Evaluate the support for a claim
Critical reading involves determining whether a text employs appropriate kinds of evidence for the kind of argument it is making. An author can support his or her claim in different ways, many of which will be covered in Chapter 12. Some claims are supported by statistics, some by experimental data, some by logical analysis, and some simply by the force of the writer's or speaker's personality.
Once you have determined the appropriateness of the kind of evidence that a text employs, you must still determine the strength of that evidence. For example, if statistical evidence is the best way to prove a certain point—such as Garrett Hardin's argument in "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor" that the earth's population has exceeded its carrying capacity—you must evaluate the relevance and representativeness of the author's statistics. If drawing out general principles from historical examples is a good way to prove a particular point—such as Machiavelli's assertion in The Prince that it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved or Octavio Paz's assertion in "The Day of the Dead" that Mexican identity is shaped by profound solitude—you must examine the relevance of the author's or authors' historical examples and the relevance of historical examples that have occurred since the texts were written.
Think about underlying assumptions
Most claims have stated points and underlying assumptions. The stated points are the ones that the author makes. The underlying assumptions are the premises that, though never stated, must be true for the argument to succeed. These unstated assumptions may be so obvious that the author does not feel the need to restate them; they may be assumptions that the author wishes to conceal from the audience; or they may be foundational beliefs so deeply engrained that the author does not recognize them. When you read, think about the assumptions beneath the author's claim. What needs to be true for the claim to be true? What would prevent the claim from being true? The chart below presents some assertions and the unstated assumptions that underlie them.
STATED ASSERTION
The best way to derive truth about nature is through direct observation because primary evidence is better than secondary evidence.
Human nature is evil because people are inherently selfish and incapable of genuine concern for other people to the exclusion of self.
Democracy is the best form of government because it guarantees the maximum amount of freedom for
individuals.
Helping those in need is important because we owe it to fellow human beings to eliminate as much suffering and misery as we can.
Higher education is a good thing because it helps people get good jobs and earn more money throughout their lives.
UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION(S)
Human senses give reliable information and do not deceive us.
Focusing on one's self is evil, and focusing on other people, to the exclusion of one's self, is good.
Giving individuals a maximum amount of freedom is a good thing. / Individuals will not use their freedom in ways that harm society and each other.
Helping those in need will relieve suffering and will not cause a greater amount of misery in the long term.
Earning more money is a good thing.
Of course, every assertion in this chart is debatable. The stated claims in the left- hand column, while very common, are not self-evident. Every one of them could be, and has been, disputed. However, even if you generally accept the stated claims in the left-hand column, their arguments absolutely depend on the unstated assumptions in the right-hand column. Each assumption can also be plausibly debated; and the rejection of any one would lead to the rejection of the corresponding argument in the left-hand column.
GENERATING IDEAS
ost college essays succeed or fail at the idea level. Good ideas are likely to produce good essays. A good idea contains within it the seeds of a good argument and an organized essay. Once you have hit upon a good idea, you will find that your essay is easier to organize, easier to write, and easier to revise.
Very few people simply "have" good ideas. The ability to generate good ideas—and good paper topics—is a skill that can be learned. This chapter will introduce some basic strategies—grouped under considering expectations, exploring your topic, and achieving subtlety—that you can use to move beyond your initial thoughts about a topic and generate worthwhile ideas to write about.
CONSIDERING EXPECTATIONS
The writing process cannot be reduced to a precise set of formulas and equations that will produce "correct" essays in every class that requires writing. Different instructors have different preferences and grade written assignments differently. Sometimes, what works well for one instructor will not work at all for another.
Before you start thinking about a writing topic, then, make sure you understand what your instructor expects from you. If you do not meet these expectations, your ideas will not be judged "good"—even if they represent perfectly sound arguments that might be very successful in other contexts. Here are a few strategies that you can use to make sure that your essay ideas will meet your instructor's expectations:
Understand the assignment
The requirements of an assignment can be very general or very specific. In either case, you must gear your response to the terms of the assignment. Most assignments ask you to perform a certain writing task—to analyze, compare, describe, and so on. It is vital that you understand what this task entails. If you have any questions about the assignment, do not hesitate to ask your instructor to clarify it for you.
Agree/disagree. Assignments that ask you to agree or disagree will usually give you a proposition to consider. Sometimes, this proposition will be an entire reading, as in "Agree or disagree with George Orwell's points in 'Pacifism and the War.'" More often, the proposition will be a single statement or assertion, such as "In 'Pacifism and the War,' George Orwell states that a pacifist position during wartime is necessarily in favor of the enemy. Agree or disagree with this assertion."
A topic of this sort gives you the opportunity to state your opinion. When instructors assign topics such as this one, they are usually not looking for right or wrong answers. Nor do they want you to simply summarize Orwell's essay and state—at the beginning or the end of the essay—whether or not you approve. An assignment to agree or disagree is asking you to state and defend an opinion; it involves both an argument about what you believe and valid reasons for that argument. The quality of the reasons that you give, not your opinion, is the most important part of the assignment.
Analyze. "Analyze" is one of the most common directions in college-level writing assignments, but it can have many meanings. Generally speaking, to analyze something is to examine it by comparing how its parts relate to a whole or how certain causes produce an effect. In most (but not all) situations, a textual analysis should focus not on agreeing or disagreeing with the text but on showing how different parts of the text operate toward a particular end. An analysis of a literary text often looks at imagery, symbolism, and other kinds of figurative language. An analysis of an argumentative text usually requires you to look at the argument—to see what it claims and how persuasively it supports those claims.
Apply. One of the best ways to measure how well you understand an argument is to ask you to apply it to a new situation. Consider the following assignment: "Apply George Orwell's reasoning in 'Pacifism and the War' to America's actions in the so-called war on terror." This assignment asks you to consider how the arguments advanced in the original essay—which in this case would include the assertion that refusing to fight an enemy is an act of support for that enemy rather than an act of neutrality—apply to U.S. actions in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and at home. There are, of course, several plausible ways to apply Orwell's argument to this situation. For example, you could argue that, according to Orwell's logic, one could not be a pacifist in the war on terror without being "objectively proterrorist." Or you could argue that, because terrorism is a criminal act rather than a military one, Orwell's argument allows for pacifism (objecting to a military solution to the problem) in the war on terror in a way that it did not allow for pacifism in World War II.