Guidelines for Reading Analysis
Presentations 1 & 2
Sign-up for one reading during
Weeks 3 or 4 and one reading during Weeks 5, 6 or 7. Make a note of the article
titles and presentation dates that you sign up for below.
Reading analysis 1 article:
__________________________ Presentation
date: _______________
Reading analysis 2 article:
__________________________ Presentation
date: _______________
You will be presenting your
analysis in class along with two to five of your classmates. The class will be
counting on you to be on top of the article you are covering, so please be
prepared!
This assignment is worth 30
points – to receive credit, you must participate in the presentation of your
analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of
scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded.
Before you begin your work,
examine the Evaluating Arguments handout.
Read the article you will be
analyzing carefully. If possible, read it twice. On your first reading, just
try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and
the flow of the piece. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully;
notice how the writer constructs his or her argument. You will probably want to
mark up your text and/or take notes.
To prepare your
written analysis:
Identify the author’s name and
the title of the article. Answer the following questions. Put your answers in
outline form (see sample analysis on the reverse side of this sheet).
1. What
is the central claim (or thesis) of
the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not
a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that your claim should
cover the whole article. (10 points)
2. Is
the central claim expressed explicitly
or implicitly? The claim is explicit
if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only
implies the claim but does not state it outright. (1 point)
3. What
reasons link the evidence to the
claim? In other words, why does the evidence support the claim? Reasons may be
presented explicitly or implied. (7 points)
4. What
evidence does the writer present to
support his or her claim? Specify and categorize the evidence (e.g. examples, personal
experiences, analogy, authoritative opinion, facts, statistical data,
cause-effect reasoning, results of scientific experiments, comparison,
interviews, etc. – see sample on back). Do not
answer this question with detailed quotes or paraphrases from the article! For
additional guidance, see the table of Kinds of Evidence on pp. 91-4 of your
textbook Writing Arguments. (7
points)
5.
Comment
briefly on the persuasiveness of the article by answering one or more of the
following questions. (5 points)
·
Is the argument convincing? Does it rely on
emotional, ethical, and/or logical appeals?
·
Are there flaws in the reasoning of the
argument? Does it rely on questionable sources?
·
Does understanding the argument require
knowledge of the historical or cultural context in which it was written?
·
How do the style, organization, and/or tone
contribute or detract from the persuasiveness of the argument?
·
What is your personal reaction to the article?
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul
Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice,
focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the
activity (Explicit).
Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner
works to notice and eliminate errors through practice.
Evidence:
- Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist
Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than
unfocused just-for-pleasure practice.
- Marcus cites studies that show that working to
improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just spending
more time practicing.
- Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson
paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be
the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
- Research on practice sessions of pianists published
in the Journal of Research in Music
Education indicates that the best pianists put a stronger focus on
immediately fixing errors so they do not occur again.
Comment: The argument is fairly persuasive because, as presented,
it makes good logical sense (logos = logical appeal) and basically validates my
personal experiences. The results of the studies on the musicians’ practices made
the argument much more credible (ethos = ethical appeal) and convincing to me. In
fact, I would have liked hearing about the studies in more detail. I liked the
author’s use of the example of learning to play an instrument because I could
relate to it (pathos = emotional appeal) and it made the argument more “real”
for me. Perhaps, for the same reason, the article might be less interesting and
compelling to someone without any formal musical experience.
Guidelines for Reading Analysis
Presentations 3 & 4 on The Ethics of
What We Eat
Sign-up for one set of chapters
for Weeks 9, 10, or 11 and one set of chapters for Weeks 12, 13, or 14. Make a
note of the chapter numbers and presentation dates that you sign up for below.
Reading analysis 3 chapters:
________________________ Presentation
date: _______________
Reading analysis 4 chapters:
________________________ Presentation date:
_______________
You will be presenting your
analysis in class along with two to five of your classmates. The class will be
counting on you to be on top of the chapters you are covering, so please be
prepared!
This assignment is worth 30
points – to receive credit, you must participate in the presentation of your
analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of
scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded.
Before you begin your work,
examine the sample analysis on the back of this sheet.
Read the chapters you will be
analyzing carefully. If possible, read them twice. On your first reading, just
try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and
the flow of the piece. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully;
notice how the writer constructs his argument. You will probably want to mark
up your text and/or take notes.
To prepare your
written analysis:
Identify the author’s name and
the title of the article. Answer the following questions. Put your answers in
outline form (see sample analysis on the reverse side of this sheet).
6. What
is the central claim (or thesis) of
the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not
a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that your claim should
cover the whole article. (10 points)
7. Is
the central claim expressed explicitly
or implicitly? The claim is explicit
if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only
implies the claim but does not state it outright. (1 point)
8. What
reasons link the evidence to the
claim? In other words, why does the evidence support the claim? Reasons may be
presented explicitly or implied. (7 points)
9. What
evidence does the writer present to
support his or her claim? Specify and categorize the evidence (e.g. examples,
personal experiences, analogy, authoritative opinion, facts, statistical data,
cause-effect reasoning, results of scientific experiments, comparison,
interviews, etc. – see sample on back). Do not
answer this question with detailed quotes or paraphrases from the article! For
additional guidance, see the table of Kinds of Evidence on pp. 91-4 of your
textbook Writing Arguments. (7
points)
10.
Comment
briefly on the persuasiveness of the article by answering one or more of the
following questions. (5 points)
·
Is the argument convincing? Does it rely on
emotional, ethical, and/or logical appeals?
·
Are there flaws in the reasoning of the
argument? Does it rely on questionable sources?
·
Does understanding the argument require
knowledge of the historical or cultural context in which it was written?
·
How do the style, organization, and/or tone
contribute or detract from the persuasiveness of the argument?
·
What is your personal reaction to the article?
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul
Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice,
focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the
activity (Explicit).
Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner
works to notice and eliminate errors through practice.
Evidence:
- Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist
Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than
unfocused just-for-pleasure practice.
- Marcus cites studies that show that working to
improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just
spending more time practicing.
- Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson
paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be
the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
- Research on practice sessions of pianists published
in the Journal of Research in Music
Education indicates that the best pianists put a stronger focus on
immediately fixing errors so they do not occur again.
Comment: The argument is fairly persuasive because, as presented,
it makes good logical sense (logos = logical appeal) and basically validates my
personal experiences. The results of the studies on the musicians’ practices
made the argument much more credible (ethos = ethical appeal) and convincing to
me. In fact, I would have liked hearing about the studies in more detail. I
liked the author’s use of the example of learning to play an instrument because
I could relate to it (pathos = emotional appeal) and it made the argument more
“real” for me. Perhaps, for the same reason, the article might be less
interesting and compelling to someone without any formal musical experience.
