Dean Brownlee Critique Eval

Answer the questions below, being as specific as possible.
  • Read the introduction (i.e., the first paragraph) and pause. Write down what you expect will be the topic, purpose, and audience of the paper.
    • I expect (after 2 paragraphs) to hear about these misrepresentations used by Brownlee
    • Audience, right on point
    • purpose: to expose non-factual arguments
  • Now finish reading the paper. Were your expectations for the paper's topic, purpose, and audience fulfilled? If not, what do you think the topic, purpose, and audience are in the body of the essay? If the body of the essay does not fulfill the purpose as defined by the introduction, is the problem more with the introduction (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the draft) or with the body (because it wanders)?
    • Saw one misrepresentation of facts, only one key point. Well supported and well done, but either change the thesis to only point to one, or add in another.
  • Is the tone appropriate for the purpose and audience? Does the writer use language appropriate to the needs of a nonacademic audience? Identify instances where the writer
    • succeeds in writing for a nonacademic audience.
      • Throughout the essay, well done
    • need to consider revising in order to meet the needs of a nonacademic audience.
      • N/A
  • Focus upon the introduction.

    Does the paper's opening
    • introduce both the passage under analysis and the author?
      • Passage is well introduced, author might need some credentials
    • provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage?
      • Background was provided and informed well
    • state the author's main argument?
      • Yes
    • state the author's purpose for writing?
      • No, but didn't seem to need it
    • state the point(s) that you intend to make about the author's main argument?
      • stated that he was going to make multiple points, only made one.
    • state the thesis?
      • thesis is stated at the very beginning of the summary
  • Focus upon the body of the paper.

    Does the writer develop a reader-centered prose that effectively addresses its target audience and, in the same breath, focuses on the subject -- not on the writer's reflections or getting reader's to take action?

  • Does the writer accurately summarize the writer's work in one paragraph?Does the writer briefly review the key points in the author's work that the writer proposes to evaluate?
    • Not in one paragraph, but well summarized. Do you need to summarize the whole thing or just what you are going to critique?

  • Does the writer assess the presentation in the body of the paper?

  • Does the writer
    • introduce and/summarize a key point in more detail than the writer provided in the earlier general summary.
      • Yes, talapoin monkeys
    • evaluate the validity of the author's presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement of disagreement?
      • Evaluates the misrepresentation of fact
    • comment on the author's success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing several specific point
      • Only really calls the article informative, despite the misrepresentation, no mention of purpose
    • Does the writer respond to the presentation in the body of the paper?
  • Does the writer
  • ** identify which views with which you agree and disagree
      • identifies view
    • discuss your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the author -- tying these reasons to assumptions -- both the author's and your own.
      • discusses the reason, bases them on reader assumption
    • draw upon outside sources, where necessary, to support your ideas
      • cites the actual study Brownlee references

Focus upon the conclusion.

  • Does the paper's conclusion
    • state your conclusions about the overall validity of the piece -- your assessment of the author's success at achieving his or her aims and your reactions to the author's views?
    • remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage?
  • Focus on the paper's content. What sort of evidence is used to develop or support the position take in this paper? Are there adequate details, examples, or reasons to support each of the ideas? Do readers need more information at any point to understand the meaning or appreciate the point of view?
  • Summarize the paper, devoting one sentence to each paragraph.
  • Next, numbers the paragraphs. Do the paragraphs follow a logical order? Describe how the argument does or does not flow from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and so on. Are there any logical gaps between the paragraphs?
  • Are the author's paragraph's unified, coherent, and developed? If so, note them. Also, indicate any that confuse you, and explain why.
  • What did you like best about the paper?
  • What two features of the paper most need improvement?