ENG 106: Composition 2

 

ENG 106: Composition 2

Lesson 5: Reading Critically
Week: Feb. 3-9, 2003

Place: Dial 147

Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to do each of the following:

  • Dissect an argument by identifying and assessing its claim, evidence, tone, and agenda.
  • Distinguish between facts and interpretation.
  • Evaluate a source’s credibility.
  • Define relevant terms.

Assignments

Read the excerpts from Sir Walter Raleigh’s The Discovery of Guiana (66-70), Fray Carlos Jose Delgado’s Report . . .  (304-310), the speeches by Chief Powhatan (406) and Chief Canassatego (407) before you come to class on Tuesday.

 

Write a draft of your causal argument and bring it to class on Thursday.  A revised draft is due at the end of this lesson.

Activities

Think Fast: Identify the agenda behind each of the arguments you read for this lesson. 

 

Presentation: Reading Critically (Professor Canada)

 

Cooperative Learning: Try to come to some agreement about the agenda behind the argument I assign your group.  How does a writer’s agenda shape his or her argument?

 

Discussion: During this time, we will discuss the insights and questions that have emerged during our reading, “Think Fast” exercise, presentations, and cooperative learning.

 

Workshop: Trade drafts with a partner.  As you evaluate your partner’s draft, comment on the effectiveness of the claim, the thoroughness and relevance of the evidence, the effectiveness of the rebuttal, and the author’s use of sources. 

 

Think Again: Using what you have learned or reviewed in this lesson, begin revising your causal argument.  .

 

Conferences: During these one-on-one conferences, I will review some of your writing, orally quiz you on lesson objectives, and field your questions.

 

Announcements: We will wrap up this lesson with announcements regarding upcoming lessons, as well as other relevant subjects.

Names and Terms

Make sure you know the meaning and significance of each of the following names and terms:

  • bias
  • credibility
  • fact
  • interpretation
  • objectivity
  • subjectivity
  • tone

Resource

SF Writer contains a discussion of reading critically.

Updated December 30, 2002
© Mark Canada, 2002
mark.canada@uncp.edu
 

Introduction

Over the first few weeks of this course, you have read a number of arguments, and we have tried to dissect them, examining such components as claims and evidence.  In this lesson, we will discuss some concepts and strategies that can help you read—and view and listen—critically. 

Discussion

Going After the “Deeper Meaning”

Our culture is filled with reminders that we must work at extracting meaning from the words presented to us by others.  Undoubtedly, you have heard people say, “Don’t believe everything you read” or “You have to read between the lines.”  What those people are really talking about is the act of reading critically—that is, reading with an eye toward understanding not only the words on the page, but also getting at other factors that shape the meaning of the article, story, or poem you are reading.  It is important, for example, to determine the writer’s tone, the attitude that he or she betrays toward the subject through choice of words, images, and the like.  In assessing tone, you will want to draw some conclusions about whether the writer is being objective and providing a fair or neutral picture of the subject or being subjective and presenting a biased, or one-sided, picture.  Often, especially in the case of subjective essays, the writer is pursuing some agenda, or purpose.  In any case, writers generally present their ideas in a particular genre, or type of writing, such as a letter to the editor, a business proposal, or a realistic novel.  To get the full picture of what you read, you will want to take all of these factors into consideration.  Just as you should read critically, you also should listen and view critically, since all forms of communication are shaped by these factors.

Facts and Interpretation

Probably every book, article, speech, documentary, or other source you encounter will include factual material, which is material that most people accept as indisputable.  Some examples of facts are dates, quantities, names, and locations.  One test of whether something is a fact is to ask yourself whether it answers one of the following questions: Who? What? When? Where?  If it does, it likely is a fact.  For example, the material in the following sentence is entirely factual: Benjamin Franklin began publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1828 in Philadelphia.  Factual material can strengthen an argument because it cannot be disputed and thus provides a solid foundation.  An interpretation, on the other hand, involves a conclusion that someone, such as a scholar, has drawn from the facts and thus is disputable.  Some examples of interpretations are value judgments, explanations of causes and effects, assessments of meaning, and proposals.  You can test whether something is an interpretation by asking yourself whether it answers one of the following questions: Why? How?  If it does, it probably is an interpretation.  For example, the following sentence contains some interpretation: Benjamin Franklin believed humans could control their destiny and wrote his autobiography to encourage them to exercise their free will.  Interpretation strengthens an argument by giving it meaning and substance.  Indeed, as you will see later, an argument by definition must include some interpretation.  As you also will see, you must give credit to sources when you borrow their interpretations. 

Credibility

When you assess a source's credibility, you try to determine how believable it is.  First, you should look at the credentials of the author and the publisher.  Authors who have advanced degrees in their fields, who work for reputable organizations such as respected universities or government agencies, or who have published other books or articles tend to be more credible than authors who lack any of these credentials.  Furthermore, well-known publishers--especially those affiliated with reputable universities--tend to be more credible than other publishers because they have reputations to uphold.  In other words, credentials provide some proof that the material in a source is accurate and based on sound reasoning.  Because it is much easier to publish material on the Internet than to print it in a book or reputable magazine, print sources tend to be more credible than sources you find on the Internet.  A second consideration is timeliness.  Sources published or posted recently tend to be more credible than older sources simply because new knowledge gradually becomes available as scholars continue to conduct research.  You also will want to look for sources whose authors appear to have considered various interpretations and to have presented fair accounts.  Beware of biased sources, which tend to present only evidence that supports one interpretation.  In particular, try to avoid a source that has an agenda: a set of political, ideological, or financial goals that the author or authors seek to achieve.  One clue that an author has an agenda is a subjective tone--that is, one with an emotional component; stick with objective sources, which avoid emotional language.  Finally, evaluate the reasoning in a source's argument.  Try to avoid sources that rely on logical fallacies. 

Conclusion

In this lesson, we discussed some strategies and concepts that can help you be critical readers, listeners, and viewers. We now have looked at two kinds of arguments: evaluations and causal arguments.  In our next lesson, we will turn to a third kind, definitions.