, the models in your head representing your
understanding and knowledge of a subject along with its intricate relationships) is high, but not to
the point of cognitive overload. Therefore, putting in more effort, the right effort that is, will improve
your learning significantly. However, I will not go into much detail on the science of learning, as that
is not the point of this document.

Template Goal
This document is written with as purpose to do the author of a piece of work, non-fiction, well by
providing him with a fair and objective analysis of his work. This both gives feedback to the author,
should he come into possession of this review, if still alive, as well as serve the reader for it re-
encodes his knowledge further into long-term memory through higher-order usage of material, on
the analytical and evaluative stages of Bloom’s Taxonomy, either through true recall, from the
memory, or with the aid of the source material.

The final benefit is to the community, as it allows potential readers to assess the validity and
usefulness of the material for themselves based on objective and sound, as opposed to subjective
and illogical, reviews, as far too little of this exists in the modern environment; there are
unfortunately countless of examples where a reader criticizes a piece of non-fiction based on
subjective reasoning (I do not like what this author says, I do not like how this author writes, etc.) or
errors in logic or even claims without argumentation (I do not agree with the author.). This does not
serve the author, nor the community, nor even the reader himself; every claim needs to have solid
argumentation for it to be worth something and criticizing an expository work should always be
about the substance matter itself. However, there are exceptions, as an author’s writing style can be
somewhat objectively be assessed with regards to his subject matter, then the argument should
become The author’s style of writing does not suit the subject of his writing, instead of the baseless
and useless argument I do not like the way this author writes.

This template is not designed to give an objective rating to a work of non-fiction; however, it can help
the reader to objectively determine such a rating. I have created a small Python script that has the
function of giving objective ratings to non-fiction between 1 and 5; however, as of this date (04
December 2023) this is not publically available. To be made aware at the very moment this is
published, the reader should join Mr. Hoorn’s Company’s Discord server through the following link:
https://discord.gg/cvd8gUdukj. In the occasion that this link is unavailable, the reader can choose to
send me an e-mail at md.vanderhoorn@gmail.com.

Template Advice
I highly urge the reader to try and fill in the review as well as he can from memory, to aid the
consolidation of his knowledge and bring it into long-term memory, and use the source material only
when absolutely necessary. Before publishing the review publically, as should be done would the
reader not be self-serving, one should still go back through the source material, or one’s former
notes, to confirm his review is written correctly and accurately. If the reader is self-serving and keeps
his review to himself, one should still go through this step to prevent the miss-encoding of substance
through accidental errors. This way of working is partially inspired by the Feynman method and by
my own knowledge of learning.

It is up to the reader if he shall follow this carefully written advice based on research.
Lastly, should the reader have any questions about either this document’s format, the template, not
the review itself, unless it has been written by the template author too, the reader can choose to
contact me through one of the ways as defined at the beginning of the document.

Template Basis
The majority of this document, as of version 1, is inspired by Adler’s rules for analytical reading (Adler
& van Doren, 2014). As well as my own knowledge of how learning works based on extensive
research, primarily within the Cognitive Load Theory space.

Ethics and Other Principles for Book Reviewing

Note that I will only go briefly into each point, only insofar it is necessary for the purposes of this
template. If the reader is interested in a more elaborate discussion of the matters being mentioned, I
highly recommend him to read Adler’s work.

Note: See Appendix A for further information on how to rate a book, and how all these things come
together.

Understanding before Criticizing

“You must be able to say, with reasonable certainty, ‘I understand,’ before you can say any one of the
following things: ‘I agree,’ ‘I disagree,’ or ‘I suspend judgement.’” – (Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 141)

For those who are unfamiliar with the term suspending judgement: it means to not be convinced or
not be persuaded one way or the other.

Before criticizing the book, you must understand the substance. A lawyer should not judge an
internist’s work, just as an internist should not judge a lawyer’s work; that is, unless they have
expertise in the other field as well. Understanding comes before judgment, period. The reader does
not have to be an expert in the field in order to criticize the subject matter, though it would help, but
he definitely needs to understand what the author is saying. Of course, as one reads more and more
and a field, or gains more expertise within and becomes more familiar with a field, the judgments he
makes about a book become more grounded as the reader can analyze the substance not just within
the frame of the book but within the context of all his knowledge. This results in the fact that even
though all book criticisms made with these principles, and this template, will be elaborate, reviews
made by experts are in all scenarios more valuable in accurately assessing a book. Another way of
saying this is that the value of a book review made by this template, or these principles, is a function
of the reader’s expertise within the subject matter and his expertise with reading intelligently in
general. One cannot make a valuable assessment without good reading skills.

Even so, remember that an objective and logical review by a beginner is far better than a subjective
and illogical review by anyone else, expert or not.

On Interdependent Works
As the authors note in the book (Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 143), there are certain cases where
criticism is either extremely difficult or outright impossible to do in a sensible manner. Assuming the
reader is fair and only criticizes after understanding the substance, one should not try to criticize the
book if the reader has only read (and understood) part of the book. It is hard to understand the part
of a whole without understanding the whole, which often is larger than the sum of its parts in a good
book; therefore, the entirety of the book should be read and understood before attempting to judge
the work. However, there are exceptions, there are certain books with chapters that are
understandable completely in isolation, without any reference to each other whatsoever, but in my
experience (I have read over 140 books in my lifetime so far) these are pretty rare.

Another case in which the reader should be very careful to criticize a work, or even say he truly
understands it, is if the author references either a lot of his own other works or that of other authors.
A crucial point must be made here; in most academic works, and some normal expository books for
the general audience, a lot of citations are present, but one certainly does not need to have read and
understood all of them to understand the present matter. The references that matter must be those
that make the current work unintelligible to a significant degree without knowing the cited work. An
obvious example of this is Niklas Luhmann’s works; he wrote in a non-linear fashion, and nearly all of
his works reference other works by him or even implicitly assume the reader is familiar with them.
Therefore, to say one understands a single of his works is preposterous prior to understanding all of
his works. As has been said by scholars of Luhmann (forgive me for not finding my source), one can
start anywhere with his works but understand nothing until they have read every work at least once.
So, one should only start to criticize such works when the appropriate references have been
understood in addition to the present work.

Criticize to Find Truth

“Respect the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by giving reasons for any
critical judgment you make.” – (Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 148)

It should be rather obvious, but the point of criticizing an author or his work is to learn and find truth,
or common ground. The goal is not, and should not be, to show one’s own expertise and boost one’s
ego, or to win for the sake of winning. Don’t argue for the sake of arguing. Intellectual honesty, and
honesty to oneself, is demanded in order to gain something out of the discussion for all sides. As
Adler and van Doren rightly state, “[The reader] should be as prepared to agree as to disagree.”
(Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 145). Agreeing or disagreeing, or suspending judgment, with an author
is not subjective; it is dependent on the soundness of his logic. When everything he says is correct,
the reader is forced to agree, whether he likes it or not.

The Points of Objective Criticism

As has previously been mentioned, remember that for each of these points, appropriate reasoning
must be given (preferably with quotations and page numbers). Claims without reasoning are foolish
and unethical.

Irrelevant to the review itself, but crucial for objectively rating a book, I will provide the weights I have
assigned each point to contribute to the final rating, which is part of my script mentioned earlier. This
calculation will not be final, and the factors might change, but it will at least be something.
Regardless, I urge the ethical reader to join my Discord server to immediately gain access to the free
rating script when it is finished and becomes available.

At this point in time, the 4th of December 2023, the weights are as follows:

- Clarity: 0.3
- Logic: 0.3
- Misinformed: 0.15
 - Analysis: 0.135
- Uninformed: 0.115

As said, these weights are not final, and are subject to change. But at this point in time, these give me
the most logical and fair ratings. How these weights are used I will explain later. An explanation for
this distribution will be added to the document at a later time.

The Author’s Soundness

The Author is Uninformed

Saying that an author is uninformed is to say that the work lacked some piece of information that is
relevant to the point the author is trying to make or the problem he is trying to solve. If this
information is irrelevant, there is of course no use to making this claim, so refrain from it to not
confuse those who read your review, and your future self. To support this argument, you as reader
must be able to provide the knowledge, how it is relevant, and how it would make a difference to his
conclusions.

Now, it is worth mentioning that for this uninformedness (yes, I am aware this is not a real word) to
be fair, it should take into consideration the period in which the author lived and his circumstances.
For example, judging a medical book from the middle ages on the merit of modern medical findings
would not be fair to the author as he had no way of knowing this. In a scenario such as this, you can
mention the information is outdated, but it should not influence your overall review of the book or
your rating.

Note: it seems that Adler & van Doren are making the same argument as they briefly mention this
scenario, but I am not sure. If they make this point, it is not explicit. (Adler & van Doren, 2014, p. 155)

The Author is Misinformed

To say that an author is misinformed, is to claim that he asserts something which is not the case; for
example, he claims something is true while it is, in fact, false, or he assumes something is more
probable while it is less probable. Of course, such a conclusion may be due to a lack of knowledge (he
is uninformed) but it is more than that, for otherwise it would not have a separate category.

To fairly make this criticism, the reader must be able to give arguments for why the author is wrong
in a certain instance. Once again here, the author must have had the possibility to have acquired this
knowledge, for otherwise it is not the author’s mistake.

The Author is Illogical

When the author is illogical, he is making flaws in his reasoning. For example, he makes a conclusion
that cannot be drawn from the reasons given, or he gives two arguments or claims that are
incompatible with each other. The reader must be able to point out where this is the case.

I urge the reader to do more research into logic and errors of reasoning. I can recommend Mark
Forsyth’s The Elements of Eloquence and Marcus Tullius Cicero’s How to Win an Argument, which, by
the way, is a misleading title, as the book is about more than that.

As with all other points, the matters in case must be relevant to the point the author is making or the
problem he is trying to solve. It does not matter if the author is illogical in irrelevant matters.
It is now Time to Agree
At this point, you have to agree with the author. That is, if, so far, you have not been able to show
that the author is uninformed, misinformed, or illogical in relevant scenarios. It does not matter
whether he is right or wrong objectively, as you can’t know this. Perhaps upon reading a later book,
you make the discovery he was misinformed or uninformed about certain matters, then you can alter
your perspective. The intellectually sensible mind is never made from stone, but rather from clay,
and can be molded into any form based on thought and readings.

Of course, if you are reading an older book, and the author is indeed uninformed or misinformed in
relevant aspects, but he couldn’t have known it, as with the medical book from the middle ages,
would not make you have to agree, even though the points in case were not valid for sensible
criticism.

The Author’s Analysis is Incomplete

When you say that an author’s analysis is incomplete, you are saying that he has not solved all the
problems he started with, or has not made the most effective use of the materials he had at his
disposal, that he did not see all their implications, or that he has failed to make distinctions that are
relevant to his work.

Once again, for this point to be valid, the reader must be able to point out where exactly the book is
inadequate.

The Clarity of the Work

It is worth mentioning that Adler & van Doren do not include this in their framework for reviewing a
book. I do, because clarity is a significant contribution to the intelligibility and usefulness of a book. If
a book is logical, accurate (no misinformedness and no uninformedness) and its analysis is complete,
yet the clarity is very low, it is super difficult to read, the book’s objective value should decrease
significantly, though not to the point of being worth nothing.

I have also given weightings to the individual points within the clarity subset; so the ratings given to
each of these variables (multiplied by their weightings) will together make up the clarity variable.
These are as follows:

- Organization: 0.3
- Style: 0.3
- Table of Contents: 0.2
- Index: 0.2

These are also subject to change.

The Book’s Organization is Unclear

The matter of a book’s organization pertains to the separation of matter into discernible fragments
(chapters and sections), it is about the book’s structure. A properly designed structure makes it far
easier for readers to understand the themes and main ideas of the book.

A highly effective organization of a book: Each chapter or section is purposefully structured and
contributes to a compelling narrative or argument. Transitions are seamless, maintaining a sense of
continuity throughout the book. The organization strengthens the book's themes and aids reader
comprehension, showcasing a thoughtful and deliberate approach.

The Style of the Book is not Suitable

Poor style: The author's writing style is completely inappropriate for the subject matter. The tone,
language, and overall approach are misguided, confusing, or simply unrelated to the topic at hand.
The writing lacks clarity, coherence, and fails to effectively convey the intended information or ideas.

Effective style: The author's writing style is exceptionally well-suited to the subject matter. It
demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic and effectively communicates complex ideas with
clarity and precision. The language is engaging, compelling, and resonates with the intended
audience. The writing style enhances the reader's comprehension, making the content accessible and
enjoyable. It showcases a high level of skill and mastery in crafting prose specifically tailored to the
subject matter.

The Table of Contents is Useless

The table of contents serves as a critical roadmap within a nonfiction book, influencing its evaluation.
A missing or incomplete table reflects a lack of meaningful structure, leaving readers without a clear
path through the content. Similarly, a disorganized table, with unclear headings and a haphazard
structure, impedes effective navigation, diminishing the book's coherence.

Even when basic headings exist, criticism may arise if they lack definition or fail to categorize content
effectively. In contrast, a well-structured table, with clear chapter and section headings, earns
positive feedback. However, for optimal engagement, more descriptive subheadings may be needed.
The pinnacle of success is an exceptionally well-constructed table that seamlessly integrates with the
book's narrative, offering a logical and coherent structure, informative subheadings, and a user-
friendly experience.

In essence, the evaluation of a book's table of contents is a reflection of its organization and
accessibility. A well-crafted table enhances the overall reading experience, guiding readers
effortlessly through the content and setting a standard of excellence rarely achieved.

The Index is Useless

The index of a book serves as a crucial guide for readers, and its evaluation can significantly impact
the overall user experience. When the index is lacking or provides minimal, inaccurate, or irrelevant
information, it fails to capture key concepts and terms, leaving readers struggling to navigate the
content effectively.

An existing but disorganized index with inaccuracies and inconsistencies hampers readers' ability to
find relevant information. Incomplete or poorly formatted entries create frustration and hinder the
book's usability. Similarly, a partially functional index may fall short in providing comprehensive
coverage, making it challenging for readers to locate specific information efficiently.

On a positive note, a decently organized index with a moderate level of coverage allows readers to
find information with relative ease. However, occasional inaccuracies or inconsistencies can slightly
impede its effectiveness. A well-structured and comprehensive index improves usability by offering
clear and accurate entries, enhancing the overall reading experience.
The pinnacle of success is an exemplary index that sets the standard for excellence. Meticulously
organized and flawlessly comprehensive, it captures every key concept, term, and reference with
precision. The entries are logically arranged, making information retrieval effortless. Such an index
becomes an invaluable tool, elevating the book's usability to an exceptional level and ensuring
readers can easily access any desired information.
Review
Note: unless stated otherwise, this review is NOT written by the template author. Also, the sections
for the review are sorted based on the weights given to them in the Appendix for easier comparison.
In addition, part of the review are questions that Adler & van Doren give in the earlier stages
(inspectional reading & the earlier stages of analytical reading) and not in the criticism section. The
reason I decide to do this is because the answers to those questions are invaluable to both the
community and your reviewing process.

A lot of the wording and formatting is inspired by a template for reading I wrote a few months ago:
https://matthew-van-der-hoorn.notion.site/matthew-van-der-hoorn/Book-Reading-
bc745728387b4369b5b63739292c9ce7 (it is likely outdated when you read this, or even unavailable,
but I find it worth mentioning, in addition, the criticism part of that template can be replaced with
THIS document).

Everything between the following dividers is the review section, and can be copy/pasted into review
sections on for example GoodReads, the Storygraph, or my favorite, LibraryThing. I would not advise
to copy/paste the entire document unto there, but you can for example upload the document to
Google Drive and share a link towards it for people interested in a more extended view.

Without further ado, let’s review.

Questions from the Orientation Phase

1. What is the overall structure and organization of the book? Again, very broadly and briefly.
Just to give a general sense.

<WRITE HERE>

2. What are the main topics or themes discussed in the book?

<WRITE HERE>

3. What is the author's main argument or thesis? State this briefly.

<WRITE HERE>

4. What is the writing style or tone used by the author?

<WRITE HERE>

5. How would you classify the book? This is not as straight forward as distinguishing fiction
from non-fiction, but rather to distinguish multiple forms of expository works from each
other (those that intend to convey knowledge).
a. Is this book theoretical or practical in nature? Does it intend to tell you how to do
something, or what is the case? Or is there a degree of both?
b. Is the book science, philosophy, history, or math, etc.? Of course, there can be a
degree of both, just like with theory vs practice.

<WRITE HERE>
Questions from the Conceptualization Phase
1. What is the unity of the whole book? Answer this as briefly as possible, at most a few
sentences (short paragraph) — In other words, what is the book’s main theme or point?
Comparable to the plot of a novel. Adler and van Doren mention that it’s often the case you
will also mention the (major) parts while formulating the whole, as can be seen in below
extended examples.
You can almost see this as the formula of the book; Adler gives a romance example in the
following way: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl.
He also gives an example of a practical book, titled The Wealth of Nations, authored by Adam
Smith:
This is an inquiry into the source of national wealth in any economy that is built on a
division of labor, considering the relation of the wages paid labor, the profits
returned to capital, and the rent owed the landowner, as the prime factors in the
price of commodities. It discusses the various ways in which capital can be more or
less gainfully employed, and relates to the origin and use of money to the
accumulation and employment of capital. Examining the development of opulence in
different nations and under different conditions, it compares the several systems of
political economy, and argues for the beneficence of free trade.
An extended example for a theoretical scientific book he gives on Darwin’s The Origin of
Species:
This is an account of the variation of living things during the course of countless
generations and the way in which this results in new groupings of plants and animals;
it treats both of the variability of domesticated animals and of variability under
natural conditions, showing how such factors as the struggle for existence and
natural selection operate to bring about and sustain such groupings; it argues that
species are not fixed and immutable groups, but that they are merely varieties in
transition from a less to a more marked and permanent status, supporting this
argument by evidences from extinct animals found in the earth’s crust, and from
comparative embryology and anatomy.

<WRITE HERE>

2. What are the major parts of the book and how are these organized into a whole by being
ordered to one another and to the unity of the whole? We answer this question by manner
of outline. At times, after answering this question, you want to refine the unity as stated
above. Feel free to do so.
It’s essential to keep in mind that you can use the book’s headings and sub-headings as
guidance, but you shouldn’t overrely on it… The primary point is to think for yourself, what
happens in the mind determines the quality of comprehension and retention.

<WRITE HERE>

3. What are the problems the author is trying to solve? Why did the author write what he
wrote? What were his intentions?
Questions from the Investigation Phase
1. Locate or construct the basic arguments in the book by finding them in the connection of
sentences. If the author summarizes his arguments after each chapter, it should be relatively
easy to find the arguments leading up to those points in aforementioned chapter.

<WRITE HERE>

2. What are the author’s solutions to the problems he was trying to solve? Did he raise new
problems or questions while solving? Did he manage to solve all problems, or did he fail to
solve some?

<WRITE HERE>

Actual Criticism
The Author is Unclear Here and Here, and this is Why
In this section, you write down where the author is unclear and why he is so. For further information,
refer to the clarity section of either Appendix A or the template introduction.

The Author is Illogical Here and Here, and this is Why

In this section, you write down where the author is illogical and why he is so. For further information,
refer to the logic section of either Appendix A or the template introduction.

The Author is Misinformed Here and Here, and this is Why

In this section, you write down where the author is misinformed and why he is so. For further
information, refer to the misinformedness section of either Appendix A or the template introduction.

The Author’s Analysis is Incomplete and this is Why

In this section, you write down why the author’s analysis is incomplete. For further information, refer
to the analysis section of either Appendix A or the template introduction.

The Author is Uninformed Here and Here, and this is Why

In this section, you write down where the author is uninformed and why he is so. For further
information, refer to the uninformedness section of either Appendix A or the template introduction.

Other Thoughts
In this section, you can write your own thoughts regardless of the template’s prompts.
Bibliography
Adler, M. J., & van Doren, C. (2014). How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading
(Touchstone ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Ahrens, S. (2017). How to Take Smart Notes.

Kasibhatla, N. (2019, August 29). Mastery: How to Learn Anything Fast. Ideas & Inspiration.
Opgehaald van https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVO8Wt_PCgE

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory.

Appendix A: Rating a Book Fairly and Objectively
This appendix will use the principles of reviewing a book to calculate an objective rating for a book.

Note: I have used ChatGPT to format most of the scripts in a format that is readable to save time.

The variables are as follows:

- Clarity: 0.3
- Logic: 0.3
- Misinformed: 0.15
- Analysis: 0.135
- Uninformed: 0.115

Now, some of these have a subset of variables that together make up the main variable. This allows
for more nuanced and realistic calculations.

Method
Each variable is assigned a list of options, usually there are 7 options, in some cases 4, it depends on
the variable itself, and how much relevant granularity is possible. These are given points according to
a Likert Scale where the worst is given -3 points, and the best 3 points. Within a 7 point scale, it is
difficult to encounter a book that applies to either extreme, but just in case they are present. For a
four point scale it is more probable to encounter a book on either extreme. When each variable
within a subset is gathered they are calculated into a weighted average (the average of the summed
weighted numbers), this number then represents the parent variable. When all main variables have
either been calculated or gathered (some do not have a subset at this point in time), the data is
normalized into a percentage of the maximally available point. The variables are then used to
calculate a weighted average of those percentages, representing the total percentage of the book’s
quality according to each variable. Lastly, the percentage is put into a scaling function to generate a
rating between a custom minimum and maximum rating, in most cases this pertains to a number
between 1 and 5.

Because of the high degree of granularity, it is very rare for any book to either have a 1 or 5 star
rating.

I have used ChatGPT to give the explanations for each option to optimize my time. At a later version
of both the document and my script/program, I will potentially edit or even redo the descriptions.

Gathering and Calculating the Clarity Variable

Table of Contents (ToC):
 Missing or incomplete ToC (-3):

 The Table of Contents is absent or incomplete, providing no meaningful structure or

organization. It fails to list essential chapters or sections, leading to a lack of logical
progression.

 Disorganized and confusing ToC (-2):

  The ToC exists but is disorganized and confusing, lacking clear headings and
subheadings. The structure is haphazard, making it difficult for readers to navigate
and comprehend the content.

 Basic ToC with unclear headings (-1):

 The ToC provides basic chapter or section headings but lacks clear definitions or
descriptiveness. It might lack subheadings or fail to categorize the content
effectively, making information retrieval challenging.

 Decently structured ToC (0):

 The ToC is decently structured with clear chapter or section headings. However, it
could benefit from more descriptive subheadings to enhance the overview of the
content. It generally serves its purpose but may not engage readers fully.

 Well-structured ToC (1):

 The ToC demonstrates a well-structured layout with clear chapter or section

headings and informative subheadings. Readers can grasp the overall organization,
though there might be occasional shortcomings.

 Exceptionally well-constructed ToC (2):

 The ToC is exceptionally well-constructed, presenting a logical and coherent

structure. Distinct chapter or section headings and informative subheadings guide
readers effortlessly, enhancing understanding and ease of use.

 Exemplar of organization and clarity (3):

 The ToC sets a standard of excellence, meticulously crafted to provide a

comprehensive overview. Chapter or section headings are concise, engaging, and
precisely capture the essence of each section, creating a harmonious reading
experience.

Style:
 Completely inappropriate style (-3):

 The author's writing style is entirely unsuitable for the subject matter, lacking clarity,
coherence, and effectiveness in conveying information or ideas.

 Style doesn't align well (-2):

 The writing style doesn't align well with the subject matter. There might be attempts
to address the topic appropriately, but execution falls short, diminishing the impact
of the content.

 Generally appropriate style (2):

  The author's writing style is generally appropriate, striking a balance between
engagement and informativeness. It effectively conveys necessary information,
though occasional inconsistencies may be present.

 Exceptionally well-suited style (3):

 The author's writing style is exceptionally well-suited to the subject matter. It

demonstrates a deep understanding, effectively communicating complex ideas with
clarity and precision.

Index:
 Missing or minimal index (-3):

 The index is either completely missing or provides minimal, inaccurate, or irrelevant

information. It fails to capture key concepts, terms, or references, hindering
information retrieval.

 Disorganized or incomplete index (-2):

 The index exists but is disorganized, incomplete, or poorly formatted. It may contain
inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or insufficient entries, making it difficult for readers to
find relevant information.

 Partially functional index (-1):

 The index is present and partially functional, but it lacks comprehensive coverage.
Entries may be limited, vague, or imprecise, challenging readers to locate specific
information.

 Decent level of coverage index (0):

 The index provides a decent level of coverage and organization, allowing readers to
locate specific information with moderate ease. However, occasional inaccuracies or
omissions may slightly hinder its effectiveness.

 Well-structured index (1):

 The index is well-structured and comprehensive, effectively capturing important

concepts, terms, and references. It provides clear and accurate entries, enhancing
the usability of the book.

 Exemplary index (2):

 The index is exemplary in its organization and coverage, thoroughly encompassing all
key concepts, terms, and references. Entries are meticulously crafted, offering
precise and accurate references that greatly assist readers.

 Sets the standard for excellence in indexing (3):

  The index sets the standard for excellence, flawlessly organized, comprehensive, and
precise. Every concept, term, and reference is expertly captured with accuracy and
clarity.

Organization:
 Severely lacking organization (-3):

 The organization of the book is severely lacking, with no discernible structure.

Content appears randomly assembled, making it nearly impossible for readers to
follow a coherent flow.

 Weak and inconsistent organization (-2):

 The organization is weak and inconsistent, with poorly executed attempts at

structure. The flow between chapters or sections is disjointed, lacking connection or
logical progression.

 Falls slightly short of expectations organization (-1):

 The organization falls slightly short of expectations. While there is a recognizable

structure, it may lack coherence or have sections that feel out of place. Transitions
could be smoother, and the organization could benefit from further refinement.

 Satisfactory organization (0):

 The organization is satisfactory, providing a coherent structure for readers to follow.

Chapters or sections are reasonably arranged, with a logical flow between them.
Some aspects could be improved, but it adequately supports the content.

 Well-planned and executed organization (1):

 The organization is well-planned and executed, with clear definitions of chapters or

sections contributing to a cohesive whole. The flow is smooth, facilitating a seamless
reading experience, enhancing understanding of the book's main ideas and themes.

 Highly effective organization (2):

 The organization is highly effective, purposefully structured with seamless

transitions. Each chapter or section contributes to a compelling narrative or
argument, maintaining a sense of continuity throughout the book.

 Flawless organization (3):

 The organization is flawless, demonstrating exceptional craftsmanship. Chapters or

sections are intricately woven together, forming a seamless and captivating narrative
or argument.

Calculation:
Calculate the weighted average by multiplying each rating by its assigned weight and summing the
results. The final result represents the book's clarity variable.
The weightings are:

- Organization: 0.3
- Style: 0.3
- Table of Contents: 0.2
- Index: 0.2

The formula can be written as follows:

Clarity=∑(O∗0.3 , S∗0.3 , T∗0.2 , I∗0.2)

Gathering and Calculating the Logic Variable

Logical Fallacies:
 Numerous and glaring logical fallacies (-3):

 The book is riddled with numerous logical fallacies that are glaringly obvious and
undermine its credibility. Fallacious reasoning dominates the content, and critical
thinking is almost entirely absent.

 Prevalent logical fallacies (-2):

 Logical fallacies are prevalent throughout the book, creating a significant obstacle to
understanding and rational discourse. The book's arguments are weakened by
fallacious reasoning, and the author often resorts to emotional appeals rather than
presenting sound evidence.

 Some instances of logical fallacies (-1):

 The book contains some instances of logical fallacies that detract from its overall
quality. While not pervasive, fallacious reasoning appears sporadically, causing
confusion and weakening the author's credibility.

 Occasional use of logical fallacies (0):

 The book occasionally employs logical fallacies, though they do not dominate the
content. Some arguments are weakened by fallacious reasoning, but they are not the
primary focus of the author's approach.

 Generally avoids logical fallacies (1):

 The book generally avoids logical fallacies and upholds a solid standard of reasoning.
While there might be isolated instances of fallacious arguments, they are not central
to the book's themes. The author prioritizes logical and evidence-based reasoning.

 Exceptionally vigilant in avoiding logical fallacies (2):

 The book is exceptionally vigilant in avoiding logical fallacies. Fallacious reasoning is

almost entirely absent, and the author skillfully employs critical thinking and valid
arguments.
  Exemplar of logical rigor, devoid of any logical fallacies (3):

 The book is an exemplar of logical rigor, devoid of any logical fallacies. The author
masterfully constructs arguments using sound reasoning and evidence, fostering a
deep understanding of the subject matter.

Logical Consistency:
 Lacks any semblance of logical consistency (-3):

 The book lacks any semblance of logical consistency. Contradictions and

inconsistencies abound, rendering the content incoherent and confusing. Arguments
are disjointed, and the book fails to establish a coherent framework for its ideas.

 Pervasive logical inconsistencies (-2):

 Logical inconsistencies are pervasive throughout the book, causing confusion and
undermining its credibility. The author presents arguments that frequently contradict
one another or fail to follow a clear line of reasoning.

 Notable logical inconsistencies (-1):

 The book contains notable logical inconsistencies that detract from its overall quality.
While there may be an attempt at coherence, certain sections or arguments deviate
from the book's main themes or ideas.

 Moderate level of logical consistency (0):

 The book demonstrates a moderate level of logical consistency. While some minor
inconsistencies may be present, they do not substantially hinder the overall
coherence of the content. The author generally maintains a logical framework.

 Satisfactory level of logical consistency (1):

 The book exhibits a satisfactory level of logical consistency. Arguments are well-
structured and follow a clear line of reasoning. While there might be occasional
minor inconsistencies, they do not significantly detract from the book's overall
coherence.

 High degree of logical consistency (2):

 The book showcases a high degree of logical consistency. Arguments are tightly
woven and seamlessly connected, creating a cohesive narrative or analysis. The
author skillfully avoids inconsistencies and ensures that each point aligns with the
overarching logic of the book.

 Absolute logical consistency (3):

 The book achieves absolute logical consistency, setting a standard of excellence.

Every argument, concept, and idea flows seamlessly within a tightly knit logical
 framework. Logical inconsistencies are entirely absent, elevating the book to a level
of perfection rarely attained.

Argument Validity:
 Fundamentally flawed arguments lacking validity (-3):

 The book's arguments are fundamentally flawed and lack any validity. The author
presents assertions without adequate evidence or reasoning. Arguments are illogical
and unsupported, making it difficult for readers to engage with the content
meaningfully.

 Consistently weak argument validity (-2):

 Argument validity is consistently weak throughout the book. While attempts at

providing evidence and reasoning may be present, they fail to establish convincing
connections between premises and conclusions.

 Sporadic argument validity (-1):

 The book's argument validity is sporadic, with some arguments being more sound
than others. While there may be instances of valid reasoning, many arguments lack
the necessary evidence or logical structure to make them fully convincing.

 Reasonable argument validity (0):

 The book's argument validity is reasonable, with a balance of both strong and weaker
arguments. The author presents evidence and reasoning to support most claims, but
there may be instances where further development or refinement could enhance
argument validity.

 Notable strength in argument validity (1):

 Argument validity is a notable strength of the book. The author consistently provides
solid evidence and logical reasoning to support claims. Arguments are well-
structured and effectively lead to well-founded conclusions.

 Exceptional argument validity (2):

 The book's argument validity is of exceptional quality. Arguments are meticulously

crafted, utilizing robust evidence and rigorous logical reasoning. The author
consistently establishes valid connections between premises and conclusions.

 Absolute standard of argument validity (3):

 The book achieves an absolute standard of argument validity, setting an exemplary

benchmark. Every argument presented is flawlessly reasoned and impeccably
supported by compelling evidence. The author's mastery of constructing valid
arguments is evident throughout the book.
Calculation:
Calculate the weighted average by multiplying each rating by its assigned weight and summing the
results. The final result represents the book's logic variable.

The weightings are:

- Logical Fallacies: 0.25

- Logical Consistency: 0.35
- Argument Validity: 0.40

The formula can be written as follows:

Logic=∑ ( LF∗0.25 , LC∗0.35 , AV∗0.4 )

Gathering and Calculating the Misinformation Variable

Note: At this point in time, the 4th of December 2023, this variable does not contain a subset yet. In
the future, this might happen, however.

 Rampant and severe misinformation (-3):

 The author's misinformation is rampant and severely undermines the credibility of

the book. The book is filled with inaccuracies and false information that distort the
subject matter. The author presents claims without credible sources or evidence,
leading to a misguided and unreliable narrative.

 Significant issue with misinformation (-2):

 Misinformation is a significant issue in the book. The author's arguments and

conclusions are frequently based on inaccurate or outdated information. While there
might be some valid points, the presence of misinformation weakens the book's
overall reliability and casts doubt on the author's expertise.

 Noticeable instances of misinformation (-1):

 The book contains noticeable instances of misinformation that hinder the author's
ability to provide a well-informed perspective. The author may present some
accurate information, but the book is marred by several inaccuracies or
misconceptions that distort the reader's understanding of the subject matter.

 Moderate level of misinformation (0):

 The book's level of misinformation is moderate. While the author might present a
mix of accurate and inaccurate information, the latter does not dominate the
content. There may be sections where the author is well-informed, but the presence
of misinformation limits the book's overall quality and impact.

 Generally avoids significant misinformation (1):

 The book generally avoids significant misinformation, presenting well-researched

and accurate information. While there might be minor inaccuracies or outdated
 viewpoints, they do not substantially detract from the book's overall reliability. The
author's arguments and conclusions are grounded in credible sources and evidence.

 Minimal misinformation (2):

 Misinformation is minimal in the book, and the author demonstrates a strong

commitment to providing accurate and well-researched information. Any
inaccuracies are rare and do not compromise the book's overall integrity. The
author's thorough research and understanding of the subject matter are evident,
enhancing the book's credibility.

 Flawless in terms of information accuracy (3):

 The author's book is flawless in terms of information accuracy. Every claim,

argument, and conclusion is meticulously researched and supported by reliable
sources. The author's commitment to factual accuracy is exemplary, creating a work
that is a model of well-informed and credible writing.

Gathering and Calculating the Analysis Variable

Problem Solving:
 Fails to address or solve any problems (-3):

 The author fails to address or solve any of the problems they've introduced. The
book leaves readers with unresolved issues and unanswered questions. The
problems remain untouched, leading to a lack of closure and satisfaction for readers
seeking resolution.

 Attempts but falls short in providing satisfactory solutions (-2):

 The author attempts to address some of the problems but falls short in providing
satisfactory solutions. While there may be partial attempts at resolution, the book
leaves readers with lingering concerns and unaddressed issues. The lack of thorough
problem-solving diminishes the overall impact of the book.

 Generally addresses problems and offers reasonable solutions (2):

 The author generally addresses the problems introduced in the book and offers
reasonable solutions for most of them. While not every issue may be resolved
perfectly, the author's efforts provide a sense of closure and contribute to the
reader's understanding of the subject matter. The book's problem-solving enhances
its value.

 Excels in solving problems with well-developed solutions (3):

 The author excels in solving the problems they've introduced, presenting well-
developed and effective solutions. The book addresses the issues comprehensively,
offering insightful perspectives and resolutions that contribute to a deeper
 understanding of the subject. Readers are left with a strong sense of satisfaction and
appreciation for the author's problem-solving skills.

Material Utilization:
 Severely lacking utilization of materials (-3):

 The author's utilization of materials is severely lacking. There is a failure to delve into
the implications and ramifications of the presented information. The materials are
presented in a superficial or disconnected manner, resulting in missed opportunities
for deeper analysis and exploration.

 Makes some attempt but treatment is inadequate or inconsistent (-2):

 The author makes some attempt to address the implications and ramifications of the
materials, but the treatment is inadequate or inconsistent. The exploration is limited
and fails to fully capitalize on the potential insights that the materials could offer.
The book leaves readers wanting more in terms of in-depth exploration.

 Demonstrates a satisfactory level of engagement with materials (2):

 The author demonstrates a satisfactory level of engagement with the materials,

delving into their implications and ramifications with reasonable depth. The
exploration contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject matter and
offers meaningful insights. While there might be some missed opportunities, overall,
the author effectively uses the materials to enhance the book's content.

 Excels in utilizing materials with thorough exploration (3):

 The author excels in utilizing the materials and exploring their implications and
ramifications. The content is enriched by thoughtful analysis and a comprehensive
understanding of how the materials relate to broader concepts. The exploration is
thorough and thought-provoking, providing readers with a deeper understanding of
the subject matter and its broader context. The author's adept use of materials
enhances the overall value of the book.

Making Distinctions:
 Consistently fails to make important distinctions (-3):

 The author consistently fails to make important distinctions that are crucial to the
undertaking. Relevant concepts and nuances are ignored or overlooked, leading to a
lack of clarity and precision in the book's content. The absence of distinctions
significantly undermines the author's credibility and the book's effectiveness.

 Attempts but often distinctions are insufficient or inaccurate (-2):

 The author attempts to make distinctions, but they are often insufficient or
inaccurate. The lack of precision in distinguishing relevant concepts results in
confusion for readers and weakens the overall impact of the book. The book's
 content suffers from a lack of clarity and coherence due to the author's failure to
make necessary distinctions.

 Generally makes relevant distinctions but misses important nuances (2):

 The author generally makes relevant distinctions, but there are instances where
important nuances are missed. While the book's content may be mostly coherent,
there are areas where a lack of precision in distinguishing concepts affects the
reader's understanding. The author's ability to make distinctions contributes to the
book's quality but could benefit from further refinement.

 Excels in making relevant distinctions with careful definitions (3):

 The author excels in making relevant distinctions that are crucial to their
undertaking. Concepts are carefully defined and differentiated, enhancing the clarity
and precision of the book's content. The author's discerning approach ensures that
readers can grasp the nuances of the subject matter and engage with the material on
a deeper level. The book's effectiveness is greatly enhanced by the author's skill in
making necessary distinctions.

Calculation:
Calculate the weighted average by multiplying the chosen rating by its assigned weight. The final
result represents the book's analysis variable.

The weightings for the Analysis are as follows:

- Problem Solving: 0.35

- Material Utilization: 0.35
- Making Distinctions: 0.3

The formula can be states as follows:

Analysis=∑ ( PS∗0.35 , MU∗0.35 , MD∗0.3 )

Gathering and Calculating the Uninformedness Variable

Note: At this point in time, the 4th of December 2023, this variable does not contain a subset yet. In
the future, this might happen, however.

 Complete lack of understanding about the subject matter (-3):

 The author demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the subject

matter. The book contains numerous factual errors and misguided assertions that
directly impact the arguments and conclusions. The author's uninformed perspective
undermines the book's credibility and reliability.

 Evident lack of understanding throughout the book (-2):

 The author's lack of understanding is evident throughout the book. While there may
be some accurate information, the author's uninformed viewpoints weaken the
 arguments and conclusions. The book contains substantial gaps in knowledge that
hinder its overall impact.

 Lack of knowledge hampers well-informed perspective (-1):

 The author's lack of knowledge hampers their ability to present a well-informed

perspective. While there may be instances of accurate information, the book is
marred by significant misconceptions and inaccuracies. Readers encounter gaps in
the author's understanding that affect the credibility of their arguments.

 Moderate knowledge with mixed perspectives (0):

 The author's level of knowledge is moderate, with some accurate information mixed
with uninformed viewpoints. While the book may offer reasonable insights, there are
noticeable gaps and inaccuracies that detract from its overall quality. The author's
uninformed perspective limits the book's depth and effectiveness.

 Generally avoids substantial uninformed perspectives (1):

 The author generally avoids substantial uninformed perspectives, presenting well-

researched and accurate information. While there might be minor inaccuracies or
areas where the author's knowledge is limited, they do not significantly impact the
overall credibility of the book. The author's arguments and conclusions are generally
well-informed.

 Minimal uninformed perspectives, strong commitment to accuracy (2):

 Uninformed perspectives are minimal in the book, and the author demonstrates a
strong commitment to providing accurate and well-researched information. Any
inaccuracies or gaps are rare and do not compromise the overall integrity of the
content. The author's thorough research and understanding of the subject matter
shine through, enhancing the book's credibility.

 Flawless understanding of the subject matter (3):

 The author's book is flawless in terms of accurate understanding of the subject

matter. Every claim, argument, and conclusion is meticulously researched and
supported by reliable sources. The author's commitment to factual accuracy and a
well-informed perspective is exemplary, creating a work that is a model of credible
and informed writing.

Final Calculation
Normalizing the Numbers
Since the Likert Data ranges from negative to positive, we want to normalize the data for easier
calculation. We do this by adding 3 to each variable and then dividing by 6 to gain a percentage of
the maximum value. Why 3? Because -3 + 3 = 0.

1. Clarity = (Clarity + 3) / 3
 2. Logic = (Logic + 3) / 3
3. Misinformed = (Misinformed + 3) / 3
4. Analysis = (Analysis + 3) / 3
5. Uninformed = (Uninformed + 3) / 3

Applying the Weights

- Clarity: 0.3
- Logic: 0.3
- Misinformed: 0.15
- Analysis: 0.135
- Uninformed: 0.115

For each of the main variables, apply their respective weights.

1. Clarity = Clarity * .3
2. Logic = Logic * .3
3. Misinformed = Misinformed * .15
4. Analysis = Analysis * .135
5. Uninformed = Uninformed * .115

Interpreting the Numbers

We now want a single number to work with, so we sum the percentages to gain the weighted
average of the rating percentage.

Rating=∑ ( C , L , M , A , U )

At this point, the rating is a percentage of the max rating possible. i.e., 0.7 (70%)

Lastly, we squish the percentage into the range of the minimum and maximum ratings. Usually the
worst is 1 and the best 5.

MiV = Minimum Value (1)

MaV = Maximum Value (5)
V = Value (previous Rating)

Rating=MiV + ( MaV −MiV )∗V

For example:

Rating=1+ ( 5−1 )∗0.7

In this scenario, the rating is: 3.5

This already shows that the rating calculation is very critical, and subjective to nuance. No more
baseless 5 star ratings. It’s virtually impossible for a book to get a 5 star rating. Very good books will
maybe get around the 4.3.