Content

• To step
• Method 1 of 3: Become an active reader
• Method 2 of 3: Collect evidence
• Method 3 of 3: Structuring your criticism
• Warnings
• Tips

A critique is an objective analysis of a literary or scientific article in which the emphasis is on examining whether a writer supports the core ideas of his article with credible and relevant arguments and evidence based on fact. It's easy to get lost in simply summarizing the main ideas of an article without actually analyzing and disputing the text. A good criticism reflects your impressions of the article and provides sufficient evidence to support your impressions. Follow the suggestions below to learn how to write a thorough and impressive critique of an article.

To step

Method 1 of 3: Become an active reader

1. Read the article once to find out what the core idea is. The first time you read through an article, you should simply try to understand the reasoning that the writer sets out. Note the writer's thesis.
2. Read the article a second time and highlight the text as you read it. It sometimes helps to use a red pen so that your markers stand out. When reading the article for the second time, ask yourself the following questions:
   • What is the writer's thesis / reasoning?
   • For what purpose does the writer come up with this thesis?
   • Who is the article intended for? Does the article effectively reach this audience?
   • Does the writer provide sufficient valid evidence and arguments?
   • Are there gaps in the writer's reasoning?
   • Has the writer distorted, misinterpreted or not used evidence objectively?
   • Does the writer offer a conclusion?
3. Make a legend for your markers. Come up with unique symbols to distinguish between parts of the text that may be confusing, important, or contradictory.
   • For example, you can underline important parts, circle confusing parts, and put an asterisk on parts of the text that conflict with each other.
   • By creating a legend with symbols for different purposes, you will be able to quickly make markings while reading the article. Even though it may take you some time to recognize your own symbols, you will be able to memorize them quickly and read an article much faster than without a legend.
4. Take notes when you read the article a second or third time. In addition to coming up with a legend, it will also help you take notes when you get elaborate thoughts while reading. For example, if you realize that a writer's claim can be disproved by referring to a scientific study you recently read, but make a note of it in the margin, on a loose piece of paper, or on a computer so that you can get your idea later can read back again.
   • Don't be foolish enough to think you'll remember your idea when it comes time to write your critique.
   • Spend some time writing down your observations as you read. You will be glad you did when it comes time to present your observations in a fully analytical essay.
5. Form a general opinion. After reading the article in full two or three times, evaluate the author's overall reasoning and write down your initial responses to the article.
6. Make a preliminary list of the possible places you could look for evidence. Try to remember literature you have read or documentaries you have seen that could be helpful in evaluating the article.

Method 2 of 3: Collect evidence

1. Wonder if the writer's overall message makes sense. Test the hypothesis and compare it with other similar examples.
   • Even though the writer has done research and quoted respected experts, you still need to analyze the message to see if it is doable and can be used in the real world.
2. Examine the introduction and conclusion of the article to see if they are compatible and support each other and the article.
3. Search the article for examples of writer's bias. If the writer is somehow benefiting from the conclusions drawn in the article, he may not have acted completely objectively.
   • Bias includes ignoring evidence to the contrary, misusing evidence to make conclusions look different from what they actually are, and expressing one's own unfounded opinions in a text. Well-founded opinions are fine, but opinions that are not supported by scientific evidence should be viewed with skepticism.
   • Bias can also be the result of prejudice. Investigate whether the writer has prejudices about race, ethnicity, gender, social classes, or politics.
4. Think about the way the writer has interpreted other scientific articles. If a writer makes a claim about the work of another scientist, read the original work the writer is referring to and see if you agree with the analysis provided in the article.
   • Readers often interpret other people's ideas in different ways. Investigate the inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text and that of the writer.
   • Watch what other scientists say. If several scientists from different backgrounds have the same opinion of a text, then you should attach more importance to that opinion than to reasoning supported by little evidence.
5. Investigate whether the writer is citing untrustworthy sources. Is the writer citing an irrelevant text that is fifty years old and no longer counts in the relevant field? If the writer cites an unreliable source, the article is a lot less credible.
6. Read the article carefully. The content is most likely the most important aspect of the article when writing a review, but don't forget the formal and literary techniques the writer may have used. Look for unusual word choices and the writer's tone throughout the article. This is particularly useful with non-scientific articles dealing with literary aspects, for example.
   • These aspects of an article can reveal deeper reasoning problems. For example, in an article written in a fierce, overzealous style, the writer may ignore or refuse to quote counter-evidence in his analysis.
   • Always look up the meaning of words you don't know. The meaning of a word can completely change the meaning of an entire sentence, especially if that particular word has multiple meanings. Wonder why the writer chose one word instead of another. This might reveal something about the writer's reasoning.
7. Disputes research methods in scientific articles. If you are writing a review of an article dealing with a scientific theory, do not forget to evaluate the research methods used in the experiment. Ask yourself the following questions:
   • Does the writer thoroughly describe the research methods?
   • Has the research been set up flawlessly?
   • Is there a problem with the sample size?
   • Was a control group used for comparison?
   • Are all statistical calculations correct?
   • Could another party repeat the investigation in question?
   • Is the experiment important for that particular field?
8. Dig deeper. Use the knowledge you already have, well-founded opinions, and any other research resources you can gather to support or disprove the writer's article. Provide empirical evidence to support your position.
   • While you can never have too much good evidence, having too many sources can become a problem if you keep repeating your arguments with it. Make sure each source provides unique evidence or argument for your criticism.
   • In addition, you must also ensure that you do not suppress your own opinions and evidence by using sources.
9. Remember that a criticism doesn't have to be completely positive or completely negative. In fact, literary criticisms are often most interesting when they not only disagree with the writer, but also refute the writer's idea with additional evidence and build on it.
   • However, if you totally agree with the writer, make sure to build on the writer's reasoning by coming up with additional evidence or counter arguments.
   • You can provide evidence to the contrary for an argument while still claiming that a particular position is correct.

Method 3 of 3: Structuring your criticism

1. Start with an introduction in which you briefly outline your reasoning. The introduction should be no longer than two paragraphs and should outline the structure for your criticism. Start by describing the strengths or weaknesses of the article in question and why.
   • Don't forget to include the name of the author and the title of the article in the introductory paragraphs of your critique, as well as the name of the scientific journal or other publication in which the article appeared, the date of publication, and a description of the article. subject and / or thesis elaborated in the article.
   • The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your opinions. You cite the evidence in the middle of your criticism.
   • Be bold in the statements you make in the introduction and be immediately clear about the purpose of your criticism. If you ignore your opinion or do not fully support it, you will come across as less credible.
2. In the middle of your criticism, present evidence to support your reasoning. Each paragraph in the middle section should describe a new idea or expand your reasoning by looking at it from a new angle.
   • Begin each paragraph in the body with a core sentence that summarizes the contents of the next paragraph. However, you should not get the impression that you have to summarize the entire paragraph in the core sentence. This is just a place to transition to an idea that is new or somehow different.
   • End each paragraph in the body with a transition sentence that alludes to the content of the next paragraph, but does not mention it explicitly. For example, you could write the following: "Although Jan Jansen shows that the number of childhood obesity cases in the United States is rising remarkably fast, there are some American cities where the rate has actually fallen." In your next paragraph, you should then give specific examples of these anomalous cities that you have just claimed exist.
3. At the end of your criticism, come up with counter arguments for your reasoning. No matter how well-founded your reasoning may be, there is always at least one way in which you can give your reasoning a profound, final twist or take it a step further and suggest possible rebuttal. Do this in the last paragraph of the conclusion body to give the reader one final argument that will leave a lasting impression.
4. Work out your ideas in a well-reasoned and objective manner. Don't write in an overeager or obnoxious, passionate tone. This can put off many readers. Show your drive by doing thorough research and expressing yourself effectively.
5. Complete your criticism by summarizing your reasoning and suggesting possible consequences. It is important to briefly summarize the main points of your article, but you must also tell the reader what your criticism means for the relevant field.
   • Are there any general implications for the field in question, or is your criticism simply an attempt to pierce the messy work of another scientist?
   • Do your best to make a lasting impression on the reader in the conclusion. You can achieve this with confident language to show how important your criticism is.

Warnings

• Try at all costs to avoid summarizing the article. It's better to write a shorter critique than try to fill the empty space with a boring summary.
• Don't criticize the style of the article or write things like "I thought it was good" or "It was poorly written." Instead, focus on the content of the article.

Tips

• Write your criticism in the third person and the present tense, unless the style gives rise to a different spelling. Always review the style guidelines before you start writing.
• Be confident and bold in your claims.
• Always check your writing at least twice before submitting it to your professor, boss, or publisher.