summary and critique of a reading

I needed help with this assignment. we need to summarize and do a critique for this reading. The rest of the instructions are included in the documents I have uploaded.

Assignment 1 – Summary and Critique
First do the Martin or Ogden reading
The summary and critique is 5 double-spaced pages long. Part of the point of the
assignment is to summarize and critique succinctly. Don’t underestimate the challenge of
summarizing a source, it may seem straightforward, but it is fairly difficult. The summary
should cover both the main thesis of the source and three or more of the main points of
the argument. Make sure you clearly identify the main argument and several supporting
arguments, and make sure to do more than just quote your source, any source quotation
should be explained in the summary.
The critique is a bit tougher, but again, this is part of the challenge of the assignment.
Although you may get lucky and get inspired immediately, another way to come up with
a critique is to read and think about the source for a while. This assignment thus gauges
your ability to analyze text. There are several kinds of critique you can make:
a)
Citing factual inaccuracies (the author gets their facts wrong). For this kind of
critique, I would like you to do more than just listing mistakes, you should explain why
they are mistakes and try to see if these mistakes are indicative of a bigger problem, bias,
etc.
b)
Citing contradictions (the author says two things that conflict with each other).
Again, citing the contradiction is not enough, you have to try to understand how it
happened (e.g., how the author’s assumptions led to contradictions) or show how the
contradiction harms the author’s argument.
c)
Criticizing the scope of the argument (the author leaves out important
information). Be very careful with this kind of critique, as the readings for the course are
often part of a larger source, you don’t want to critique an author for something they
address later in the source.
d)
Demonstrating that the article is confusing or misleading (the author didn’t write
very well). This kind of critique is also difficult; sometimes a source is confusing as you
simply haven’t understood it. Make sure you have clear and well described reasons for
claiming that an author is confusing or misleading. This is a good critique to use if you
think the author has a hidden agenda.
e)
Citing arguments that invalidate the author’s conclusions (the author’s argument
is wrong as someone else has presented new or challenging evidence). As you don’t have
a lot of room, this kind of critique is tricky, but not impossible. It is good as it forces you
to consider other sources, and it can frequently be easier than coming up with your own
critique. Just be sure to cite the source of your arguments when you do this.
f)
Criticizing the relevance of the argument (saying that it doesn’t matter). This is
also risky, but sometimes the author is making a point that is not that significant. You
should only use this sort of critique if you feel that the author’s argument is not relevant,
even by his or her own standards.
Another general point is that you can look for book reviews of the source in question in
order to find critiques, but you MUST be sure to properly reference these sources if you
choose to use them. However, you do not need to give references for points from
Martin’s text in the summary.
I want your opinion in a critique, not just other people’s ideas. You can refer to yourself
in a paper (I believe, etc.), but you must make sure to back up your beliefs with good
arguments and well-researched facts.
Be sure to be fair to the author in question, if you think they are wrong you should have
an argument as to why they are wrong, pointing a finger alone does nothing. Do not
criticize authors for things they could not have known, or for things that are irrelevant to
their topic.
Finally, individual periodic spelling mistakes did not lose you any marks, but in the
aggregate they can lead to lost marks. The general criteria is comprehensibility, if it is
difficult to understand what you mean then there is a problem.
The balance of the assignment should be about 2/3 summary and 1/3 critique, so
approximately 3 pages of summary and two pages of critique (double spaced, 1 inch
margins and 12 point font). If you refer to sources other than Martin or Ogden, I need a
full bibliographic reference and reference to page number (in a footnote, endnote, in-text
reference or in a bibliography).
Rubric
Summary:
Is it clear (out of 2)
Does it cover the author’s main argument? (out of 3)
Does it cover several of the author’s main supporting points? (out of 3)
Does the student use technical concepts correctly? (out of 2)
Mark out of 10
Critique
Is it clear? (out of 2)
Is it fair? (out of 2)
Is it relevant? (out of 2)
Is it convincing/sound? (out of 4)
Mark out of 10
Total mark out of 20