Write a paper on how Critical analysis can be understood as the practice or process of breaking down and examining arguments presented in text or speech and assessing their viability.

****This assignment is an EXTENSION AND REVISION of an already written paper for the course. The paper is currently 3.25 and the final product should be 1.5-2 pages longer for a total of 5-6 pages****
-The paper is attached in documents titled “RE3”
-I have attached a writing checklist for expectations of writing for my course
-The two other attachments are the articles in which the paper is analyzing two different arguments (Pinker and Prinz)

Earlier this semester I wrote a paper based off of this question:
Pinker and Prinz offer opposing views on whether humans are primarily products of their biology or rearing. Which view is more compelling based on the evidence available? Why?
The criteria for the paper is as follows:

Write a paper on how Critical analysis can be understood as the practice or process of breaking down and examining arguments presented in text or speech and assessing their viability. That is to say: we look at a given argument and attempt to determine whether it is ‘good’ by some standard (typically a matter of whether the argument is logically and, when possible, empirically defensible).
Critical Analysis should utilize a traditional essay structure in miniature: introduction, exposition, and analysis, followed by a works cited list.
Is the argument deductive or inductive?

INTRO : It should be brief and to the point, providing only that information that is relevant which is necessary to both state the target argument or problem with which you seek to engage in the paper, as well as a (typically) one-to-two sentence expression of how you will be addressing the problem in your analysis. This lattermost component is called your thesis, and it contains the central point of the argument that you will be giving and defending over the course of the paper.

EXPOSITION : where all of the relevant background details appear to understand the target argument or problem with which your paper will be wrangling. Ideally, the exposition provides an accurate and charitable representation of the target material. That said, the exposition is not a book report. It should give enough detail so that the reader understands the target argument while avoiding fluff and inessential information. In other words, it should be only as long as it needs to be for the purpose of clearly describing the target and no longer.

ANALYSIS : In the analysis, you should dissect and assess the target argument previously exposited. Be explicit as to whether you are challenging or defending the target, or engaging in a third sort of project (e.g., comparative evaluation). If challenging, then explain your breakdown of the target and point to where/how/why the argument falls apart. If defending, then you need to explain how the view has been challenged (a sort of mini exposition) and explain why the challenge is ineffective (or how the argument could be amended).