In class, we have reviewed excerpts from Mastermind and Critical Thinking in addition to Prof. Levy’s “Validity” and Prof. Hopper’s “Aristotle’s Proofs of Rhetoric” and “Loving Lit,” and we have discussed the ways in which a writer can approach or attract an audience. Michel Butor and Paul Theroux utilize strategies to target their audiences and offer myriad and oppositional ways of thinking about travel experiences. This way of thinking is what we call critical reasoning. Now, you will choose a selection (e.g. a page, a paragraph, a subsection) from either the Theroux or Butor selections and write a thesis-driven analysis of that section. You will discuss one specific flaw in the writer’s reasoning, in the way he misuses or manipulates information to try and explain away personal responsibility for travel. When necessary or relevant, you may refer to other sections of the text. Apply some of the “structured procedures” (Konnikova 73) of critical reasoning we have covered in our class discussions to investigate the writer’s claims about reasons for travel.
Choose one of the following options as you discuss the flawed aspect:
How effectively does your selected author use evidence? Does the evidence make the premises and conclusions of the argument strong? Is the evidence accurate, relevant, representative, and sufficient enough to prove the point? What is the source of the evidence? What authorities are cited to support the premises? Are these authorities reliable and credible? Has the evidence been manipulated in questionable ways?
How does your selected author engage or fail to engage a specific community in his paper? How does the writer treat the targeted community as he or she develops his paper?
Constructing
You want to make a focused, original argument as you answer one of the above questions.
Tips and Considerations
Structure
refrain from writing a traditional five-paragraph essay (e.g. to prove x, I will write about a, b and c).
For example, if you write something like, Smith uses diction, imagery and tone in his poem, you run into two key pitfalls: 1) What is your argument about his use of diction, imagery and tone? and 2) what do these have in common besides being types of rhetorical devices? You want a paper that has paragraphs that connect to one another via a carefully crafted structure.
Who is your audience for this paper, besides me—the teacher?
What is your purpose in analyzing someone else’s argument?
Organization
Your essay should be organized around points in support of your main point. It is not organized as an explication or running commentary on the text as it unfolds. That is, it should not be based on the order of the text, but should be based on your own ideas/topic sentences about how certain elements or features of the text work to accomplish the purpose, as stated in your thesis.
Evidence
A crucial feature of a strong essay s is the ability to demonstrate where the text itself supports your claims. Good ideas are meaningless unless you provide compelling examples and evidence to support them.
Voice and Style
Don’t write in a monotonous style, and don’t go overboard with a hostile, impassioned tone. A charged or overly bored voice might lead your readers to question whether you can remain unbiased in your examination of the ability of the speaker to convince his or her audience.
** Students who do not bring in the requested page length of work to conferences and peer reviews (for drafts) will receive a 10 point deduction on their final grade for the paper. And, as always, review the rubric that we discussed in class before turning in your final draft.
Suggestions:
Assume you know more about the text and critical reasoning than your readers. As such, make sure you provide readers with enough background and context to understand your argument and the techniques you are using to make them.
Consider the difference between facts and the interpretation of facts. The authors provide us with many “facts,” but how can we employ critical reasoning to interpret those facts and offer more rational explanations for the events of the story and the narrator’s claims about them?
