1.

Critical reading means that a reader applies certain processes, models,

questions, and theories that result in enhanced clarity and comprehension. There
is more involved, both in effort and understanding, in a critical reading than in a
mere "skimming" of the text. What is the difference? If a reader "skims" the text,
superficial characteristics and information are as far as the reader goes. A critical
reading gets at "deep structure" (if there is such a thing apart from the superficial
text!), that is, logical consistency, tone, organization, and a number of other very
important sounding terms.
2. Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text. Intertextual
figures
include: allusion, quotation, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche and parody.[1
][2][3]Intertextuality is a literary device that creates an 'interrelationship between

texts' and generates related understanding in separate works ("Intertextuality",

2015). These references are made to influence the reader and add layers of
depth to a text, based on the readers' prior knowledge and understanding.
Intertextuality is a literary discourse strategy (Gadavanij, n.d.) utilised by writers
in novels, poetry, theatre and even in non-written texts (such as performances
and digital media). Examples of intertextuality are an author's borrowing and
transformation of a prior text, and a reader's referencing of one text in reading
another.
3. Using these various tools to create hypermedia/hypertext links between different
types of texts requires an awareness of the thematic and conceptual
relationships between these texts. Students could use Inspiration ($70.00)
(see inspiration.com and tomsnyder.com) to create visual maps of their texts
and materials according to different templates. For example, students can use
the thinking-skills template to develop Venn diagram comparisons between
different texts noting ways in which they differ and ways in which they share
certain features.

Types of Claims

1. Claims of Fact. (existence of something/definition or classification/facts --

inferences about past present or future)

Types of factual claims (generally "objective")

1. Factual / historical
2. Relational - causal connections
3. Predictive

proof requires:

4. sufficient and appropriate grounds

 1. reliable authority
2. recent data
3. accurate, typical data
4. clearly defined terms -no loaded language
5. a clear distinction between fact and inference.

2. Claims of Value (taste & morals / good-bad) [make value judgments/ resolve
conflict between values/ quasi policy (rightness of it; relative merit)]

proof requires:

1. Establishing standards of evaluation (i.e. a warrant that defines what

constitutes instances of the relevant value)
2. note the priority of the value in this instance.
3. Establish the advantage (practical or moral) of your standards.
4. Use examples to clarify abstract values
5. Use credible authorities for support.

3. Claims of Policy (action / should or ought) - usually involves sub-claims of fact

and value

Proof requires:

1. Making proposed action clear

2. need (justification)
3. plan, (must be workable)
4. benefit (advantages)
5. consider opposition / counter arguments

LOGICAL FALLACIES
1. Appeal to authority

- An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person

judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the
proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority
speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any
authority is guaranteed to be true.

2. Bandwagon

- The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the

growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere
fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the
trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.
This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that
can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even
mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the
popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.

3. Circular Reasoning
- An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it
assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such
arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a
proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already
accept its conclusion.
4. Either-or Fallacy
- An either-or fallacy is a type of logical reasoning fallacy. It assumes
that people need to, have to or should choose between one thing or
idea and another thing or idea. Often, decisions are much more
complex than simply deciding between one or the other. Therefore, if
someone creates a question that assumes someone must choose
between two given choices, then the options to respond are limited
according to the pre-defined scope.
5. Emotional Manipulation
- An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotionspecifically,
sympathyrather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone
feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person
thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common,
fallacy.
6. False or Careless Analogy
- When a comparison is made between two ideas or objects that
seemingly have similar characteristics, but the comparison does not
hold up. The characteristics of the two things actually differ in the area
that is being compared.
7. False or Personal Attack
- Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument
itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the
argument the person is making.
8. Hasty Generalization
- Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than
looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or
average situation.
9. Non-Sequitur
 - When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more
informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or
reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.
10. Red Herring
- Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the
person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the
issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of
trying to abandon the original argument.