Reading Analysis and Presentation plus sample

Guidelines for Reading Analysis Presentations 1 & 2

Sign-up for one reading during Weeks 3 or 4 and one reading during Weeks 5, 6 or 7. Make a note of the article titles and presentation dates that you sign up for below.

Reading analysis 1 article: __________________________  Presentation date: _______________

Reading analysis 2 article: __________________________  Presentation date: _______________

You will be presenting your analysis in class along with two to five of your classmates. The class will be counting on you to be on top of the article you are covering, so please be prepared!

This assignment is worth 30 points – to receive credit, you must participate in the presentation of your analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded.

Before you begin your work, examine the Evaluating Arguments handout.

Read the article you will be analyzing carefully. If possible, read it twice. On your first reading, just try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and the flow of the piece. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully; notice how the writer constructs his or her argument. You will probably want to mark up your text and/or take notes.

To prepare your written analysis:

Identify the author’s name and the title of the article. Answer the following questions. Put your answers in outline form (see sample analysis on the reverse side of this sheet).

1.     What is the central claim (or thesis) of the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that your claim should cover the whole article. (10 points)

2.     Is the central claim expressed explicitly or implicitly? The claim is explicit if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only implies the claim but does not state it outright. (1 point)

3.     What reasons link the evidence to the claim? In other words, why does the evidence support the claim? Reasons may be presented explicitly or implied. (7 points)

4.     What evidence does the writer present to support his or her claim? Specify and categorize the evidence (e.g. examples, personal experiences, analogy, authoritative opinion, facts, statistical data, cause-effect reasoning, results of scientific experiments, comparison, interviews, etc. – see sample on back). Do not answer this question with detailed quotes or paraphrases from the article! For additional guidance, see the table of Kinds of Evidence on pp. 91-4 of your textbook Writing Arguments. (7 points)

5.     Comment briefly on the persuasiveness of the article by answering one or more of the following questions.  (5 points)

·      Is the argument convincing? Does it rely on emotional, ethical, and/or logical appeals?

·      Are there flaws in the reasoning of the argument? Does it rely on questionable sources?

·      Does understanding the argument require knowledge of the historical or cultural context in which it was written?

·      How do the style, organization, and/or tone contribute or detract from the persuasiveness of the argument?

·      What is your personal reaction to the article?

SAMPLE ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul

Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice, focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the activity (Explicit).

Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner works to notice and eliminate errors through practice.

Evidence:

• Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than unfocused just-for-pleasure practice.
• Marcus cites studies that show that working to improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just spending more time practicing.
• Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
• Research on practice sessions of pianists published in the Journal of Research in Music Education indicates that the best pianists put a stronger focus on immediately fixing errors so they do not occur again. 

Comment: The argument is fairly persuasive because, as presented, it makes good logical sense (logos = logical appeal) and basically validates my personal experiences. The results of the studies on the musicians’ practices made the argument much more credible (ethos = ethical appeal) and convincing to me. In fact, I would have liked hearing about the studies in more detail. I liked the author’s use of the example of learning to play an instrument because I could relate to it (pathos = emotional appeal) and it made the argument more “real” for me. Perhaps, for the same reason, the article might be less interesting and compelling to someone without any formal musical experience.

Guidelines for Reading Analysis Presentations 3 & 4 on The Ethics of What We Eat

Sign-up for one set of chapters for Weeks 9, 10, or 11 and one set of chapters for Weeks 12, 13, or 14. Make a note of the chapter numbers and presentation dates that you sign up for below.

Reading analysis 3 chapters: ________________________  Presentation date: _______________

Reading analysis 4 chapters: ________________________  Presentation date: _______________

You will be presenting your analysis in class along with two to five of your classmates. The class will be counting on you to be on top of the chapters you are covering, so please be prepared!

This assignment is worth 30 points – to receive credit, you must participate in the presentation of your analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded.

Before you begin your work, examine the sample analysis on the back of this sheet.

Read the chapters you will be analyzing carefully. If possible, read them twice. On your first reading, just try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and the flow of the piece. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully; notice how the writer constructs his argument. You will probably want to mark up your text and/or take notes.

To prepare your written analysis:

Identify the author’s name and the title of the article. Answer the following questions. Put your answers in outline form (see sample analysis on the reverse side of this sheet).

6.     What is the central claim (or thesis) of the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that your claim should cover the whole article. (10 points)

7.     Is the central claim expressed explicitly or implicitly? The claim is explicit if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only implies the claim but does not state it outright. (1 point)

8.     What reasons link the evidence to the claim? In other words, why does the evidence support the claim? Reasons may be presented explicitly or implied. (7 points)

9.     What evidence does the writer present to support his or her claim? Specify and categorize the evidence (e.g. examples, personal experiences, analogy, authoritative opinion, facts, statistical data, cause-effect reasoning, results of scientific experiments, comparison, interviews, etc. – see sample on back). Do not answer this question with detailed quotes or paraphrases from the article! For additional guidance, see the table of Kinds of Evidence on pp. 91-4 of your textbook Writing Arguments. (7 points)

10.  Comment briefly on the persuasiveness of the article by answering one or more of the following questions.  (5 points)

·      Is the argument convincing? Does it rely on emotional, ethical, and/or logical appeals?

·      Are there flaws in the reasoning of the argument? Does it rely on questionable sources?

·      Does understanding the argument require knowledge of the historical or cultural context in which it was written?

·      How do the style, organization, and/or tone contribute or detract from the persuasiveness of the argument?

·      What is your personal reaction to the article?

SAMPLE ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul

Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice, focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the activity (Explicit).

Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner works to notice and eliminate errors through practice.

Evidence:

• Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than unfocused just-for-pleasure practice.
• Marcus cites studies that show that working to improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just spending more time practicing.
• Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
• Research on practice sessions of pianists published in the Journal of Research in Music Education indicates that the best pianists put a stronger focus on immediately fixing errors so they do not occur again. 

Comment: The argument is fairly persuasive because, as presented, it makes good logical sense (logos = logical appeal) and basically validates my personal experiences. The results of the studies on the musicians’ practices made the argument much more credible (ethos = ethical appeal) and convincing to me. In fact, I would have liked hearing about the studies in more detail. I liked the author’s use of the example of learning to play an instrument because I could relate to it (pathos = emotional appeal) and it made the argument more “real” for me. Perhaps, for the same reason, the article might be less interesting and compelling to someone without any formal musical experience.