Writing a Good Critique

The articles you are being asked to look at are chosen because they present opposing opinions on the issue for the class discussion to be held on the day the critique is due. Because these views are opposing, they will necessarily provide you with an opportunity to consider the views of someone who thinks differently from yourself on the issue. These readings will also provide you with an opportunity to practice the skill of analyzing a writing to discover the arguments being presented by an author.

Each critique must contain a description of the main arguments of the opposing positions of the two readings, a statement of which position you believe is the least compelling, and a brief discussion of the most important reason(s) that led you to question the acceptability of that position.

When marking these critiques, I use this scheme:

Accuracy of description of the 1st author's position	/2 (POS1)
Accuracy of description of the 2nd author's position	/2 (POS2)
Assessment and Objections (critique)	/4 (CRIT)
Clarity of writing and statement of which position(s) you reject	/2 (WRIT)
Participation in class discussion	/3 (ORAL, if assigned)
Total	/13 or 10 (but worth whatever percentage listed in the course outline)

One of the most common deficiencies in these critiques is inadequate critical assessment. Therefore, at least half of the word limit should be devoted to discussing your main reason(s) for rejecting the position you found least compelling. That means that your description of the main arguments of the two positions you are examining should be restricted to the first half of your paper, max. The second half of the paper should be taken up with a critical analysis of at least one of the readings (you may reject both if you wish, but be careful about length). When it comes to the critical analysis, do not try to be comprehensive. Be specific about the argument (or arguments) you do not find compelling. For example, specify which claims you find false or highly questionable and explain why. Or discuss arguments raised by the author that you find more compelling and explain why these arguments contradict the reasoning of the author you found least compelling.

Another common deficiency is to fail to recognize the authors' main arguments. Often, a description is not, in literal terms, inaccurate, but it simply focuses on peripheral points or lines of reasoning. Be aware that the authors might also be addressing topics other than the one for class discussion, so read the articles carefully and with the class discussion question in mind. If you go on from accurate descriptions to offer any critical assessment of one of the main arguments, that effort alone will get you to the 60%-70% range, even if your criticisms are rather weak. If you get off even one good shot, you will be moving towards an excellent grade.

Remember that in a Philosophy class, it is always important to practice the Principle of Charity. This principle states that when someone's arguments or claims are open to multiple interpretations, you should choose the interpretation that makes that person's argument the strongest. In other words, always seek to avoid the temptation to set up "straw man" versions of your opponent's arguments that can be easily "knocked down," rather than addressing their actual arguments.