Article attached.
To what extent does the author succeed in his or her purpose? What is the moment motivating message? To what views is this author responding? What problem is being addressed in the article?
To what extent do you agree with the author? Think carefully here as you assess the uses and limits of this perspective.
You could consider the following questions as you generate material for this project:
Who is the audience? Is the information of importance to a general audience or to a particular audience with particular views? How do you know? Where did this text first appear?
What is the author’s project? What does the author hope to achieve by producing this text? What action does the text presume the audience should take? What stake might the author have in writing this piece?
How and to what degree does the author establish his or her credibility?
What line of reasoning does the author pursue? Is this a fair interpretation of evidence by the author? Does the author engage skeptical questions or anticipate naysayers or make appropriate concessions?
How does the author engage the interests, emotions, values, and commitments of the audience? Do you see any questionable persuasive strategies? Do you question any of the author’s assumptions?
What is the significance of any intertextual features you find, such as examples, images, anecdotes, citations, metaphors, or allusions?
What ideological alignments does the text subscribe to? What has been emphasized, muted, or omitted?
How does this perspective connect with any other ideas you have encountered in this class or elsewhere that might be relevant to consider?
It would be quite easy to enter the title of these articles into a Google search engine and read professional and scholarly critiques. But that is NOT the goal of the assignment. I don’t want to read your cut-and-paste synthesis. I want to see evidence of your critical thinking, not your synthesis of the works of others. We are building interpretive skills that will benefit you as scholar. As Maria Popova suggests, there is no shortcut to deliberative thinking–no shortcut to meaning. You may of course look up biographical information on the authors or terms you don’t understand. But I do not want you reading the reams of analytical essays and blog posts on these articles that no doubt populate the Internet. This is simply not that kind of project. I am trying to help you all see that you have something to contribute.
Consider following outline to help you arrange your presentation.
Introduce both the article being critiqued and the author
Summarize the author’s main points, identifying the author’s project or purpose for writing.
Analyze the author’s presentation, attending to choice architecture
Respond to the author’s presentation, assessing the uses and limits of the perspective offered.
Conclude by summing up your assessment of the overall validity of the piece.
Format: 12 pt. Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins, double spaced, 4 pages with consistent MLA or APA citation.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|