ENGLISH 11-12

Contents

I. Language Study Summary

1. Definitions
2. Suggested Connectors
4. Combining Parts of a Sentence
5. Comma Splice and Fused Sentences
6. Colon and Semicolon
7. Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
8. Subject-Verb Agreement
9. Modifiers
10. Apostrophe
11. Avoiding Wordiness

II. Stylistic Techniques and Devices

1. Aspects of Style
2. Point of View
3. Stylistic Devices
4. Literary Terms
5. Close-Reading

III. Critical Evaluation of Fiction

1. Methods for a Critical Evaluation of Fiction
Close-reading
Contextual criticism
Social criticism
Deconstruction
2. A Rubric for a Critical Evaluation of Fiction
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Sub-level 1
4. A Brief Overview of Literary Criticism
5. A Brief Overview of the Modern Literary Periods

IV. Critical Evaluation of Non-Fiction

1. Methods of Development
2. Argument Identification and Reconstruction
Identifying premises and conclusions
Reconstruction principles and methods
3. Methods of Reasoning
Elements of symbolic logic
Deductive reasoning
Non-deductive reasoning
3. Flaws in Reasoning
Resemblance
Distraction
Emotion
Ad hominem
Language
Relationship
False analogy
4. Methods for Critical Evaluation of Non-Fiction
I. LANGUAGE STUDY SUMMARY
1. Definitions
Noun – an object, ex-person, place, thing, idea, feeling, or quality.
Collective nouns (ex-team, company, etc.) are usually treated as a singular unit.
Pronoun – a replacement or substitute for subjects or objects that has already been identified and have a general reference.
Singular pronouns – I, me, him, she, it
Plural pronouns – we, us, they, them
Indefinite pronouns – are usually singular even though some may seem plural. Ex. any, any-(suffix), one, every-(suffix), each,
either, neither, another, some-(suffix), nobody, no one, nothing.
First person pronouns – I, me, we, us
Second person pronouns – you (often used as “people in general” rather than “you, the reader”)
Third person pronouns – he, him, she, her, one, it, they, them
Gender neutral pronouns – humankind, a person, they, them, we
Masculine pronouns – he, him
Feminine pronouns – she, her
Antecedent – a word, phrase, or clause to which a following pronoun is referring.
Subject – what the sentence is about.
Verb – tells what the subject is or does.
Phrase - is a word group that helps to explain the rest of the sentence. Since it does not contain both a subject and a complete verb, a
phrase by itself is a fragment.
Clause - a word group that contains a subject and verb. Clauses are either dependent or independent.
Independent clause – a clause that expresses a complete thought and is the minimum requirement to have a sentence.
Dependent clause – a clause that does not expresses a complete thought and therefore is not a sentence, but a fragment on its own.
Coordinating conjunction – used to connect two independent clauses by existing in between the two in one sentence. Ex- and, but,
for, or, nor, so, yet.
Conjunctive adverbs – besides, indeed, also, furthermore, still otherwise, nevertheless, however, in fact, anyway, then, therefore,
instead, similarly.
Dependent marker word (a.k.a. a subordinator) - put before a subject and verb to point out the relationship between two clauses.
- words of time relationship: as, after, as long as, before, till, until, when, whenever, while.
- words of logical relationship: although, as if, as though, because, even if, even though, except that, if, in order that, in order to, since,
so that, though, unless, whereas, whether, why.
- other words, such as: where, wherever
Independent marker word - occurs at the beginning of an independent clause and can stand alone as a sentence. When the second
independent clause in a sentence has an independent marker word, a semicolon is needed before the independent marker. common
independent markers: also, consequently, furthermore, however, moreover, nevertheless, and therefore

2. Suggested Connectors
Adding ideas again also and similarly too in addition
besides correspondingly equally like likewise in like manner
firstly, etc. further furthermore moreover in the same way
contrasting but on the other hand conversely however otherwise on the contrary
ideas contrary yet instead nevertheless still unlike whereas
showing order afterwards at the same time before thereafter thereupon meanwhile
in time earlier eventually henceforth now presently then
immediately later
making a accordingly as a result consequently therefore thus in fact
conclusion finally for this reason hence so it follows that then
in conclusion indeed

3. Sentence Fragments 3 - a dependent marker added to an independent clause makes it a

Fragments occur when a sentence lacks a subject, a complete fragment, but it can be made a sentence by:
verb, or a complete thought: - removing the dependent marker.
1 - words that seem to be verbs, but are not real or complete - combining fragments/clauses
1 - a present participle is a verb ending in ing.
A gerund looks like a participle but is used as a noun 4. Combining Parts of a Sentence
and can be the subject of a sentence. - combine fragments with sentences
2 - an infinitive is the word “to” plus a verb - use a coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet).
2 - relative pronouns (who, whose, whom, which, that). - use an independent marker:
1 - the relationship is broken with a period. - use a dependent marker:
2 - a relative pronoun may be unnecessary in a sentence.
5. Comma Splice and Fused Sentences
Comma splice – the use of a comma between two independent clauses. There are few different ways that a comma splice can be
fixed: put a period between the two clauses, change to comma to a semicolon, or make one of the two independent clauses
dependent by adding a coordinating conjunction.

Fused (a.k.a. run-on) sentences – found where two or more normal independent clauses are combined without any form of
punctuation or coordinating conjunction. There are few different ways to fix a fused sentence: add a period between to separate an
independent clause from the rest of the sentence, add a semicolon between two independent clauses, or add a coordinating
conjunction. If the coordinating conjunction is added to the beginning of a sentence making one of the clauses dependent, then a
comma is needed at the end of the dependent clause separating it from the independent one. If the coordinating conjunction is
added in between the two clauses then no comma is needed.

6. Colon and Semicolon

Colon – used to separate parts of a sentence that are complete (or nearly complete) in themselves (i.e. they are independent clauses),
often taking the place of a conjunction.
- Use a colon to introduce a statement, a question, or a quotation.
- Use a colon to introduce/start a series.
- Use a colon to explain the previous statement.
- Use a colon in a formal letter to introduce the consignee (of the letter)
- Use a colon to define a word, a sentence, a phrase, etc.

Semicolon – used to indicate separation between parts or members of a sentence more distinct than that marked by a comma.
- Use a semicolon to separate two independent clauses, which are closely related in meaning.
- Use a semicolon between items in a series.
- Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are joined by conjunctive adverbs. The semicolon always comes before the
conjunctive adverb and a comma after the adverb.

7. Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
There are four main guidelines to follow to ensure pronoun-antecedent agreement.
1) It should be clear to the reader what the pronoun is referring to (i.e. the antecedent must be identified and the pronoun refers to
only one antecedent)
2) Make sure they agree in number (i.e. both are plural or both singular)
3) Make sure they agree in person (i.e. both are first, second, or third person)
4) Make sure they agree in gender (i.e. both are neutral, masculine, or feminine)

8. Subject-Verb Agreement
- Make sure that verbs, subject, and related nouns and pronoun agree in number (either singular subject-verb or both plural).
- If subjects are joined by “and” then they use plural verbs.
- If subjects are treated as a unit then they use singular verbs.
- An “s” at the end of a noun makes it plural, but an “s” at the end of a verb makes it singular.
- Make sure that verbs, subject, and related nouns and pronoun agree in person (either first, second, or third person).

9. Modifiers
Modifiers can be an adjective, adverb, phrase or clause that explains another word or word group.
Misplaced modifiers –in the wrong position within a sentence, which may slightly or greatly change the meaning of the sentence. A
misplaced modifier can be corrected by moving it near the word(s) it is meant to clarify.
- Limiting modifiers –can be fixed by inserting it immediately before the word it is meant to clarify. Ex- almost, even, hardly, just,
nearly, only.
- A misplaced modifier can cut in between the subject and the verb (or verb-subject). It must be moved outside of the subject/verb so
that there is no awkward interruption in the sentence.
- Split infinitive modifier – cuts in between “to” and the verb of an infinitive. Examples of infinitives are “to eat”, “to swim”, etc. A
split infinitive does not have to be moved if it is a single word, but it should be if it is a word group so that the “to” will be
directly followed by its verb.
Dangling modifiers – a word group that does not modify any specific word in the sentence, or (worse) modifies the wrong word.
Unlike a misplaced modifier, a dangling modifier cannot simply be moved to another part of the sentence. Instead, the sentence
may need to be reworded.
Squinting modifiers – can modify a word(s) after and before it which makes it unclear which word(s) the modifier refers to. The
sentence needs to be reworded so that the modifier only refers to one of the two possibilities.

10. Apostrophe
The two major uses of the apostrophe are 1) to indicate a possessive relationship between two nouns, and 2) to indicate contractions.
Possessive – to indicate possessive to most singular nouns, the word then the apostrophe then s is used. For plural nouns, only the
apostrophe is added to the end of the word.
- The above rule applies even for proper nouns, letters, numbers, and nouns that end with s, z, or x.
- If closely related nouns both possess a common object, then only the second entity takes the possessive form. If not (i.e. if the
related noun is plural) then both entities take possessive form.
- In compound words the final word takes the possessive form.
- Do not use apostrophes for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals (i.e. do not say her’s, hours’)
Exceptions: the following exceptions to the above general rules use only an apostrophe at the end of the word.
- When a singular form of the noun ends with s and the plural is the same (i.e. politics’ focus).
- Name of an organization ends with s (i.e. United States’ property).
- Names that end with an unpronounced s (i.e. Descartes’ literature).
Contractions – the apostrophe is used to indicate the omission of some letters.
- common contractions: he’s (he is), I’m (I am), o’clock (on the clock)
- when contracting years, the first two digits are replaced (2007 becomes ’07).

Common errors
- Whose not who’s is the possessive form of who.
- It’s mean it is and is not and is not a possessive form of it. Its is the possessive form of it.
- Apostrophe does not form a plural (i.e. correct: Many tourists are, not many tourist’s are)
- Apostrophe does not form a third person verb (i.e. correct: Jefferson takes the, not Jefferson take’s the)
Other uses of an apostrophe
- Where lower case letters are used as words or abbreviations (i.e. correct: x’s and y’s)
- Where both capital and lower case letters are used to form plural (i.e. correct: Ph.D’s)
When not to use an apostrophe
- Capital letters are used as words (i.e. correct: the four Es)
- Abbreviations that contain no interior periods (i.e. correct: PCs)
- Numerals used as nouns (i.e. correct: the 1700s)

11. Avoiding Wordiness

Wordiness is when writing seems cluttered because of excessive or unnecessary words have been used. Tips to avoid wordiness:
1) Keep the vocabulary simple but precise and suitable to the audience.
2) Rearrange or reword sentences to use the smallest number of words possible.
3) Don’t explain in many words what can be summarized in one.
4) Don’t state what can be assumed or is already implied.
5) Don’t use repetitive words or phrase.
6) Avoid using intensifiers such as very, highly, extremely, incredibly, quite, really, etc.
II. STYLISTIC TECHNIQUES AND DEVICES
1. Aspects of Style
It is an author’s style which has a memorable effect on the reader and therefore makes how something was said as important as what
was said. The author’s style also creates memorable lines and helps the reader better understand the point. Aspects of style
include:
- level of language (formal, academic, informal, colloquial, dialect, slang).
- tone (authoritative, familiar, conversational, ironic, attacking, humorous, critical, direct, praising, persuasive).
- point of view (first or third person)
- rhetorical questions (for effect, to engage the reader).
- use of dialogue (direct speech), quotations.
- use of figurative or poetic language (imagery, symbolism).
- use of concrete or abstract language (diction, word choice, vocabulary).
- sentence variety.
- parallelism and balance (repeated sentence structures, rhythms).
- use of analogy (extended metaphorical comparison).
- use of anecdote (personal story for illustration).

2. Point of View
First person point of view – “I woke up this morning and went to school.”
- The narrator is a major or minor character in the story.
- The narrator reveals only his feelings, thoughts, or information that has been directly received from other characters.
- Knowledge is limited to what he hears and sees.
- Tone is personal an intimate.
- Letters, memoirs, and diaries are generally in the first person.
- Words used frequently are I, me, my, we, our, and us.

Third person point of view – “Jenny stayed home from school this morning. She didn’t feel well.”
- The narrator is an outsider, not a character in the story.
- The narrator uses words like he, she, his, her, and they.
- There are three types of third person point of view:
1. Omniscient – all knowing; knows the thoughts of all the characters.
2. Limited – the narrator enters the mind of only one major or minor character.
3. Objective or factual – knows only what is external to the characters.

3. Stylistic Devices
Abnormal Word Order - gives variety and emphasis to writing by changing the usual subject-verb sentence pattern. EXAMPLE:
normal word order (subject-verb): “The actor’s worst nightmares stood laughing at him from the shadows.” Abnormal word order
(verb-subject): “Laughing at him from the shadows stood the actor’s worst nightmare.”
Allegory – a narrative in which the characters and sometimes the setting represent general concepts and ideas. EXAMPLE: fables in
which personified animals are used allegorically to teach lessons of human conduct (i.e. “The Hare and the Tortoise”).
Alliteration – draws attention to a string of words through repetition of their initial sounds. EXAMPLE: “As Frankenstein, Boris
Karloff rambled, raged, and roared.”
Allusion – a direct or indirect reference to a well-known event, person, thing, place, or quality. By suggestion, it may enhance the
significance of a poetic image or prose passage. EXAMPLE: T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland alludes to the Garden of Eden after the fall.
Analogy – helps the reader understand something unfamiliar by comparing it to something well-known. EXAMPLE: Comparing an
anthill to an urban centre helps to convey the fact that anthills are heavily populated, busy, and have regular patterns of
movement.
Balanced Sentence – expresses two or more equal and parallel ideas. EXAMPLE: “Many TV actors work hard all through the season;
they play in films all through the hiatus.”
Biased Language – Bias is the predisposition if a writer toward the particular subject about which he/she is writing. Often this bias is
established through the specific words that the writer uses. The dictionary definition, or literal meaning, of a word is called its
denotation. It addition to this many words have implied meanings. Each of these implied meanings is the connotation of the word.
EXAMPLE: All of the following words have very similar denotations but their connotations are very different: perfume, scent,
odour, and stench. The first two words have positive connotations while the last two have negative connotations.
Climatic Word Order – presents several facts in order from least to most important. EXAMPLE: “The young politician’s career rise
was meteoric; after beginning as a municipal councillor, she became mayor, and three short years later a Member of Parliament.”
Hyperbole – an overstatement or exaggeration which helps to emphasize a point. EXAMPLE: I have a million things to do.
Image/Imagery – appeals to one or more of the senses by creating a vivid impression through the use of concrete details, adjectives,
and figures of speech (i.e. metaphor, simile, personification). EXAMPLE: The beauty of the daisy is conveyed using imagery such
as “nun demure” and “a silver shield with boss of gold.” (William Woodsworth, “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud”).
Irony – the use of a word or phrase to mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning.
 - verbal irony – saying the opposite of what you think (sarcasm, hypocrisy).
- dramatic irony – the audience knows something opposite to what the characters think.
- situational irony – the opposite of what we expect happens (i.e. a fireman’s house burns down).
Isolation – calls attention to a word or phrase by isolating it in a “sentence” by itself. EXAMPLE: We were assaulted by the heat.
Bullied.
Mimicry – the manipulation of sounds and sentence structure to imitate meaning. EXAMPLE: a long flowing sentence with lots of “m”,
“l”, and “n” sounds to mimic a river in description. Or, explosive sentences and sounds like “k”, “b”, and “g” can be used to
mimic the sound of a battle.
Metaphor – compares two things without the use of like or as; it is a more subtle than the simile and thus requires more interpretation.
EXAMPLE: “Tyger! Tyger! Burning bright” (from William Blake’s poem “Tyger! Tyger!”)
Opposites – contrast two opposing ideas.
Onomatopoeia – draws attention to the sound of the word by imitating or suggesting sounds that correspond to its meaning.
EXAMPLE: “buzz”, “splash”, “slurp”.
Oxymoron – places words that mean the opposite of one another side by side so that they create a new meaning. EXAMPLE: “jumbo
shrimp”, “wise fool”.
Parallel Structure (Parallelism) – repeats specific words, phrases, or clauses in a series or clauses in a series, giving emphasis to key
words and making them memorable. EXAMPLE: Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people”
(preposition, define article, and noun are repeated in a series).
Periodic Sentence – withholds an important part of the sentence until the end so that it doesn’t make complete sense until the last
word is read. EXAMPLE: “Whether playing a young wild adventurer, a fugitive from the law, or a U.S. president, there is one actor
whose films always make money – Harrison Ford.”
Personification – gives human traits to an inanimate object or animal. EXAMPLE: “The fingers of ice scrapped the window.”
Pun – a play on words with the same sound but different meanings. EXAMPLE: “Sticks float. They would.”
Repetition – repeating words or phrases for emphasis or rhyme. EXAMPLE: English class is very, very, very fun.
Reversals (chiasmus) – make a balanced sentence even more memorable by repeating the words in reverse order. EXAMPLE: “Ask not
what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” (John F. Kennedy).
Rhetorical Question – asked merely for effect with either no answer expected or an obvious answer implied. EXAMPLE: Can anyone
deny that the microchip has revolutionized communication?
Rhyme – makes two or more words memorable by having endings that sound the same. EXAMPLE: “With might and right on his side,
he approached the challenge.”
Rhythm – is the movement implicit in an arrangement of words. EXAMPLE: a regular beat deriving from the patterns of stress on the
syllables, a rising or a falling inflection, a series of phrases that move quickly or slowly.
Sentence Fragment – places emphasis on key words to create an overall effect, such as humour or suspense.
Simile – points out a similarity between two unlike things using like or as.
Symbol – is an object or action that represents something other than what it is, such as an abstract idea or concept. EXAMPLE: dove =
peace.
Understatement (aka litotes) – creates the reverse effect (and adds a touch of irony) by making the fact seem less significant.
EXAMPLE: Jalapeno peppers may make your mouth tingle a bit.

4. Literary Terms
Antagonist – major opponent in conflict with the main character.
Archetype – a universal theme or character type which reoccurs in literature.
Aside - a short passage spoken in undertone to audience while others are on stage.
Atmosphere – feeling created, the mood (happy, mysterious, tarrying, etc.)
Catharsis – an emotional draining of the audience when watching a tragedy.
Chorus (aka Refrain) – 1. a group of characters in a play who speak in unison. 2. a line/stanza repeated in a song/poem.
Climax – highest point of emotional interest; conflict comes to a “head.”
Comic Relief – a comic element in a tragedy to relieve tension.
Crisis – turning point in rising action – fortunes of characters change for better or worse.
Falling Action – ending plot (after the climax); the “fallout” of the climax.
Foil – a character used for strong contrast to emphasise qualities of another character.
Foreshadowing – a hint of coming events.
Hubris – the pride of the tragic hero that leads him to his downfall, despite warnings.
Iambic Pentameter – a line of verse, 10 syllables, first syllables unaccented, second syllable accented. EXAMPLE: Now
old/desire/doth in/his death/bed lie.
Monologue – long speech of two very unlike things.
Motif – a recurring element (symbol, image, etc.) within a work.
Nemesis – a character receives a just punishment for evil deeds.
Paradox – a statement that appears contradictory but contains a basis of truth. EXAMPLE: My only love sprung from my only hate.
Pathetic Fallacy – when the natural & animal world reflects what’s happening in the human world. Example: rain during a funeral.
Pathos – when extreme pity or sorrow is evoked in a work. EXAMPLE: when Romeo & Juliet both die.
Poetic Justice – justice as one wishes it to be – good are rewarded and evil are punished.
Prose – written/spoken language as opposed to verse (poetic language).
Protagonist – main character.
Satire – to make fun of flaws in people/society/institution in the hopes of improving it.
Setting – time and place.
Soliloquy – a speech made by an actor alone on stage revealing innermost thoughts.
Theme – the message the author is trying to communicate.
Tone – author’s attitude toward a subject he/she is writing about.
Tragic Hero – Shakespeare’s definition: noble birth, extraordinary character, strong body/mind, high social/political stature,
admirable, potential for greatness.
Tragic Flaw – the hero’s has potential for greatness, but his tragic flaw leads to his downfall. EXAMPLE: Macbeth’s flaw is
ambition/greed.
Verse – poetic language.

5. Close-Reading
When reading a poem, you need to ask three big questions:
1. What is the poem about? (Content)
2. How is it written? (Form. and Style)
3. Why did the poet choose to write it this way (seeing the relationship between content, form, and style)

This handout assumes that you analysis is far enough along that you are developing a firm grasp of the content of the poem, It is meant
to help you with form and style. There are two primary things to remember when looking at the form and style of the poem:
a. Poets make conscious choices about form and style. They often use form and style to emphasize important ideas.
b. Form and style serve content. The observations you make concerning style and form must make sense in terms of the content of
the poem. Always start your analysis with content.

How to read for form . . .

When looking at form, pay attention to the appearance of the poem on the page. Look at the "white space" on the page as well as the
words. Start with the overall appearance of the poem on the page. Is it divided into stanzas or is it all one stanza? Are the lines
generally short or long? Are they all the same length? Do certain stanzas stand out because they look different on the page
(usually because they are shorter or longer than other stanzas)? Do specific words or lines stand out because they are isolated on
the page? Are sentences broken in unusual ways to call attention to certain words or ideas? Does the poem use rhyme (if at all)?
Does the poem use rhythm (if at all)? Does the poem follow the conventions of a well-defined and recognizable form (e.g. a
sonnet, a haiku, a limerick, a ballad)? Finally, look at organization. How has the poet organized the ideas in the poem? What does
the poem use as an organizational strategy (egg. time sequence, ascending order of importance, descending order of importance,
block comparison, point-by-point comparison, etc.)?
Once you have finished making observations about form, you need to decide which observations are relevant to your analysis of the
entire poem. Not all of them will be important. When deciding what is important and what is not, always go back to content. For
example, if a certain stanza seems to call attention to itself because of how it appears on the page, ask yourself why the poet might
want to emphasize that stanza. If a specific word is isolated on a line by itself, ask why the poet might want the reader to pay
attention to that specific word? Why might the poet have organized the poem in this way? If the poem is a sonnet, how might the
poet be using or playing with the conventions of the form? Basically, ask yourself how an analysis of the form of the poem might
help the reader notice important words, phrases or ideas and how it might enrich the reader's understanding of the poem.
Remember, not all of your initial observations will be of equal importance. Some will be relatively insignificant and should not be
included in your final analysis.

How to read for style ...

Reading for form and reading for style are very similar. In fact, you may have discovered already that you can't help but make
observations concerning style while you are reading for form, The process is identical:
1. Make as many observations about style as you can
2. Rank these observations in order of importance and limit your analysis to those observations that most directly relate to content.

Style includes things like repetition, imagery, metaphors, irony, symbol, alliteration and so on. When reading for style, look first for
anything that might be repeated (because repetition is both the simplest and the most effective form of emphasis in writing). Are
specific words, phrases, lines. or even entire stanzas repeated? Are certain ideas repeated but in different words? Do certain
images recur?
Then look at how the poet uses imagery. Images generally are used to help the reader see, hear, taste, touch, or smell what is being
described Images are sensory experiences created with words, They fall into three categories: literal imagery, figurative imagery,
mid aural imagery.
Literal imagery – a detailed description of the reality of the thing, scene or situation. Details are limited to the thing itself. Literal
images appeal directly to one or more of the five senses.
Figurative imagery – a figurative image compares the thing that is being described to something else. Most common figures of
speech: simile, metaphor, personification, hyperbole, and oxymoron.
Aural imagery – aural images use common sound techniques to create interest emphasis. They appeal to our ears and are easier to
spot if we read the poem out loud. Most common devices: alliteration, assonance, consonance, onomatopoeia, rhyme, near rhyme,
and rhythm.
Diction and word choke are also important. All words have both denotations a connotations. Identify some of the key words in the
poem and ask yourself why the poet night have chosen one word over another for its connotation.
Phrasing and sentence structure refer to how sentences are put together to emphasize certain words or to create interesting effects.
Take these two sentences, for example: 1) Ice cream is my favourite treat. 2) My favourite treat is ice cream. The first sentence
places greater emphasis on "ice cream." A number of short or fragmented sentences can create an effect of breathlessness or
uncertainty. Similarly, a sequence of longer sentences can create a meditative or solemn tone. Also, look for how the poet might
intentionally violate the rules of proper punctuation and sentence structure to achieve certain effects. Look for the intentional
fragment or run-on.
As for your analysis of form, once you have made a number of observations concerning style, you must decide which are important
and which are not. As a general rule, if you believe that the, poet made a conscious and deliberate decision to manipulate style in
the way you have observed, include the observation in your analysis. If you think that the effect was accidental, exclude it.
Remember, not all of your initial observations will be of equal importance. Some will be relatively insignificant and should not be
included in your final analysis.
III. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF FICTION
1. Methods for a Critical Evaluation of Fiction
Close-reading - To develop an understanding of a text by reading it carefully and examining "clues" within the text to support (or
create) various readings or interpretations.
Premise (central belief): The best way to understand a text is to read it yourself instead of relying on experts. The text alone is the
source of meaning. Background information and/or "expert" readings are beside the point of interpretation. Close-reading
develops the reader's understanding of a text by looking at the relationship between different parts of the text and by emphasizing
the process of reading. Close-reading commonly asks the reader to use evidence within the text to support what the reader
identifies as the text's central theme(s). The role of the teacher is to assess the student-reader's interpretation of the evidence. A
reading is "wrong" only if evidence is misinterpreted or ignored. The text itself determines the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the
reading. The strength (or weakness) of an interpretation depends entirely on the student-reader's ability to examine evidence
within the text.
Sample: Romeo and Juliet criticizes rash and hasty decisions by showing how they inevitably create problems and how they can lead
to disaster. The play is full of characters who make hasty decisions they later live to regret. Prince Escalus institutes a law
whereby fighting will be punishable by death. He lives to regret this decision when Romeo kills Tybald. Why? Romeo simply did
to Tybalt what the law would have done. After all, Tybalt killed Mercutio. Romeo similarly lives to regret a hasty decision: the
decision to kill Tybalt. Friar Laurence decides to marry Romeo and Juliet, even though he advises Romeo to go "wisely and slow;
they stumble that run fast." Later he makes another hasty decision to help Juliet avoid marriage to Paris by giving her the potion
that would enable her to fake her death. Both of these decisions he lives to regret because he sees how they directly contributed to
the deaths of the two lovers. Lord Capulet hastily decides to force Juliet to many Paris after the death of Tybalt, even though
earlier in the play he understood the importance of consulting Juliet over any potential spouse. After her death, he understands his
error. Because Romeo and Juliet is full of instances of rash decisions that lead to disaster, clearly we are intended to conclude that
we should never make snap decisions.

Contextual criticism - To see the text in relation to the place and time in which it was written, the place(s) and time(s) it features, the
author, and other texts created by the same author
Premise (central belief): A text is not created in a vacuum, it is a product of the place and time in which it was written. Therefore, an
understanding of the historical and cultural context in which a text was created can help the reader to interpret the text more
insightfully. Also, since texts might make references to other places and times, an understanding, of these places and times can be
vital to interpretation. Briefly, a text cannot be fully understood unless the reader also understands the context: when the text was
written, where (and about where), and also by whom.
Sample: In Romeo and Juliet, Lord Capulet is willing to consider Paris' wish to marry Juliet, even though Juliet has not yet turned
fourteen. A modern audience might assume that Lord Capulet is an inconsiderate father. However, in Shakespeare's time, most
young women were married by Juliet's age and, as Paris points out in Act 1, scene 2, "Younger than she are happy mothers
made." Later in the same scene, Lord Capulet advises Paris to woo Juliet and "get her heart" because his own will "to her consent
is but a part." In other words, Lord Capulet is unwilling to agree to Paris' proposal unless Juliet is willing to marry him. An
understanding of the power of the father in Shakespeare's time, helps the reader to see that an Elizabethan audience would have
seen Lord Capulet as a kind and unusually considerate man.

Social criticism - To judge the value of text on how well it critiques society and stimulates the reader's social conscience so that
positive social changes might occur.
Premise (central belief): The primary purpose of literature should be to make the world a better place (not just to entertain). Therefore,
the worth of a text can be assessed by how well the text might contribute to positive changes in society. A text should hold up a
mirror to the reader's society and aim to destroy any illusions the reader might have about that society. Social criticism examines
how a text reveals the underlying forces of society and judges a text on how well it does this. Social criticism often examines
power: who has it, who doesn't, and whether the way that power is distributed and exercised is fair and responsible. Feminist and
Marxist criticism are two common forms of social criticism
Sample: Romeo and Juliet demonstrates the danger of focussing power and authority in one person. Prince Escalus is responsible for
making and enforcing laws in Verona. Early in the play, Prince Escalus tries to stop the feud between the Capulets and the
Montagues by implementing a law that promises to punish public fighting with death: "If ever you disturb our streets again, your
lives will pay the forfeit of the peace." Clearly the law is flawed because the punishment (death) is too severe for the crime
(fighting). According to Escalus’s law, any person who fights will die, even if the skirmish is minor. Because Escalus has
absolute power, he can pass such a law quickly, without consulting with others and without even giving himself time to consider a
more workable solution.

Deconstruction - To reveal the underlying values of a text and to hold those values up to scrutiny (critical examination).
Premise (central belief): All texts present the audience with a system of values and beliefs. Some of these will be stated, but others
willy simply be implied. Unless readers identify and examine the values and beliefs supported by the text they may be influenced
by them without knowing. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the reader to examine and evaluate the text by assessing the
validity of the values and beliefs that the text presents.
Sample: One of the underlying values suggested by Romeo and Juliet is that love is worth dying for. Romeo takes poison because he
believes that Juliet is dead. When Juliet awakens and finds Romeo dead at her side, she stabs herself with his dagger. In spite of
the fact that the two young people commit suicide, they are held up as praiseworthy models, not only by other characters in the
play, but by Shakespeare himself. Capulet is anxious to build a monument to Romeo; Montague is equally anxious to build a
monument to Juliet. Shakespeare validates deaths of Romeo and Juliet by having the warring families cease their feud because of
these deaths. Romeo and Juliet glorifies suicide. This is a dangerous value to advance for a number of reasons, not the least of
which being that the majority of problems are amplified instead of solved by suicide. It also suggests that conflict cannot be
resolved until a disaster takes place. Is this a useful way to approach conflict?

2. A Rubric for a Critical Evaluation of Fiction

Level 4 – The writer has a flawless and comprehensive understanding of the text and the ideas it advances; both the text and the issue
at stake are dealt with thoroughly and critically. Where necessary, the writer has done outside research or reading in order to
respond intelligently to the original article. The writer does most or all of the following:
• Thoroughly understands the text that is being examined, accurately identifies the text's focus and central ideas; summarizes the
text in a clear, concise way that gives the reader a clear & objective picture of the original text
• Critically evaluates the, quality of argumentation in the text that is being examined; identifies and discusses all major strengths &
weaknesses of argumentation; uses the vocabulary of analysis flawlessly; is not distracted by irrelevant or minor points
• Critically assesses the proposals or ideas presented by using appropriate critical thinking strategies (e.g. looking at different
perspectives, considering short and long range costs and benefits, looking at practicality, etc.); looks thoroughly at the ideas or
issues at stake by going beyond the arguments and evidence suggested by the original text; little or no overlap between the
evaluation of ideas and the evaluation of argumentation
• Advances his or her own opinion on the text and the ideas it contains; structures his/her ideas into focused and well thought-out
arguments; provides strong and credible support (details, examples and/or fact) using appropriate resources; all key claims are
supported by explanation and logic or evidence.

Level 3 - The writer has a strong understanding of the text and the ideas it advances but one or two minor gaps or errors exist; the
writer analyzes the text and the issue at stake intelligently and critically but not always thoroughly. The writer may have
performed outside research but minor gaps or problems in support exist. The writer.
• Has a strong understanding of the text examined, accurately identifies the text's focus and almost all of its central ideas: there are
no major errors or gaps in understanding; summarizes the text in a way that would give the reader a clear, mostly accurate and
mostly complete picture of the original text.
• Critically evaluates the quality of argumentation in the text that is being examined; identifies and discusses most of the major
strengths and weaknesses of argumentation; uses the vocabulary of analysis accurately but with one or two minor lapses or errors;
not distracted by irrelevant or minor points
• Critically assess the proposals or ideas presented by using appropriate critical thinking strategies; looks at the issues at stake from
a variety of perspectives but does not go much beyond the arguments and evidence suggested by the original article; very minor
areas of overlap between the evaluation of ideas and the evaluation of argumentation
• Advances his or her own opinion on the text ant the ideas it contains; provides reasonable arguments and supports these
arguments with evidence; evidence is mostly strong and credible but not always; key claims are mostly supported using logic
and/or evidence but minor gaps in thinking, explanation, proof and/or research exist.

Level 2 - The writer has an acceptable grasp of the text and the ideas it advances but problematic gaps or errors exist; the writer's
analysis of the text is mostly sound but may contain important problems or may not be thorough. When advancing his or her own
opinion, the writer has workable arguments and tries to support them but the evidence might not be sufficient and/or entirely
credible. The writer does most or all of the following:
• Understands the "broad strokes" (i.e. thesis and most obvious arguments) of the text being examined; gaps or errors in
understanding might exist but the writer does understand the text as a whole; the text is summarized in a way that the reader
would have a clear but flawed or incomplete picture of the intent of the original text
• Evaluates the quality of argumentation in the original text, identifies some of the major strengths and weaknesses of
argumentation; attempts to use the vocabulary of analysis but lapses or errors exist; sometimes is distracted by minor points or
irrelevant ideas but mostly stays on track
• Assesses the proposals or ideas presented by the original text but might struggle to do this thoroughly and/or from a wide enough
variety of perspectives; tends to simply agree or disagree with the arguments presented in the original text rather than looking for
his/her own arguments on the issue; some tendency to repeat ideas contained in the evaluation of argumentation
• Advances his or her own opinion on the text by using reasonable arguments; evidence to support these arguments exists but, there
are several gaps or problems with thinking, support, explanation and/or research.

Level 1 - The writer is starting to grasp the major ideas of the text but numerous and significant gaps and/or errors in interpretation
exist. The writer advances his or her own opinion arid has some grasp of how to structure and support his/her own arguments but
there are significant problems with explanation, proof and support.
• Understands the central point of the text being analyzed but struggles to describe the text's details accurately and/or thoroughly;
the summary would give the reader a very flawed or incomplete picture of the original text but it nevertheless identifies the
overall point
• Attempts an evaluation of argumentation but struggles to identify the most important strengths and weaknesses of the text being
examined; is starting to use the vocabulary of analysis; may wander off topic or pay too much attention to relatively minor points
• Attempts to evaluate the ideas presented by the original text but the analysis is simplistic, underdeveloped, poorly thought out or
biased; tends to stick to one or two perspectives; repeats the ideas, arguments and evidence of the writer of the original article
rather than looking for his/her own evidence and arguments
• Advances his or her own opinion on the text and attempts to support it with arguments; arguments are frequently unworkable due
to problems in thinking or support.

Sub-level 1 - The writer does not understand the text that is being examined or think critically about it in a meaningful way.
• Does not understand the central point of the text being analyzed; the summary of this text is highly misleading
• If an attempt to evaluate the argumentation is made, the writer does not understand the major strengths and weaknesses of the
arguments and evidence used in the original text
• If an attempt to evaluate the ideas is made, the writer presents disjointed, illogical, inaccurate and ill-supported points • if an
opinion is advanced, it is untenable, poorly developed, poorly explained or poorly supported.

4. A Brief Overview of Literary Criticism

There are four major elements to literary criticism: the work (book or poem), the author, the universe (everything that is written about,
the subject) and the audience. Each of the four elements helps to define one of the four major movements of criticism. In other
words, look for the element which is most important in each theory in order to understand how to interpret a piece of literature
according to that theory. What follows is a description of the four major movements of "western" literary criticism. It is important
to note that literary criticism provides the reader a means of interpreting a text and communicating that interpretation to others
through a set of criteria common to all familiar with the particular school of thought. Literary criticism provides the reader with
ideas and theories, not facts.
Mimetic - The mimetic is the earliest western theory of literary criticism. It makes its first recorded appearance in the writings of
philosophers like Plato and Socrates. (location: ancient Greece, time: 350 B.C.E.) The word mimetic means to imitate. The
mimetic theory states that a piece of literature must be examined and evaluated according to how well it provides an "imitation"
of the world. In other words, is it realistic? Does it present its subject matter in a way that is recognizable and pleasing to the
reader as she seeks to comprehend the writing in terms of her understanding of the world? The major element to take into
consideration in the mimetic theory is the universe. The mimetic critic assesses all literature as a function of how well it reflects
(or imitates) the world around us.
Pragmatic - Pragmatic theory appears next in the chronological order of western literacy criticism. We use the word pragmatic today
to mean a practical way of approaching or solving problems. The pragmatic theory which is noted first in the 1500's (the
Renaissance, time of Shakespeare) says that that literature should always teach the reader a valuable lesson. Writing should be a
means to an end, an instrument for getting something done. If the reader learns a lesson, gains knowledge, is instructed in a new
skill or doctrine (idea), then the piece fulfills its purpose in the eyes of the pragmatic critic. The major element of criticism for the
pragmatic school is the audience. To be successful for the pragmatic critic, a piece of literature must serve as a teaching tool.
Expressive - The expressive theory gained popularity in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Some view it as a reaction against the earlier
pragmatists and the idea that literature must always teach a lesson. William Wordsworth, a romantic poet of the time, defined
expressionism as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings", the thoughts and feelings of the writer appearing on the page.
An expressionist critic looks to literature to find insights into the heart and mind of the author. A successful piece of expressionist
literature reveals the personality and passions of the writer to the reader. The author is the major element of criticism for
expressive literature. Expressive theorists ask questions like "is the work sincere?" and "can one discern the author's state of mind
from the piece?” If the answer is yes, then the work is successful.
Objective - The theory which takes us to present time is called objectivism. First described in the early 1900's, objectivist theorists
believe that the literature should be examined without consideration of who wrote it, when it was written or why it was written.
The only basis for examination is what is written on the page, the piece itself. This is sometimes called "art for art's sake". In other
words, the piece of literature is a world of its own whose end is not to instruct or please but simply to exist. An objective theorist
examines how a piece appears on the page, what words are used, the importance of punctuation and other elements of style to
determine meaning. Objective theory designates the work as the element of criticism which is most important. A written work
must satisfy the critic's personal perspective while taking into account the meaning of the words on the page and the various
elements of style.

5. A Brief Overview of the Modern Literary Periods

Middle Apes (to 1495)
• Chaucer was the greatest poet of this time
• Literature dealt with religious themes, epic stories, romance, but also with the ordinary human
Renaissance -The Sonnet Period (1500 -1600)
• Sonnet was the main form of poetry - Petrarch, Wyatt, Sidney, Spenser, Shakespeare
• Time of rebirth in literature, art, music, etc.
• Subject matter of poetry mainly dealt with romance, love, and unrequited love
• The Spanish Armada, English Monarchs-Tudors, Nationalism, Patrons, Growth of Cities
• Humanism, The English Reformation, major political, religious, technological, artistic, and social developments
Late Renaissance (1600-1660)
• Time of rebirth, Jonson, Milton, Donne, Marvel, Herbert
• Metaphysical poets tried to extend the traditional lyric forms of love and devotion to the extreme of intellectual energies
• Donne's sonnets focused on religion and politics
• The Stuarts, Cromwell, Charles II, Gunpowder plot, Commonwealth I Protectorate, Puritans vs Catholics, Civil War, Pilgrims /
New World
The Restoration and 18th Century (1670-1789)
• A return to the study of the ancients - Greek and Romans
• Satire flourished in order to make commentary on politics and high society
• satire, classicism, Neoclassic, Baroque, attic, Asiatic, wit, Walpole,
• Dryden, Pope, Swift, Johnson, Defoe, Bacon, Locke, Rousseau, James II, House of Hanover, George I, Whigs & Tories
Poetry of the Revolution -William Blake (1789 -1798)
• A revolutionary thinker, themes in Blake’s art, structure to his “Songs of Innocence” and “Songs of Experience”
• Moved from simple, clear poetry to darker, satirical poetry
• Oliver Goldsmith, Paine, Burke, Godwin, The Bastille, Robespierre, Napoleon
• The French Revolution and its impact in Britain
Romantic Period (1789 -1832)
• Harsh repressive times – Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Keats, Shelley
• Romantic period is synonymous with nature poetry; romanticism in art, music & philosophy
• Writers supported and were consumed by the idea of revolution
• Lyrical ballads, reform bills, socio-political developments in England
Victorian Age (1832 -1901)
• Greatest period of change and progress
• Writers reflected on the times and reminisced on times past
• Living and working conditions were poor, the first reform bill, corn laws, The Great Exhibition, Industrial revolution
• Queen Victoria, Darwin, Ruskin, Mill, Dickens, The Brownings, Arnold, Tennyson, Hardy, women writers
American Transcendentalism (1800 -1865)
• Belief in a higher kind of knowledge and truth
• Rejection of organized religion and logic
• Emphasis on individualism, spirituality, and harmony
Modern Literature (1901-1945)
• Sense of pessimism in writing - reflection of WW1, depression, rise of Nazism
• images and movement in poetry - hard, clear, precise
• WWI, the roaring 20’s, depression, WWII, the A bomb, Marxism, feminism, fascism, imagism,
• psychology and literature; art, philosophy, & music
• Hopkins, Pound, Eliot, Joyce, Yeats,
IV. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF NON-FICTION
1. Methods of Development
An essay or other non-fiction text is an attempt to present a set of ideas in an organized way. To support a thesis, an essay writer
must provide a series of ideas or arguments. Different essays will develop in different ways depending on the issue under
examination, or the intention of the writer. The method of development refers to the technique(s) the writer uses to support his/her
arguments. Secondary methods of development are used within the primary method as a way of supporting or reinforcing the
primary method. The most frequent methods of development used to give an essay a solid core structure (or framework) are listed
below:
Classification and Division – the writer makes a point by fitting or separating the parts of a subject into categories.
Compare and Contrast – the writer makes a point by showing how two (or more) things are both like and unlike each other.
Definition – the writer explains or clarifies the meaning of a subject by using different, often simpler ideas or words.
Description – the writer uses vivid language to recreate a picture of his own or someone else’s experience in order to make a point.
Example – the writer gives one in-depth example or a number of shorter examples that explains the point. Hypothetical examples are
typical, realistic; real examples are generally stronger.
Explanation – an attempt to indicate why or how something occurred, rather than to justify our belief that it did.
Expository (aka narrative, anecdote) – describes or explains a topic or recounts a story as the basis for drawing a conclusion or to
make a statement of opinion. The writer makes a point using the strategies and techniques common to storytelling. EXAMPLE:
“The Care and Maintenance of a Bicycle” or “My Most Exciting Bicycling Adventure”.
Other – problem-solution or question-answer, pros-cons, references to authority or allusions, characterization, reflection, examples,
descriptions, narratives or other various facts, statistics, or quotes as evidence or support for the arguments.
Persuasion – presents a reasoned series of arguments in support of or to defend a position. Occasionally, emotionally charged
language or appeals may be added to persuade the reader of that position. Example: “Cars or Scooters: Which is the Most
Efficient and Safe Method of Urban Transport?” or “Exercise: Leave Your Cars at Home and Bicycle”,
Process analysis – the writer shows how something happens, gives instructions, describes events in sequence, or gives a general
analysis of how something is done or operates in order to make a point.

2. Argument Identification and Reconstruction

An argument is a structured piece of discourse that consists of reasons put forward in support of an opinion. The reasons given in
support of the opinion are called premises, and the position thus supported is called the conclusion of the argument.
Argumentation should be viewed as a cooperative search for truth. The difference between explanation and argumentation is that
in an explanation the author is explaining why and how something happened whereas in an argument the author is trying to prove
something to be the case.
The analysis of arguments involves distinguishing all the premises and conclusions of a given argument, and indicating which
conclusions are arrived at on the basis of which premises. An argument may be simple, in the sense that only one conclusion is
drawn from one or more premises. An argument can also be complex, with a many to many relationship between multiple
premises and multiple conclusions. Premises can be dependent or independent upon each other in their support of a conclusion.
Conclusions can be subordinate, which means that the conclusion of one argument can serve as a premise in another.

Identifying premises and conclusions

Indicator words - explicitly mark the intended role or statements in an argument. The statement that immediately follows a
conclusion indicator is the conclusion; that following a premise indicator is a premise. Additionally, indicators can come between
premises and conclusions.
Premise indicators: since, for, because, for the reason that.
Conclusion indicators: so, thus, therefore, hence, we can conclude that, consequently.
Premise-conclusion indicators: shows that, indicates that, proves that, entails that, implies that, establishes that, allows us to infer that,
gives us reasons for believing that.
Conclusion-premise indicators: is shown by, is indicated by, is proven by, is entailed by, is implied by, is established by.
Enthymeme (Latin for “in the mind”) – is not a fallacy, but a common form of informal argument in which either one of the premises
or the conclusion is unstated.
The Principle of Charitable Interpretation – enjoins the reader to give the arguer the ‘benefit of the doubt’ if at all plausible. If the
reader has a choice, then the reader should interpret the passage so that the premises provide the best support possible for the
conclusion. It may be that the argument contains an unclear expression that occurs more than once. If so then determine whether a
single meaning makes all the premises acceptable. If various interpretations have been tried then it may be feasible to remain
uncommitted to the conclusion until a better argument is provided. If there is no reasonable way for the conclusion to follow and
for the premises to be accepted then a charitable reconstruction would leave the argument as faulty.

Reconstruction principles and methods

Assumption - is a position that is likely held but not stated by the arguer.
Presupposition - allows that the arguer may be unaware that the premise is required.
Reconstruction – reformulation of arguments, conceptual theories, or empirical theories that makes their structure clearer. This can
include making explicit elements that are only implicit in the original presentation. Such a reconstruction puts an argument or
theory in standard form.

There are generally three steps to reconstructing an argument:

1. Identify or paraphrase assertions (premises and conclusions) explicitly made or strongly suggested by the text.
2. Add any implicit premises that are needed to make the conclusion follow insofar as can be done without a radical distortion
of the meaning of the text.
3. Add a conclusion that would follow from the interpreted premises, if the conclusion is not already stated in the text.

The following are various reconstruction methods:

1. For the identification an implicit conclusion, list out each of the premises and treat each premise as the conclusion in turn.
Then, other things being equal, check if in any of the reconstructions the conclusion follows from all stated premises.
2. For the identification of missing premises, which can be presuppositions or assumptions, add the more plausible and less
questionable statements to the argument. An argument must be complete, but a statement cannot be included as part of the
argument if it isn’t connected to the other premises in such a way that leads to the conclusion. For some arguments, there is
no way faithful to the text that allows us to reconstruct them so that the conclusion follows from the premises.
3. In cases in which both the conclusion and some of the premises are missing or hard to identify in a passage with much non-
argument prose, begin by stating what appears to be the conclusion. This can be done either by locating a statement that
expresses the main claim that is supported by the passage or by paraphrasing. Then find statements that seem to support the
conclusion most directly, which may require paraphrasing, and then add whatever implicit premises are necessary.
4. Logic patterns can be used in the reconstruction of arguments using the following procedures.
a. Look for structuring indicator words or word pairs. Look for statements or parts of statements that are repeated.
b. Write out the partial pattern for the portion of the argument that is stated.
c. Determine what the complete pattern should be.
d. From the part of the pattern that is missing, determine what statements are missing. It is often useful to paraphrase
the more explicit parts of the argument in order to make it and any implicit parts fit into a pattern.
5. Another reconstruction method is that of successive approximation. With this method we first formulate a rough
approximation of the argument, which is an oversimplification but provides a foundation for developing subsequent
approximations that represent the argument more accurately.

The following questions are used to evaluate if a reconstruction is a valid reformulation of the argument:
1. Does the reconstruction capture the apparent meaning of the original argument?
2. Does the reconstruction provide more clarity?
3. Does it arrive at a conclusion that follows from the premises?
4. Does it avoid false and highly questionable premises?
5. Does it include all premises that are explicitly stated or strongly suggested?
6. Does it include all implicit premises that bring out underlying assumptions or presuppositions?

3. Methods of Reasoning
Valid argument – a deductive argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be
false. There is no counterexample showing that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. In causal reasoning, “internal
validity” exists when a conclusion is made more likely by employing a research design that eliminates threats to it, by using
random assignment to experimental and control groups or other means of ruling out confounds such as maturation, specific
historical circumstance or regression towards a mean; in arguments involving sampling, “external validity” exists when the results
obtained can be applied outside the specific situation investigated, for example, when properties of a sample can be generalized to
the larger population of interest to the research. “External validity” is also applied more generally to situations in which controlled
experiments can be justifiably applied to the real world. “Construct validity” exists to the extent that the method of measuring or
operational definition adequately captures the concept.
Sound argument – a valid deductive argument in which the conclusion follows (that is, the conclusion follows) and all premises are
true, and hence the conclusion is true as well.
Successful argument – a deductive argument is successful if it is sound and is legitimately persuasive. An inductive argument is
successful if its premises make the conclusion likely, its premises are true, and it is legitimately persuasive.
Consistency – a group of statements is consistent if it is possible for all of them to be true at the same time. If it is impossible for all of
them to be true simultaneously, then the statements are inconsistent. Conversely, inconsistency is defined as a set of statements
that is impossible for all to be true simultaneously. In the case where there are no rows in a truth table where all the premises are
true, we say that the premises are inconsistent, that is, there is no possible case in which they are jointly true. However, arguments
with such an inconsistent set of premises are said to be valid because there will be no case in which all the premises are true and
the conclusion is false simply as a consequence of there being no case in which all the premises are true.

Elements of symbolic logic

Standard form – for a deductive argument, standard form consists of a numbered listing of premises, separated by a line from a
statement of the conclusion prefaced by the symbol meaning “therefore” (⸫). For inductive arguments, the symbol for “therefore”
is replaced by the term likely. For conceptual theories, standard form has an underlined designation of the concept to be defined
followed by “if and only if”, followed by the condition(s) of the conceptual theory. For an empirical theory, standard form
consists of a list of separate theoretical statements, regularities, or patterns, and any observational support. Compound statements
can be represented by □ or ∆.
Negation – a sentence of the “not” form and is represented by “¬”.
Sample – a selection of cases from a population.
Necessity – what must occur; the opposite of which is impossible or can’t be. The conclusion of a valid deductive argument follows
with necessity. It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. A statement is logically necessary if
its denial leads to a contradiction.
Logical connectives – connect two or more statements, given below.
Conjunction – A statement of the form “A and B” that links two other statements and is represented by “&”. Sometimes the informal
and implies ‘and then’ whereas & does not capture the order.
Disjunction – a statement of the form “A or B” and is represented by “˅”. The use of ˅ to include the case when both are true is called
the inclusive use of or as opposed to the exclusive or (xor), which excludes this case.
Categorical propositions - are propositions that claim that some or all of a certain kind of thing have or do not have a certain
characteristic or property. The terms of a categorical proposition are the words or phrases that indicate the subject of the
proposition. Standard categorical propositions begin with a quantifier, a word indicating how many of a certain kind of thing are
being talked about. In standard categorical propositions, the quantifiers are “some,” “all,” and “no.” The quantifier is followed by
the subject term, which indicates what is being talked about. The sentence ends with the predicate term, the word or phrase that
follows the copula. It should be stressed that subject and predicate terms may be phrases as well as single words.
Qualifier – The quality of a proposition is either affirmative or negative. Types A and I are affirmative, types E and O are negative.
Quantifier – The quantity of a proposition answers the question, “How many?” All categorical propositions are used to assert
something about all or some of a certain kind of thing. Universal propositions are those we use to assert something about all of
them. Types A and E are universal. Particular propositions are those we use to assert something of some things of a certain kind.
Types I and O are particular. The universal quantifier symbol (x) is used to formalize statements containing all, every, and related
terms. It can be roughly translated “for all”. The existential quantifier ( ∃x) means “there exists at least one thing such that” and is
used to translate statements containing the term some. The universal quantifier (∀x) applies to all or every item in our universe of
interpretation and means “for all things”.

Symbol Name Example Rough English Equivalent

¬ Negation ¬A it is not the case that A
& Conjunction A&B A and B
˅ Disjunction A˅B either A or B (or both)
→ Conditional A→B if A then B
↔ Bi-conditional A↔B A if and only if B

Possible situations Negation

Row A ¬A
1 T F
2 F T

Possible situations Conjunction Disjunction Conditional Bi-conditional

Row A B A&B A˅B A→B A↔B
1 T T T T T T
2 T F F T F F
3 F T F T T F
4 F F F F T T

Deductive reasoning – the class of reasoning that uses a general principle (premise) that most people would agree on and applies it to
specific cases in order to draw a thesis (conclusion) about that specific case. The persuasiveness of a deductive argument depends
largely on how generally true and accepted the major premise is. It is an argument in which the premises are put forward to
guarantee the truth of the conclusion in the strong sense that it is logically impossible for the premises all to be true and the
conclusion to be false.
 The following are some common successful deductive argument patterns. The capital letters A, B, C refer to whole
statements and the below first five patterns are statement-based. In the latter two patterns, P 1, P2, and P3 refer to parts of
statements. The lower case m stands for a name or description and can be seen as subjects that fit with a predicate. These are
predicate-based patterns.
Counter-example (aka counter-instance) – as a criticism of a premise that expresses a universal generalization (for example, of the
form “A P1s are P2s), a clear example of a P1 that is not a P2. In a deductive argument, a counter-example is a clear case in which
the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. It can be an argument that shares the same pattern as the one in question, or
for an argument pattern itself, it can be a truth table assignment or a Venn diagram configuration.
Conditional argument – a statement of the if-then form, represented by “A→B” in informal language. The “if” part is the antecedent
and the “then” part is the consequent.
Modus Ponens (Latin for “mode of affirming) – a common, valid argument form in which we “affirm the antecedent” of a conditional
statement and is represented by 1) If A, then B. 2) A. ⸫ B.
Modus Tollens (Latin for “mode of denying”) – a common, valid argument form in which we “deny the consequent” of a conditional
statement and is represented by 1) If A, then B. 2) Not B. ⸫ Not A.
Chain argument – has the pattern 1) A. 2) If A, then B. 3) If B, then C. ⸫ C.
Hypothetical argument – has the pattern 1) If A, then B. 2) If B, then C. ⸫ If A, then C.
Disjunctive argument – has the pattern 1) Either A or B. 2) Not A. ⸫ B.
Predicate instantiation – has the pattern 1) All P1s are P2s. 2) m is a P1. ⸫ m is a P2.
Universal syllogism – has the pattern 1) All P1s are P2s. 2) All P2s are P3s. ⸫ All P1s are P3s.
Statistical syllogism – has the pattern 1) Most P1s are P2s. 2) m is a P1. (likely) m is a P2.

Proof – a chain of reasoning in accordance with a set of rules for natural deduction.
Modus Ponens Rule - In a proof, if □ is justified and □ → ∆ is justified, then ∆ is justified.
Conjunction Rule – In a proof, if □ is justified and ∆ is justified, then □ & ∆ is justified.
Quantifier Interchange Rule – In a proof, if ¬ (x) □ is justified, then (∃x) ¬ □ is justified.
Rule of Indirect Proof (aka reduction ad absurdum) – In a proof, if adding □ to a set of justified assertions leads to a contradiction (∆
& ¬ ∆), then ¬ □ is justified.

Non-deductive reasoning – the class of reasoning that includes inductive, causal, analogical, and convergent arguments.
Inductive reasoning (aka empirical reasoning) – uses specific and verifiable evidence to reach a broader (more general) conclusion or
thesis, which on the basis of the evidence is agreed to be true. An inductive argument is one in which the premises are put forward
to make the conclusion likely or probable but not logically guaranteed. Induction is the basis for much scientific and technical
arguments, most literary interpretation and historical analysis. A common misconception distinguishes inductive from deductive
reasoning by holding that inductive moves from particular to general and deduction from general to particular. However, certain
inductive arguments can move from general to particular and likewise deductive arguments can move from particular to general.
The process of moving from statements about particulars to a statement about a larger class that contains the particulars is called
generalizing. To call a statement general means that it applies to a number of individuals rather than to a particular or specific
case. Generalizations can apply to all cases (i.e. a universal generalization) or generalizations can apply to some, a few, or a
certain percentage of cases (i.e. a statistical generalization).

Universal premise argument – a particular-to-general inductive argument that includes premises in which terms all, every, always,
no, or none are used. In particular-to-general inductive reasoning, statements about a sample are used as reasons to justify similar
statements about the whole population from which the sample is drawn. If the sample is likely to be unrepresentative, too small or
specific, or biased, then the reasoning can be criticized.
Universal generalization – a generalization that applies to all cases. A leap is made from premises (evidence) about particular cases
to a conclusion that applies generally, not just to the specific instances. A universal positive generalization contains words such as
all, every, or always. A universal negative generalization uses terms such as no or none to indicate that all cases do not have a
characteristic.
Representativeness of a sample – a sample is likely to be representative of a population from which it is drawn if it is sufficiently
large and drawn in an unbiased manner.

Statistical premise argument – a general-to-particular inductive argument that includes statistical premises in which some unspecific
statistical terms such as many, most, a few, seldom, and so on are used, or some specific percentage is mentioned. In general-to-
particular inductive reasoning, statements about a population are used as reasons to justify similar statements about a sample from
it is drawn. If the population is likely to be unrepresentative, too large or varied, or biased, then the reasoning can be criticized.
Statistical generalization – a generalization that applies to some percentage of cases. It includes those cases in which some specific
percentage is mentioned, but also premises that include some unspecific statistical terms such as many, most, a few, seldom. This
contrasts with the universal empirical generalization.
Requirement of total evidence – in an inductive argument with statistical premises, the expectation that all available, relevant
evidence will be included in picking relevant premises.
Causal reasoning – the writer makes the point by moving from the observation that one thing is correlated (or is not correlated) with
another to the claim that the first causes (or does not cause) the second. It examines the reasons for and results of events, actions,
facts, and issues. It is a type of analysis that examines a chain link connection in order to show how the links are present. Such
reasoning is best supported by controlled experiment.
Cause – something is a cause in the sense of controlling factor, we characterize it as a condition without which the effect would not
have occurred. If an effect would not have occurred without the cause, then, in principle, one way of controlling the effect is to
eliminate the cause.
Correlation – the association of two or more characteristics or events. That two events are correlated, that is they typically occur
together, does not in itself justify the conclusion that the first causes the second.
Confound – when a causal argument is advanced (A is correlated to B, so it is likely that A causes B), a confound is a third factor, X,
that is the true cause of B, but which is also correlated with A, creating the appearance that A causes B. Controlled experiments
help to rule out confounds.
Controlled experiment – an experiment designed to determine whether one thing causes another that helps rule out the X-factor as an
alternative explanation. It involves comparing an experimental group to which the suspected causal agent is applied, to a control
group to which it is not, all other conditions being the same. If assignment to the groups, is unbiased (random), then any
significant difference in the experimental groups can be attributed to the suspected causal agent. The virtue of the controlled
experiment is that it transfers the onus of responsibility to the critic, who must now provide some reason why it is plausible that
an x-factor is at work.

Analogical reasoning – the writer makes a point by using one thing to explain another. It explains something unfamiliar in terms of
something that is likely to be more familiar to the reader. Analogical reasoning justifies the claim that an item has a certain
characteristic by appeal to a sufficiently similar (analogous) item, which is known to have the characteristic in question. Since
analogies often play a role in creative thinking, the best analogies are often those that are most fruitful in generating new,
interesting, and unexpected connections. Analogies have the form 1) both thing 1 and thing 2 have characteristics A, B, C… 2)
thing 1 has the additional characteristic Z. (likely) thing 2 has characteristic Z.

Convergent reasoning – an argument in which independent (non-linked) premises are offered in support of the conclusion.
Convergent arguments can be contrasted with linked (i.e. deductive arguments). In a deductively valid argument, the premises
support the conclusion in a way that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. If a deductive
argument adequately supports its conclusion then no counter-considerations, can outweigh the truth of this conclusion without
making one of the supporting premises false. However in a convergent argument, the pro-considerations can all be granted as true
but outweighed by counter-considerations.
To criticize a convergent argument we may either cast doubt on the premises or raise counter-considerations against the
conclusion. Rejecting some premises in a convergent argument isn’t necessarily grounds for rejecting the entire argument as the
remaining premises might be judged strong enough to support the conclusion. By contrast to a deductive argument, we could
reject the conclusion (because of counter-considerations) of a convergent argument even if all the premises were accepted.
Furthermore, it is necessary to weigh the strength of the considerations for and against the conclusion of a convergent argument.
This also contrasts with a deductive argument because the strength of the connection between premises and deductive conclusions
is given so long as the argument follows a correct pattern.
Counter-consideration – in a convergent argument, considerations weighing against the conclusion.

Conceptual theory – a statement of the conditions or under which a concept applies to all and only the objects with specified
characteristics. These theories are most plausible in domains in which clear boundaries can be drawn at least for some purposes.
A conceptual theory is a systematic way of reconstructing definition-like claims so that the claims can be assessed when fully
articulated. Typically, a conceptual theory is not offered in isolation from a discussion of 1) why it was chosen, 2) what
alternatives were considered and why they were rejected, 3) how the analysis in question is related to a broader area of inquiry,
and 4) further conclusions or implications that can be drawn from it.

Empirical theory – a set of statements of fairly broad scope that explains patterns or regularities established by observation. A theory
can be used for explanation or for persuasion as a premise. An evaluation of a theory consists of examining how well it explains
or predicts regularities. Empirical theories have a broader scope than that which they explain. Theories are more remote from
direct evidence than the events or processes they can be used to explain. Theories commonly use specialized or technical
language and contain indicator words such as ‘why’, ‘because’, ‘explains’, etc., that explain why regularities occur.
Regularity – a pattern to be explained by a broader empirical theory that is described by a less theoretical, more observational
statement.
Observed data – the specific instances that form the basis for determining that a regularity occurs.

3. Flaws in Reasoning
A fallacy, which has the same root as false, is a logical problem in argumentation.
Resemblance – the general category of fallacies that attempt to persuade by resembling good arguments.
Affirming the consequent – is an argument that resembles modus ponens and exhibits the following invalid pattern: 1) If A, then B.
2) B. ⸫ A.
Denying the antecedent – is an argument that resembles modus tollens and exhibits the following invalid pattern: 1) If A, then B. 2)
Not A. ⸫ Not B.
Petitio Principii (also Begging the Question, Latin for “petitioning the premises”) – a fallacy in which you present an opinion as a
given fact. An argument that rests on a premise that is either a restatement of the conclusion or would be doubted for the same
reasons that the conclusion would be doubted. While technically a valid pattern, the argument does not provide a reason for the
conclusion. This fallacy has the pattern: 1) A. ⸫ A. EXAMPLE: Homeless people contribute nothing to society. They should be
denied welfare. [Questions: Do homeless people contribute nothing? Why should they be denied welfare?]
Tautology (aka circular argument) – technically not a fallacy, but an argument that proves nothing, since something is just denied in
different terms. EXAMPLE: All unmarried men are bachelors. Hank is an unmarried man. Therefore, Hank is a bachelor.
[Comment: Bachelorhood is the defining feature of unmarried men, it is not a quality such as mortality, greed, generosity, etc.]
Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”) – a fallacy in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, usually
due to the use of irrelevant evidence. EXAMPLE: All men are mortal. Gloria is not a man. Therefore, Gloria is immortal. [The
mistake arises from assuming that the first premise also means “Only men are mortal.”]
Contradiction – a statement that cannot (logically) be true and thus describes an impossible situation. It is inconsistent in all contexts.
Often used of statements having the form “A and not A”, where “A” stands for a sentence, or the form “m is P1, and m is not P1,”
where P1 is a predicate.

Distraction – the general category of fallacies that attempt to persuade by taking the audience’s attention away from weak points of
an argument.
False Dilemma (aka false dichotomy, either-or fallacy) – a fallacy in which the arguer claims that there are only two alternatives, one
is unacceptable, and denies the possibility of other alternatives. EXAMPLE: There are two kinds of teachers: bad and awful.
Slippery Slope – a fallacy that occurs when extreme and unlikely consequences are claimed to be initiated by a relatively minor
cause. In this fallacy, a full chain of events is suggested. EXAMPLE: You should quit smoking because of the inability to overcome
an addiction is indicative of a personality unable to meet the stresses and responsibilities of a job or relationship and eventually
you will end up broke and lonely.
Straw man – the arguer makes a position appear strong by making the opposing position appear weaker than it really is. The arguer
focuses on the opponents weaker arguments even though stronger arguments are available. The arguer exchanges or misrepresents
the opponent’s strong argument for a weaker one and then presents a false dilemma that the reader must choose between the
opponent’s weaker argument and the arguer’s position.
Red Herring – a technique in which you try to distract the reader from your argument by introducing something unrelated. EXAMPLE:
Of course, the team’s owner is losing millions of dollars. However, the team has won four games in a row, and the owner would
never sell or move the team when it’s winning. [The winning streak is a red herring; if the owner loses enough money, he or she
will sell or move the team, regardless of its performance.]

Emotion – the general category of fallacies that attempt to persuade by making it desirable to believe an argument’s conclusion rather
than giving evidence to support it.
Ad baculum (also Appeal to Force, Latin for “to the stick”) – the arguer tries to get you to agree by indicating that you will be
harmed if you don’t agree.
Ad misericordiam (also Appeal to Pity, Latin for “to misery”) – a fallacy in which you attempt to persuade by substituting sympathy
for logic. EXAMPLE: One look at their malnourished children should convince you to give all your money to our charity.
Ad populum (also Appeal to Loyalty, Latin for “to the people”) – a fallacy in which you appeal to the person’s devotion to country or
family or by playing on the existence or necessity or common bonds. EXAMPLE: North American cars are better than imports
because our cars are built right here by our own people.
Appeal to Authority – appealing to someone whose expertise is not relevant to the issue at hand, or appealing to someone who is
famous or admired but not an expert on the issue at hand.
Appeal to Fear – a fallacy in which you attempt to persuade by playing on the reader’s fears. EXAMPLE: If you allow this alleged
murderer to go free, your own children will be in mortal danger.
Appeal to Ignorance – a fallacy in which you assert that since something has never been said or proven, it must be true. EXAMPLE:
Since we’ve never found evidence of life on Mars, there must not be any.

Ad hominem (also Attacking the Person, Latin for “to the man”) – the general category of fallacies in which you attack the person
rather than his or her writing or statements. Or, an argument may be accepted simply because of who proposed it. EXAMPLE: No
wonder “Hills like White Elephants” is an awful story: everyone knows Hemingway was an alcoholic.
Bias - a predisposed tendency to be for/against a person/thing/one side of an argument, possibly because the biased person
stands to gain/loose from it. This is not a good definition of bias – it should have something to do with its relation to
truth.
Bandwagon – a fallacy in which you assert that something is right or acceptable because everyone is doing it. EXAMPLE: Cheat on
your taxes; everyone I know already does.
Two Wrongs (aka tuquoque) – a fallacy that occurs when the argument advances the idea that it’s acceptable to do something wrong
or unacceptable to do something right just because somebody else did or didn’t do the same or similar thing. EXAMPLE: My father
smokes, so it’s o.k. for me to smoke too.
False Expertise (aka testimonial) – a fallacy in which an expert in one field offers his or her opinion in another field where the expert
has little or no expertise. EXAMPLE: We should all drive the new SUV because our favourite sports player drives one.]
Undistributed Middle – a fallacy that holds that because two agents perform some action, they share each other’s qualities. This
fallacy is used extensively by advertisers. EXAMPLE: Successful people drive SUVs. If you drive an SUV, you’ll be a successful
person.
Opinion - a personal view not necessarily supported on fact or knowledge.

Language – the general category of fallacies that attempt to persuade through the use of language choice and meaning.
Equivocation – an argument in which an expression shifts its meaning from one premise to another, making the pattern invalid.
Equivocation can exploit either ambiguity or vagueness. Valid pattern if no equivocation: 1) All P1s are P2s. 2) All P2s are P3s. ⸫
All P1s are P3s. Invalid pattern with equivocation: 1) All P1s are P2s. 2) All P3s are P4s. ⸫ All P1s are P4s. The three step procedure
for judging equivocation:
1) Locate any unclear expressions that occur in more than one premise.
2) Determine what the expression must mean to make one of the premises true.
3) Determine whether the other premise(s) can be made true without changing the meaning of the unclear expression.
Prejudicial language – the arguer uses language that biases the reader in favour of the arguer’s position or against the opponent’s
position.
Slanted Language – a fallacy in which you use the connotations of words to portray similarities as substantial differences. EXAMPLE:
I am a strong conservative, eager to protect the state and its people by limiting immigration and introducing racial segregation.
My opponent, however, is a fascist.
Complex Question – a fallacy that forces the reader to admit something that may not be true, because the question asked contains an
unproven assumption. EXAMPLE: Have you quit smoking? [To say yes is to admit you used to smoke; to say no is to admit you
still smoke. This question is unfair if directed at someone who has never smoked.]
Misleading definition – a case in which an unclear expression is given an “unusual” or technical meaning in the premises of an
argument but where that peculiarity is not marked by qualifications or hedges in the conclusion. If the premise gives an
expression a special meaning but the conclusion uses the ordinary meaning then the conclusion is misleading.
Ambiguity – a term in a context is ambiguous if it has more than one relatively distinct meaning in that context.
Vagueness – a term is vague in a context if it is unclear where to draw the boundary between the things to which the term does apply
and those to which it does not.

Relationship – the general category of fallacies that attempt to persuade through a faulty relationship between the general and specific
cases.
Hasty generalization - a fallacy in which you deny exceptions. It is a generalization that is asserted on the basis of an
unrepresentative sample, either too small or biased. EXAMPLE: All teachers are overpaid, uninspiring, boring time-servers.
Overgeneralization – a fallacy in inductive reasoning. Jumping to a general conclusion based on a small number of observations can
lead to some surprising conclusions. EXAMPLE: If you know two people who are tall and who are bad drivers, it is an
overgeneralization to conclude that all tall people are bad drivers.
Oversimplification (aka reductive fallacy) – a fallacy in which effects are attributed to actions that may not be the complete causes, or
may not be causes at all. In other words, it occurs when too simple a solution is proposed to a problem that is far more complex
than the argument seems to recognize. EXAMPLE: To get rid of crime, get rid of all the drug users.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”) – a fallacy in which an effect is attributed to an action
simply because the action came first. It is an unjustified move from correlation to cause. EXAMPLE: The escalation of baseball
players’ salaries is responsible for the recent melting of polar ice caps.

False analogy – In an analogy, two objects (or events), A & B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P,
so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects are different in a way which affects whether they both
have property P. The fallacy of false analogy errs by confusing irrelevant similarities with relevant similarities. A false analogy
can also draw a conclusion from cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the class about which the conclusion is
being drawn. Example: Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head to make them work, so must employees.

4. Methods for Critical Evaluation of Non-Fiction

The sine qua non (Latin for “without which not”, which means if something does not have this, it does not qualify) of
understanding, interpreting, and summarizing a non-fiction work is to be able to identify and evaluate its thesis, major arguments,
and ideas. The thesis must be developed throughout the entire or at least the majority of the piece and is usually found at the end.
Also, by directly supporting the major arguments, the thesis is directly supported. A critical evaluation of a non-fiction text
includes three parts: a summary, an evaluation of argumentation, and an evaluation of ideas.

1) Summary:
Avoid Include
- reference to evidence/support - own opinion -
precise word choice (not too broad). - identification of the title, author’s name, thesis, major arguments.
- repetition, unnecessary information that - identify the topic
does not help the reader grasp the thesis
and major arguments.

Questions to ask when completing a summary of a non-fiction text:

How to know you “got it”: understand every word; identify the title; what does the conclusion say?; what do the arguments point
toward?; what is repeated?; what does the first and last paragraph say?; what is the title?

2) Evaluation of Argumentation
Avoid Include
- restatement of previous points. - clear statement of your overall opinion on
- focusing on ideas. the quality of the argumentation.
- spending time on minor problems at - looking at any logical problems.
the expense of the major ones. - support for own observations.
- focus only on weakness. - examine all major problems.
- writing about every single problem. - consider the credibility of the evidence used.
- major unsupported claims. - consider if the burden of proof has been met.

Questions to ask when evaluating the argumentation:

1. The evidence or support provided for the argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Is the evidence credible: Based on authoritative and reliable sources with expertise in the subject in question.
b. Is the evidence sufficient: Arguments satisfy the burden of proof. The burden of proof refers to the amount of proof
needed to support a key claim. The more/less the target audience is likely to challenge a claim and the more/less
central the claim is to the overall argument then the more/less the burden of proof (i.e. generally accepted claims
require little or no proof).
c. Is the evidence current: include when, where, whom
d. Is the evidence objective: multiple perspectives, various sources, various types of sources, evidence presented is
without errors/omissions and without bias.
e. Is the evidence relevant: The support has proximity (i.e. using U.S. statistics for Canadian arguments).
2. A deductive argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Is the form or pattern of the argument correct? In other words, does it arrive at a conclusion that follows from the
premises? Three informal methods to evaluate if the conclusion follows from the premises
i. Check if the pattern is known to be valid or invalid.
ii. Find a counterexample showing that an argument pattern is invalid.
1. First, determine the pattern of the argument being criticized.
2. Then make up a new argument that has the same pattern, has obviously true premises, and has an
obviously false conclusion.
iii. Explain how the premises could be true and the conclusion false by describing a situation in which this is
the case.
b. Is the content of the argument correct? In other words, are the premises true and not false, highly questionable, or
irrelevant? Does the argument seem persuasive but contain a fallacy or flaw in reasoning? There is no general
method for determining if the premises are true. Therefore, we use our background information and beliefs to give
reasons for or against accepting premises. There are a few techniques to assist with criticizing the truthful of
premises.
i. Giving counterexamples to premises that generalize. Some universal generalizations are true but many can
be shown to be false by pointing out that something is clearly a P1 and clearly not a P2. Or, if the claim is
that no P1s are P2s then point to something that is clearly a P1 and is clearly also a P2.
ii. Breaking the connection in if-then premises. Raising the possibility that the ‘if’ part won’t be followed by
the ‘then’ part doesn’t show that the premise is false, just that it is less than certain. The more likely the
event that would break the if-then connection, the less likely the premise.
iii. Scrutinizing further the implications of premises. Every premise has further implications – statements that
would be true if the premise in question were true.
3. A universal premise argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Attack the premise by indicating that some of the evidence cited in the premise is false, that is, by disputing the data.
b. By showing that the conclusion does not follow, typically because the sample is not likely to be representative of the
larger population from which it is drawn.
i. Sample size. Is the sample large enough that it is likely to mirror the population (given the variability of the
factors being generalized)?
ii. Sample selection. Was the sample selected in an appropriate manner, using random techniques, so as to
accurately mirror the population? Or is it biased in such a way as to over- or underestimate some significant
segment of the population?
 c. To point out that there is a shift between what the premise is about and what the conclusion is about. Are the objects
referred to in the premise the same kind as the objects referred in the conclusion or is there a shift to a related, but
different grouping?
d. To attack the conclusion directly (independently of any argument that might be put forward to support it) by offering
counterevidence.
4. A statistical premise argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Calling premises in doubt. Premises can be called into doubt using background knowledge or by disputing the data.
b. Indicating that a sequence of premises dilutes the likelihood of the conclusion. Even when all the premises are true,
arguments with statistical premises can be dismissed without recourse to background knowledge, when the premises
do not make the conclusion more likely. The likelihood of the conclusion is diluted by having an excessive number
of premises, each of which is only somewhat likely.
c. Showing that the argument does not use all the available relevant evidence. Provide information that points out that
the case is an exception to a statistical premise.
5. A causal argument can be criticized using the following:
a. The correlation might be coincidental. The two characteristics might be accidentally correlated rather than genuinely
connected. When it is implausible that there could be a connection between the items correlated, so that the
correlation is likely to exist only for a limited period of time, or the correlation is not found in additional studies, the
correlation is probably accidental.
b. The items might be correlated because they are both effects of the same underlying cause (i.e. an x-factor), in other
words the correlation is spurious.
c. The causal relation might be genuine but insignificant. Other factors are shown to be of greater importance in
producing the effect in question.
d. The causal relation might be in the wrong direction. Correlation alone does not note the direction of causation. The
correlation is shown to support a causal inference in which cause and effect are the opposite of what has been
claimed.
e. The causal relation might be complex. Other factors might be involved and the cause and effect is not
straightforward.
6. An analogical argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Point out the dissimilarities that make it unlikely that thing 2 has the characteristic Z.
b. Challenge the premises.
i. The first type of premise in an analogical argument cities similarities between objects. This type of premise
can be challenged by questioning whether the supposed similarities actually hold.
ii. The second type of premise in an analogical argument attributes a certain additional characteristic to one of
the objects. This type of premise is challenged by casting doubt on whether thing 1 has characteristic Z.
This is done by accepting the basic analogy but extending it in another way into circumstances that take
support away from the conclusion.
7. A convergent argument can be criticized using the following:
a. Present the initial convergent argument and counter-considerations.
b. Add further considerations.
c. Eliminate doubtful considerations.
d. Blunt or promote considerations.
8. A conceptual theory can be criticized using the following:
a. By presenting a counterexample. For a conceptual theory, a counterexample either clearly fits the concept but not
the conditions of the theory, or it fits the conditions of the theory but not the concept.
b. A conceptual theory can be criticized by showing that it uses terms or concepts that are no easier to understand than
the concept supposedly being clarified or explained. That is, the theory does not elucidate. For instance, a reader
who did not already understand the concept being explained would not understand the explanation being offered.
c. By showing that the theory contains incompatible, conflicting, or even contradictory conditions.
9. An empirical theory can be criticized using the following:
a. Is there a plausible alternative theory?
b. Does the theory make doubtful predictions?
c. Is the defense against doubtful predictions ad hoc? An ad hoc defense is an attempt to save a theory being criticized
by modifying it just in order to avoid damaging counter-evidence.
d. Is the theory testable? Testability criticism is made by pointing out that there is no procedure for determining
whether predictions made by the theory do in fact occur.

3) Evaluation of Ideas
Avoid Include
- giving too much support for you claims - a clear statement that is your opinion on the issue
- simply repeating thesis, without support - support for your own arguments (must not come from essay).
- including irrelevant information
- evaluating the writer’s argumentation
Questions to ask when evaluating the idea:
1. Is the problem really a problem or just an issue?
2. Is the problem/issue presented accurately, fairly, in its full complexity?
3. Is the solution (or implied solution) really a solution? Are all things considered when evaluating the suggested solution?
4. What would be the strongest/weakest arguments concerning the writer’s thesis?
5. Are there strong/weak arguments not mentioned in the essay that would support or refute the writer’s thesis?
6. Should we care about this problem as much as the writer wants us to care?
7. What are the short, medium, and long term effects and consequences? Is it the most efficient/effective alternative?
8. What are the perspectives of all of the stakeholders?
9. What importance, practicality, utility, and gain does this idea provide in contrast to its cost, risk, and loss?