Social Anxiety Support Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

3,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Man, I hate critiques. I don't understand them for the life of me. I don't know how to be critical. My mind only thinks in one way. It doesn't think much outside the box.

What are the main arguments of each article?
Do the authors make presumptions in presenting the material?
If so what kind of assumptions do they make?
What kind of evidence do the authors use?
What is the source of the evidence?
Are there sufficient interviews to reach unbiased conclusions?
how well does the evidence the author use to support the arguments? (the author presenting his or her opinion)
do the authors have an alternative source of evidence?
do the authors leave out alternative arguments?
Is the material up to date?
Is the article written clearly?

Use the sociological article as the basis for comparison and the articles will be compared and contrasted to the sociological article. Which one is more relevant.

This bites!

Too School for Cool
6,857 Posts
Crritical thinking does not necessarily mean being critical. It's all about defending your opinion of the article. If you think it's awesome, explain why. If you think it sucks, explain why too.

A good rule of thumb is too look at each section of the article (such as the abstract, methodology, conclusion) and ask yourself whether it is well done. If they did a study, did they use 30 participants or 300? If they used 30, that might be a weakness of the study because the results might not be widely applicable. If they used 300, that might be a strength because that might be enough participants to make the results significant.

Basically, it does not require you to be critical (negative), but to think about all the aspects of the article and explain why you think they are well done or not. The questions you posted would be awesome ones of think about and address, as they cover all sides.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts