Workshop: Writing a Critique

Organization:
The title page is the first page but
ut is not paginated as the first page (except in APA)
PA) and includes
the class name and number, title of paper, author, and date. A title page does nott have a page
number and is not counted in thee total pages required.

The introduction outlines the purpose

urpose or topic and thesis of the paper, and the introduction
ntroduction
should be considered a brief, concise
ncise paragraph or two that summarizes the contentent of the paper.

The literature review is the main

in section of the paper and includes information pr
presented in
paragraphs. Remember, paragraphsphs should have one main idea that is in direct support of the
thesis statement. Within each body
ody paragraph, there will be a topic sentence (main
ain idea of the
paragraph) and supporting idea(s).
s).

The conclusion or summary is the portion of the paper where you will offer concluding
ncluding or
summarizing comments. This portion
ortion of the paper is a review and basically tellss the reader what
the outcome of the paper means.

Definition:
What is a critique? A critique is an analysi
analysis of a written text based on evidence that is extracted
from the document. A critique canan also be applied to media images as well as spoken
poken discourse;
however, most university coursess focus on the criticism of written documents.

• Initially, in assessing written

tten works, the work itself must be understood. If the content is
misunderstood, then the critique will be misapplied.
• Read through the piece att least twice
twice—first for content and then for analysis.
ysis. When
analyzing text, mark areasas that are of significa
significance.
• Underline key terms and phrases.
• Also, if there are areas that
at are unclear or confusing, those sections should
ld be marked.
Be sure to ask questions about areas that are not fully understood as thesee may be critical
to the analysis being conducted.
ducted.
• Once the text has been readad and understood, the text which has been analyzed
lyzed can be
broken apart, and a critique
ue can be written.
Purpose:
Critiques serve to examine an author’s claim/argument. Certain questions should be posed of the
text:
What is the author’s main claim or thesis statement? If no such statement exists, what
serves as the focus of the work?
How clearly does the author present the problem or thesis statement?
How does the author achieve the goal of the work? Does the author do so effectively?
Why or why not?
What is the particular evidence used to support the author’s claim?
How well does the author describe methods or supporting evidence?
Does the author logically support his/her argument with an organized structure and
coherent development?
Do the sections make sense as presented? Why or why not?

Once these questions are answered, the critique can be written, analyzing the text that has been
assessed. In writing a critique, both strengths and weaknesses of the argument should be
acknowledged, beginning with the main claim of the specific text. After discussing the claim’s
efficacy, the supporting evidence should be examined for pertinence and importance. Has the
supporting information been used appropriately and accurately? Each piece of “important”
evidence should be addressed for strengths and weaknesses, but it is important to remember that
when assessing individual pieces of evidence, each piece should be looked at individually or in
one paragraph to avoid confusion in organization. All too often, writers try to analyze a chunk of
text that is too big for a short analysis paper, and the important elements can become lost. Small
sections of text should be assessed for a higher level of examination accuracy.

Another important component in critique writing is establishing transitions and continuity

between discussion topics. As the author of the primary text has attempted to draw links between
the claim and supporting evidence, the sections of the critique should attempt to develop links
between claims made regarding the textual information.

Organization tip—make an outline to assist in the development of ideas and arguments.

 A critique of Good Night, Mr. Tom

by Austin Powers

The novel Good Night, Mr. Tom is one of the most enjoyable books ever. It
held my interest and touched my heart in a way no other book could.
Between the laughter and tears, Michelle Magorian catches your attention
and makes you want to keep reading.

In the novel, the characters were so believable that you felt you could
understand and relate to them. That is one of the reasons why I liked the
story so much. One of my favourite characters was Tom. Though he
disguised it after the loss of his wife and son, Tom was a kind-hearted man
with gracious soul. After he took little Will Beach in, Tom’s attitude towards
life changed. He became involved in the village and volunteered. Tom
helped Will with his reading and writing, allowing him to get a step ahead in
life. I also enjoyed the character of Zach. He was a lively person with a
very positive attitude. He was a kind soul who was a great friend to Will.
Will learned much from Zach and benefited from his presence.

The novel Good Night, Mr. Tom was most definitely not a boring book. The
author, Michelle Magorian, was able to hold the interest of the reader
throughout the whole story. The description of scenes was so well done, you
could picture each of them in your head. There were many emotional
moments that were described. One of my favourite scenes was when Will
was in the church. He sat silently pondering and daydreaming while drawing
the pulpit. This scene was so well described, you felt you were almost
sitting there with Will.

After reading this novel, I learned many things. I also felt I could relate to
one situation in particular. This certain situation was when a character had a
person close to him die. I learned you have to move on and know that his
or her spirit still lives within you. I feel that this book should be continued to
be read in the future because it is such an amazing novel.
James MacPherson
English 410
November 10, 2010

Critique of paper: Class Bias

Cesario begins her paper of the case presented by Feinberg and Soltis by stating what she sees as
the main issue. This issue is whether or not the teacher (Marilyn) is treating the students she
encounters in her accelerated sections differently. Cesario presents other puzzling questions,
such as, why would a teacher knowingly do this since “most teachers enter the profession hoping
to help students” and why did (Marilyn) “merely dismiss the facts” when presented with them by
her colleagues? This reader found these questions to be intriguing but was disappointed when
answers were not pursued by Cesario.

Cesario uses the works of Clabaugh & Rozycki to make an argument that challenges the
authority of the two part-time teachers to bring such accusations to the attention of Ms Todd.
She believes that if this would be he reason for Mrs. Todd’s refusal to listen to the two teachers
that perhaps another authority, “someone they would both respect” may be helpful. This case
does not give any more information as to the actions of the two young teachers. Since both
seemed to be so concerned with Ms. Todd’s actions it seems that neither would have stopped
here.

Was it the duty of these two teachers to go to Mrs. Todd with their suspicions in the first place or
were they out of their area of authority? This may have been another area that Cesario could
have discussed. It seems to this writer that both Dom and Sarah needed to take their suspicions
to “department head or the principal” to handle this situation from the start. Unless a colleague
is in a peer-coaching or mentor relationship with another colleague, issues of this nature need to
be brought to the attention of someone who could have the authority to investigate. This person
could make the changes as needed.

Cesario continues her investigation in this case with a discussion of “a teacher dismissed on the
grounds of incompetence for failing large numbers of algebra students.” This reader would be
interested in hearing more about this case and would like to see a source for this argument.
Cesario also states that “parents and students have shown their support of this teacher,” and the
question that comes to this reader’s mind is who are these parents and students? Are these the
parents and students of, as Feinberg and Soltis put it, “the very rich?” It would be interesting
information for someone who would be building a case for the presence of class bias. What do
the parents of the “very poor residents” say about this teacher?

Cesario uses the conflict theory to continue looking at this case. She does a thorough job of
showing how a situation like this can take place without objections by those in the situation. She
continues this argument using the work of Sennett and Cobb. Even though, Cesario makes a
strong case, the reader does not have enough information from the case presented by Feinberg
and Soltis to know if Cesario is correct. The reader does not know how Dom’s student handles
the treatment given to him by Mrs. Todd. Cesario uses the case of the “lads found is Will’s
study to say that students that are faced with this situation may just give up and act as they are
presumed to be by their teacher. There is no evidence in this case to show that this happened.

There may be other factors to consider that Cesario does not bring up. Perkinson discusses the
inferior educational system of Black Americans. He talks about the lack of resources and
backgrounds of these children. This may be the same situation for these students entering Mrs.
Todd’s classroom. They may be lacking the background knowledge that is so pertinent to the
study of English. It would have an effect on these children having the capability to compete with
other students who do have strong educational backgrounds.

Cesario goes on to discuss the issue of tracking. Again, she gives a good historical perspective
and discusses the effects of tracking. Even though she does a good job, it seems that this is one
area that could be eliminated from this paper. This writer does not believe this was a case about
tracking but more about how a teacher handles students from different backgrounds found in
his/her classroom.

Another area that would be worth discussing is the first paragraph of this case study. When
Feinberg and Soltis wrote “Over the years, her seniority has given her the right to avoid poorer
students (in both sense of the term) and teach only the seventh- and eight- grad accelerate
sections” what were they trying to say? Was that a slam on this practice that no one will deny
does exits in American education, or was it their way of saying that the entire school had issues
with class bias? A paragraph discussing this idea would have been worth adding to this paper. It
would have been important to discuss the need to change this thinking. The exact opposite needs
to be true if the system is to improve. The best and brightest teachers need to help the neediest
of students as well as the brightest.

Cesario looks at the work of Perkinson on school choice. He believes that some issues in schools
are “undecidable” and that choice through the private sector could be an answer. Cesario
disagrees with this argument because she believes that public schools need to learn how to
“understand and resolve controversy” and this would be a way to move forward. Even though
this reader agrees with this argument, she was disappointed with this being the only conclusion.
Cesario used so many different ideas throughout this paper and this reader was interested in
seeing how she would use all of them to approach a teacher like Mrs. Todd. This information
may have answered the question given by Feinberg and Soltis. That question was, “What, if
anything, could you do as a teacher to safeguard against an unconscious class bias? The answer
to this question would be of great interest to this reader.
Example Critique Essay

Assignment: The following essay is a critique of the book Dead Man Walking by Sister Helen
Prejean, focusing on the persuasiveness of the author’s argument.

[Instructor’s comments appear in bold, italic font within brackets.]

The Death Penalty: From a Critic’s Point of View

Imagine that there is power invested in you to decide the fate of a vicious murderer who has
ruthlessly tortured and killed two teenagers: What would you do? Would you sentence him to
death or life imprisonment? What are the bases for your judgment? This issue is not as
hypothetical as one might think. In fact, it is very similar to real life events, and final judgments
in cases like this have spurred heated debates between proponents and opponents of capital
punishment. Some people—often victims’ relatives—favour the death penalty as a fair
punishment, basing their bias on the Mosaic Law that requires “an eye for an eye” while others,
like Helen Prejean, oppose the death penalty and questions its appropriateness. Prejean is a
Catholic nun and a strong opponent of the death penalty, who established a legal entity in
Louisiana to represent death-row inmates at their trials. In her book, Dead Man Walking,
Prejean assesses in detail the issues concerning the death penalty; she analyses both the
gruesome deeds of the murders alongside the psychological pains the victims undergo prior to
their death and the pain and agony the victims’ families suffer, while she cleverly argues against
the death penalty. Even though not all of her points are convincing, Prejean effectively argues
against the death penalty. [Good intro to the topic and the book—You smoothly flow from
general to specific, ending with your thesis]

As a counterargument to the claim that inmates executed suffer no pain, Prejean argues that
death row inmates are cruelly killed and they experience even more pain especially when they
can tell the time and manner in which they will be killed. First, she relates a series of episodes
that depict tremendous pain suffered by convicts. Seventeen-year-old Willie Francis is one of
her examples: “After several volts of electricity were applied on him, Francis survived but just
to be executed an hour later” (18-19). Then she claims that death-row inmates “suffer pain each
time they look at the clock, knowing that their death is eminent” (234). Prejean’s argument is
not strong enough to face the claims of her opposition. For one thing, many people do not care
about how much the murderer suffers. Moreover, no one knows exactly the level of pain and
agony that the victims suffer in the hands of their aggressors; therefore, one cannot fairly tell
who suffers the most pain—the victim or the victimizer. Thus, it is safe to say that the only
accomplishment of Prejean’s argument is the acknowledgement of the pain suffered by the
condemned murderer because her argument is not convincing enough to discourage the death
penalty. [Good claim to evaluate –you might also add that many people won’t care how much
a murderer suffers]. Nevertheless, Prejean shows a high level of efficiency in presenting her
argument.

As a way of appealing to the emotion of her audience, Prejean starts her argument by relating the
experience of a death-row inmate, Patrick Sonnier, whose story is as pitiful as that of his victims.
She conveys Sonnier’s remorse even before explaining his deeds: “I shouldn’t have … get
mixed up in the bad things we (were) doing. I will go to my grave feeling bad about those kids
(his victims)… Every night I pray for those kids and their parents” (38). And she continues by
justifying Sonnier’s exemption from death by relating Eddie’s words—Sonnier’s brother who
was also involved in the murder—to the governor. “Please, Governor, you are about to kill the
wrong man… I am the one who killed the teenagers.” [Page number of this quote?
Remember to always cite your source]. Prejean’s approach to the subject shows an exemplary
use of pathos in an argument or debate. By starting with Sonnier’s account, Prejean paves the
way for the central idea of her argument—the death penalty is immoral and unjust and therefore
should be abolished. Indeed, she wins some amount of compassion for the death-row inmate
from her audience, and this compassion allows the audience to give consideration to any further
points she might bring out. Perhaps if she started by relating the gruesome deeds of the death-
row inmate, her audience would probably have opted for the “eye for an eye” rule, that the
murderer deserves death. But to prevent such a whimsical conclusion, Prejean cleverly chooses
an approach that will hopefully allow her points to be put across. Obviously, putting her points
across requires a mutual understanding between Prejean and her opposition, and this is exactly
what she always strives to do.

Another factor that makes Prejean’s argument effective is the neutral ground she often seeks with
her opposition. She makes it known that she does not condone the actions of the death-row
inmates and refers to them as “totally wrong and inhumane,” a view point that her opposition
shares. During one of her visits with the Harveys, one victim’s family, Prejean says, “Hearing
the details of Faith’s vicious murder, I find myself sucked into the Harveys’ rage” (145). [Good
use of the text to prove your point.] Her condemnation of the deed of the death-row inmate does
not relinquish her stance against the death penalty. Rather it shows respect for the stance of her
opposition. But why would someone who condemns the vicious deed of a murderer not support
the death penalty? [Good question!] Her response to this question strengthens Prejean’s
argument even more: “If we believe that murder is wrong and is not admissible in our society,
then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well” (130).
Prejean at one instance sheds tears as one victim’s family explains the ruthless murder of their
daughter (187). This neutral point of view allows Prejean to state precisely why she condemns
the death penalty. It gives her the opportunity to make known to her opposition that it is the ‘act
of killing’ that she hates, not the killer. Indeed she questions the morality of the death penalty as
a just punishment for murder. If Prejean had not sought the common terms that exist between
herself and her opposition, that they both condemn murder, she definitely would have been
misunderstood to be a supporter of murderers, and disrespected. However, because she followed
the right course, her stance is not only understood but she also gains respect from her opposition.
One of Prejean’s strong opposition states, “We are like different baseball teams. We have
different point of views but we respect each other” (172). Such a remark from her opposition
shows that she deeply regards the ethics of others. Yet to pursue her goal in convincing her
audience that the death penalty should be abolished, Prejean has to do more than just appealing
emotionally to her audience or gaining the respect of her opposition. [This last sentence works
well to sum up the arguments of your first two body paragraphs and transition to your last
(and msot important) point, but you could say more to explain why these approaches alone are
not enough for Prejean to make her case.]

Prejean now brings out statistical facts that logically and effectively support her argument
against the death penalty. In emphasizing the cost of killing one inmate, Prejean states, “In
Florida (for example), which may be typical, each death sentence is estimated to cost
approximately $3.18 million, compared to the cost of life imprisonment (40 years) of about
$516,000” (129). This cost she says comes from hiring ‘expert’ witnesses and investigators, the
cost of sequestering the jury, and many other protocols involved in a capital case. In addition to
the financial cost, Prejean argues that society loses morally—the cost of losing one more person
in death. The biggest counter-argument of her opposition is that killing the murderer will
prevent future crimes. But as Prejean’s statistical evidence brings out, by no means has the death
penalty deterred murder crimes (52). This argument is clearly logical because if it is this
expensive to kill a murderer, then it should behoove the government to sentence him/her to life
imprisonment, which will allow him/her the opportunity to defray the cost of his or her own
living. And if killing the murderer does not prevent future crimes, then the reason for abolishing
the death penalty gets even stronger. Undeniably, then, one can conclude that Prejean was able
to use statistical evidence to effectively present her argument. [Yes, well put, but why is this
factual evidence so important to her argument?]

In our society, the death penalty continues to be one of the most controversial issues. Some
favour it while others oppose it; but the underlying fact is that either our individual beliefs or the
effects that the death penalty might have on us shape our different view points regarding this
issue. As for Prejean, her religious background probably motivated her stance against the death
penalty; in any case, she effectively argues her stand against the death penalty and gives solid
reasons for its abolition. [It would be good to go back into detail on your assessment of her
argument.] But regardless of one’s support or disapproval of the death penalty, our choices and
opinions always depict who we really are. Are we justice seekers or red-blooded villains? Are
we respecters of moral rights or coddlers of murders? Prejean shows what she does not hate
murderers but the ‘act of murder’. So the next time you are asked to state your opinion about the
death penalty, give thought to who or what your answer will depict you to be.

[A solid essay! You carefully point to some of the key ideas behind Prejean’s argument and
are starting to do a fine job of evaluating the quality of her argument, though your last body
paragraph could be more in depth. My main suggestion would be for you to develop more in
your conclusion your overall assessment of Prejean’s argument, thereby underscoring the
thesis of your paper.]
Critiquing Your Critiques

Rating Scale

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Very Good

Please rate the paper you have read according to the following criteria on a
scale of 1 – 5, where five means the category has been accomplished with
true excellence, and one means the writer has work to do.

Then provide a few comments in the space provided for each category as to
how the writer might improve his/her work. Please underline in the text
where the writing could be improved.

1. How well does the introduction outline the purpose or topic of the
paper? The introduction should be a paragraph or two that
summarizes the content of the paper.
1 2 3 4 5
Comments:

2. How well does the body of the critique include information based on
the introduction? Remember paragraphs should have one main idea
that is in direct support of the thesis statement. Within each body
paragraph, there will be a topic sentence and supporting idea.

Paragraph 1: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:

Paragraph 2: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:

Paragraph 3: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:

Paragraph 4: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
3. How well does the conclusion offer summarizing comments? This
portion of the paper is a review and basically tells the reader what the
outcome of the paper means.
1 2 3 4 5
Comments: