Step 3: Create the conceptual questions using the two concepts previously founded in Step 2. Make sure that the
conceptual questions answer the master conclusion.
Step 4: You need to create an-argument like structure with 2-3 premises drawn out of the passage, a hidden
premise that isn’t specifically mentioned but assumed or implied by the author (what is not stated, but is
assumed in the passage – do not forget to state where it comes from), and the conclusion from step 1. This part
must look like a formal argument structure; i.e. P1, P2, P3, HP, and MC.
Step 6: Module 2 (14) 6.1 Focuses on whether the concepts used in Step 2 are clearly defined. This means the
semantic definition itself, not how it is used. For 6.1, provide 2 pieces of evidence (directly from the text), two
characteristics (paraphrase definition), and then give a rationale of why the concepts are good or bad. You have
to be fair – if the author is consistent in definition then its properly defined. It he has too many assumptions than
we can say no. 6.2 focuses on whether a concept is too wide or too narrow. This section deals specifically with the
usage of the concept in the context. Too wide refers to the author including too many characteristics, and
therefore assuming several things about the concept that may not fit to that context. Too narrow refers to the
author purposefully omitting characteristics about the concept as a means of purposefully tricking the reader into
believing the author’s arguments and conclusion. 6.3 focuses on equivocation between certain concepts – this is
referred to the sense that a concept shifts its meaning. Once you identify how the concepts shift their meaning
you must apply the substitution method in which you specifically replace the concept with a newfound concept.
For example, if you have “nature” used several times, and in one definition it refers to the “universe” and the
other “human personality”, you must replace them. In your rationale and analysis of this mention how there are
“used terms that are unclear, vague, and unacceptable to warrant merits of the conclusion. Make sure to use
premise form in which the premises are the specific uses of the concept and the conclusion is the decision of
whether or not this concept has caused equivocation. Section 6.4 deals with the positive critique of arguments.
You have to pull out two specific concepts (strong ones) and positively critique the