Critique of Barrett and Rowe

1. Critique of Barrett and Rowe Dr. John Eigenauer Taft College

2. The Summary • The first paragraph should state the authors’ main thesis (conclusion) and the reasons supporting their conclusion. • The summary should contain no data or facts.

3. The Summary • In their article “What’s Wrong with America and Can Anything Be Done about It?” Wayne Barrett and Bernard Rowe argue that… • (After this, refer to the authors as Barrett and Rowe).

4. The Summary • The second paragraph should concisely relate the authors’ solutions to the problems they describe earlier in the essay. • These problems, they say, should be solved by…

5. Body Paragraphs • Body paragraphs evaluate the authors’ arguments (ideas, solutions, logic, etc.) • Requirement: at least eight body paragraphs.

6. Body Paragraphs • Body paragraphs state clearly which point you will evaluate. • Body paragraphs give more detail than the summary paragraph. • Body paragraphs provide research or reasoning that support your agreement or disagreement.

7. Agreeing with Barrett and Rowe • State clearly which point you agree with. • State clearly WHY you agree. • Research / evidence indicates that they are correct. • Their argument is logically strong. • Support your agreement with logic or research / evidence. • Concluding sentence: what you showed.

8. Disagreeing with Barrett and Rowe • ACCURATELY summarize their argument. • Respond to their argument by showing clearly what is wrong with it. (Next slide)… • State clearly what you conclude (last sentence).

9. Disagreeing with Barrett and Rowe • Disagree: • Over-generalization • Failure to consider consequences • Lack of evidence (unsupported) • Illogical • Contradictory evidence / data

10. Disagreeing with Barrett and Rowe • Do the facts that the author uses validate her claim? • Does the author rely upon rhetoric to convince the reader? If so, does this validate or invalidate her claim? • Does the author use any confusing terms?

11. Disagreeing with Barrett and Rowe • Are the arguments logical? • Is there enough evidence to convince you of what the author is saying? • How easy would it be to disagree with the author? • What arguments are there against what the author is saying?

12. What Does It Mean? • Do the facts that the author uses validate her claim? • “The author argues that college is too expensive because the average college tuition is over $22,000 per year.”

13. What Does It Mean? • Do the facts that the author uses validate her claim? • “The author argues that college is too expensive. She shows that 58% of American students can afford college in 2005, compared to 81% in 1968.”

14. What Does It Mean? • Does the author rely upon rhetoric to convince the reader? If so, does this validate or invalidate her claim? • “The author argues that college is too expensive. She claims that tuition prices are ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’, but she does not tell us why they are ‘absurd.’”

15. What Does It Mean? • Does the author use any confusing terms? • “The author says that colleges don’t provide sufficient incentives to students. It is unclear what she means by ‘sufficient incentives.”

16. What Does It Mean? • Are there contradictory statements? • “The author says that students should be given stipends to attend college. Later, she says that students should not be given a ‘free ride.’”

17. What Does It Mean? • Is there enough evidence to convince you of what the author is saying? • “The author says that college is too expensive. However, she never tells us how much the average college tuition is.”

18. What Does It Mean? • What arguments are there against what the author is saying? • “The author says that college is too expensive. However, government studies show that 95% of Americans can afford college through grants, scholarships, or work programs.”

19. Sample • The author claims that police brutality is not a problem in the US. To support his claim, he cites data that only 2125 cases of police brutality resulted in disciplinary action against officers—a figure far below previous years and below rates in other countries. Infact, his evidence shows a consistent decrease in police brutality over the last ten years. His evidence, however, is misleading because research indicates that only a small percentage of victims of police brutality file complaints. The DoJ reported that in 2002 alone, 665,000 people “experienced a use of force by police” and that “three quarters of them perceived it to be ‘excessive.’” Of these, only 20 percent filed complaints. Obviously, there is a great disparity between the 500,000 people who experienced excessive force by police and 2000 cases of officers being disciplined. This disparity leads me to conclude that the problem of police brutality is larger than he portrays.