The Critical Analysis

Now that we have become reasonably adept at rational reconstruction, and have begun to learn some methods of logical criticism, we will combine these skills into one assignment containing both analysis and criticism.  We call this assignment a Critical Analysis.

A finished critical analysis has three distinct sections presented in the following order:

It's essential that your finished analysis have the proper format and organization.  You should strive in every possible way to give your analysis the look and structure of this sample analysis.  Some of the things to notice right away are.


How to Do This Assignment

It is important to understand that the finished product does not reflect the actual process of writing a critical analysis.  The best way to proceed is essentially backwards:

Step 1. Analyze and diagram the logical structure of the article.
Step 2. Use your diagrams to inform your criticism.
Step 3. Write the introduction.
Step 4.  Review, edit, and improve.

Since you already know how to analyze and diagram the logical structure of an article, we'll focus on the other two sections below.

Writing the Introduction

In this section you will identify the

Here is a typical introduction

Introduction

The main subject of this article is the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.  The main issues are (1) whether or not the use of torture on suspected terrorists is justified and (2) why many people oppose the use of torture on suspected terrorists.  This article contains one arguments and one explanation.  The conclusion of the argument is:  The torture of suspected terrorists is sometimes morally justified.   The conclusion of the explanation is:  Many people oppose the use of torture on suspected terrorists.

You should copy this basic format as closely as possible.  Here are two terms you need to understand in order to do this properly.

What is a subject?

The subject of an article is just the basic situation or events that the article is addressing.  The subject is not a claim that the author is making. When you identify the subject you will not identify anything the article says about that subject.  So, for example, you should not write anything like: The subject of this article is that the torture of terrorists is morally justified.  Also, note that the subject of the article is not the same thing as the title of the article. Titles often give one very little indication what the article is really about.  

What is an issue?

An issue is a question that an article is attempting to answer.  We recognize two kinds of issues, one relevant to argument, the other relevant to explanation.  An argument attempts to establish the truth of some opinion, so we characterize an argument issue as whether a particular conclusion is true ( e.g., whether or not torturing suspected terrorists is justified).  An explanation attempts to provide an understanding of some accepted fact, so we characterize an explanation issue as why (or how) something occurs (e.g. why people oppose the use of torture on suspected terrorists).  Always use one of these two formulations when characterizing an issue.  Do not say things like:  The issue of this article is the author's views on terrorism and what we should do about it.


How to Write Logical Criticism

Some important points to remember.

First, logical criticism always focuses on some aspect of the author's reasoning.  It does not focus on the author. This means that  we do not speculate on the author's personal circumstances, character, political biases, religion, race, sexual orientation, social class or anything that is not the reasoning the author herself provides.  It will always be tempting to do these things, because they are easy and they are  the sorts of considerations that most people find persuasive.  They are, however, logically fallacious. (see ad hominem)

Second, focus your criticism on the author's reasoning.  Do not criticize the reasoning of other people mentioned by the author, unless it is clear that the author herself is endorsing this reasoning as well.  

Third, focus your criticisms on a strong, charitable interpretation of the author's reasoning.  Because your task here is to find weaknesses in the author's reasoning, it will always be tempting to make this job easy by simply misrepresenting what the author says in a way that makes it easy to criticize.  For example, it will be tempting to claim that the author is committed to a particularly weak principle, when in fact the weakness of the principle is due to your own faulty reconstruction of the reasoning. This, too, is fallacious. (see straw man)

Fourth, focus on making  just a few distinct, well-supported criticisms of the most serious problems you can identify. Avoid writing analyses peppered with lots of superficial, repetitive, or poorly supported criticisms. Also, do not repeat the same criticisms in different ways.

Finally,  try to remember that your task here is not to somehow  conclusively refute the author's reasoning.  Your task is simply to identify the main logical weaknesses of the article.  Just as people find it difficult to give fair balanced criticisms of reasoning for conclusions they detest, they also find it difficult to criticize the reasoning behind views they basically agree with.  Just remember, your task is not to disagree with the author, it is to point out the main weaknesses in the reasoning he gives.  This can be done in a positive spirit, i.e., as recommendations for improving the article.

Using Your Rationales to Develop Logical Criticism

Stage 1:  Formulation

While you are reconstructing the reasoning of any particular article you may have a hard time figuring out just exactly what issue the author is addressing, or what, exactly he is trying to say.  Often this is simply because the material is difficult or that the subject matter is foreign to you, and it is very important not to blame the author for things like this.  Do not, for example, ever complain that the author uses words that you don't understand - Look them up!! - or employs reasoning that is complicated and difficult to follow.  These are really just criticisms of yourself.  On the other hand, some articles rally are poorly formulated.  Here is a short list of some legitimate formulation criticisms.

It is really important to realize that it is not an interesting criticism to simply claim that one of the above problems pertains to the article.  For example, you can not simply say:  It is not clear what conclusion the author is drawing.   If this is really the case, then you need to identify conclusions other than the ones you identified in your rationales that could just as legitimately be attributed to the article. In general, anytime you claim that something is unclear, you need to show exactly what is unclear about it, and how this unclarity affects your ability to reconstruct and critique the article.

There are also several fallacies or errors relating to problems of formulation.  They are:
You should try to use these fallacies as a mode of criticism whenever possible, but I strongly advise you not to use fallacies that we have not yet covered in class.


Stage 2:  Relevance

Generally speaking when  you have successfully reconstructed the reasoning provided in an article, you will notice that a great deal of what the author actually says in the article does not contribute to the reasoning in any obvious way.  This is not by itself a defect.  Authors will often say things that are not particularly relevant to the reasoning task at hand, but which accomplish other goals like entertainment, edification, or just providing interesting information.  However, often times authors will make statements that are not only irrelevant to the reasoning, but which seem to actually undermine the reasoning provided in important ways. For example:

To properly identify a relevance problem you need to identify the issues at hand, and show both why what the author is saying is irrelevant, and how it has some logically undesirable effect. The most common mistake made when identifying problems of relevance is to misconstrue the issue at hand.  For example, you might point out that what the author says is irrelevant to a particular argument issue, when it is actually quite relevant to an explanation issue with which the author is also legitimately concerned.

The fallacies that relate to problems of relevance are


Stage 3:  Strength

The last stage of criticism is to evaluate the strength of the reasoning.  The rationale provides you with three significant opportunities here:  

When you find a particular statement doubtful, be sure you give some good reasons for doubting it.  It is not sufficient simply to say that you have never heard of such a thing (see Argument from Ignorance), or to speculate that the person may not be an authority on the subject matter (see Ad Hominem and Questionable Authority).  

When criticizing a principle, be sure that you don't simply call it weak, or express doubts that the principle holds in every single case.  In order to criticize a principle properly you must identify clear exceptions to the principle, and give reasons for believing that  the exceptions may apply to the case at hand.  

We have formalized several criticisms that apply to

Some other criticisms relevant to this category which we have yet to study are: