MODR 1770B Note 16
Continuing Article Analysis
- All of the concepts come from our step 2.
- The first thing are whether the concepts are clearly defined these are the step
- The style and method he wants us to use is so:
o Step 6.1 Are the concepts clearly defined. Use different concepts. Use the
List the concepts, and you list all the paragraphs that the concept
Use two pieces of evidence (the paragraph quote directly from
Check and see if the concept was indeed defined. List the
characteristics of the concept as to how the author defines
If the concepts are inconsistent, then you have two
separate lists of characteristics
Have a rationale of why you think the concepts are/aren’t clearly
W3 want to determine whether the definitions are indeed good
ones. If the author is consistent, then we have to be fair.
If the author fails to define the concepts, we can say “no”
they’re not clearly defined. The author assumes that we
know, and we unpack of what the assumptions could be.
o An author who fails to clarify the argument and fails
You define the DEFINITION, and not usage.
You evaluate four concepts like this.
o Step 6.2 has to do with usage Pull out two concepts from the list, and say
if the concepts are used for too widely
Use one concept for “too widely” and one too “narrow”
Widely means when too many characteristics are included
in the concept, and the author stretched the criteria too
much, and the concept cannot handle that many
o Boundaries = context of the argument.
o Provide him with the specific evidence, list where it
comes from, and then show/list the usage and give
The way we normally use the concept is
gone outside, and therefore
Usage is how we use a concept in a social meaning.
Narrow means when key characteristics are intentionally
omitted to trick the reader in believing the author’s
argument and conclusion. o The author purposefully does this. If the author is
talking about religion, but fails to specify one
o USE JUSTICE AND CAPITALISM FOR THIS
o Step 6.3 – This has to do with the fallacy of equivocation – Are the
concepts used correctly or not?
Consider the concept “self”. Is it used successfully? List at least
three references where that concept was used.
Quote the entire paragraph that is necessary.
Use premise form.
Outline the intended meaning of the premises
E.g. In P.1 – the Analysis would be “substitution method”
self is referred to as “human personality”
In P.2. it points to an “indexical reference”
In P.3 the author talks about a vague notion of “soul/spirit”
In our substitution method, we have to show how the author
could have avoided inconsistency.
The substitution method is the analysis
Look at the concept and replace it with another concept.
o Step 6.4 – This is positive critique. Pull out two concepts – pull out the
strong ones. You want to say something good about the article. These are
two concepts that the author has clearly defined them. The concepts
were used with the correct/exact amount of characteristics, and that
there was no equivocation. There must be consistency, no equivocation,
and good usage.
- Do a final map of the main arguments after reconsidering your answer to step 1
and 4 above
o Evaluate the argument
- If you look at the article, you might have 5-7 sections. A section consists of
- Step 7.1 – Select three sections, and select the sections that best support the
author’s conclusion (MC) in step 1.
o List paragraphs, and break down the paragraphs into premises:
E.g. P1, P2, P3, HP, MC
A hidden premise is a hidden element that the author assumes we
know and requires an inference. Therefore, it is weak.
This section has a minor conclusion. It should look in an argument
o We then evaluate this step. It is possible that these premises are poor.
Select 1 premise out of the four. DO NOT SELECT THE HIDDEN PREMISE. Show how the premise contains a generalization, or keywords
that are vague and open to doubt, and change the structure of the
conclusion and render it as “weak”.
o There are two ways you can do the conceptually problematic premises:
If it is a generalization, then you can refer to that specifically.
o Section 2: give the title of that section, list what paragraphs it
encompasses, and break that down into P1, P2, P3, HP, and Minor
Then evaluate one of the premises. All of these premises could be
conceptually problematic. Always indicate WHICH premise you
are analyzing, evaluating.
o This is the same in section three
o Make sure it looks like an argument.
- Step 7.2 Apply the three criteria that constitute a good argument. There may not
be any violation in the mapped sections.
o Select an argument where the author violates relevancy, sufficiency, or