+1 862 207 3288 30%
345-101-MQ
Knowledge
The final assignment will consist of a critical analysis of a pseudoscientific claim or theory
advanced by an individual or a group. A critical analysis paper requires a brief summary
of the claim/theory being analyzed, but the bulk of the paper should consist of your
analysis of the arguments presented by proponents of this pseudoscience, finally ending
with your general assessment. You will need to read the article closely, examining its
assumptions, assessing its reasons and evidence, and weighing its conclusions. Then, in
your critical analysis, you will state the degree of plausibility which you would attribute
to the claim or theory being advanced. Here is a list of potential topic for this assignment:
wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Your assessment in a critical analysis states whether or not there is adequate and
scientific supports the arguments and claims through the logical presentation of
convincing reasons backed up by appropriate evidence. Remember, an argument means
a reasoned presentation of details which contribute to the support of a particular claim
(point of view, or position) concerning a controversial topic. In the critical analysis
assignment you examine how an argument is put together. You then assess the argument
to determine how well the argument achieves its aim and whether it advances a position
that merits credence.
PART 1 – Presentation (10%) APRIL 14TH to MAY 3RD
The presentation (8-10 minutes individually, or 16-20 minutes in pairs) will consist of a
brief synopsis or overview of the topic and your preliminary research on the topic. Why
you have selected it this text? Who is a proponent of this claim/theory and what are the
arguments being advanced in its defense? Where is this claim/theory found and how has it
been disseminated? What else do we know/ should we know about the author? What is
your preliminary analysis and assessment of the argument? I encourage student to look at
the instructions for the essay body paragraphs to guide your research and presentation.
PowerPoint/Prezi presentation is highly recommended, but not required.
PART 2 – Essay (20%) Submitted by MAY 12TH at 11AM on Léa DROPBOX
Your paper will naturally take the form of an argumentative essay as you will argue
whether or not the claim advanced by the author is worthy of belief. Clearly identify the
topic, the author’s main claim (the conclusion of their argument; that which they are
trying to convince us of) in your introduction, as well as quick summary of the argument
advanced in the text and your brief assessment of the argument. The introduction should
consist of at least 250 words. The body paragraphs you will present your detailed
analysis of the argument. The body should be where your analysis is presented. This is
where you will apply the various concepts used throughout the course. The body should be
at least 600 words; you will likely need to allocate more than that if you want to do a
thorough analysis. The conclusion (approx 150 words) summarizes your evaluation of the
author’s argument. Minimum 1000 words.
Intro
What claim or theory (ex. Astrology) are you critically examining? Where is this claim
(theory) found? Who (individual/group) is making this claim? What degree of plausibility
did you ascribe to this claim based on your background information prior to having done
the research (your own observations, background info), and explain?
Body Paragraphs
Present your research and evidence to answer the following questions: Is this claim or
theory testable? Is it scientific? If so, what criteria of adequacy does it satisfy? If it is not
scientific, is it posing as scientific? Have you found evidence to suggest that it is true, or at
least possible? Have you found any research or evidence which suggests that it is false, or at
least not likely? Present all your evidence. It may be possible that you will not be able to
decisively state whether the theory/claim is absolutely true or absolutely false. Is it
possible to prove the true of the claim, or to refute it entirely? Are your sources reliable?
Have you only looked at both sides of the issue? Most importantly, what is required to
prove this theory wrong? Can it be proven wrong or highly likely? Is ‘ad hoc’ reasoning
being employed? What would ‘inference to the best possible explanation’ say? Is it
falsifiable? What is required to prove that this claim is true or false (what test would it need
to pass to be regarded as true?) If it fails, is there a science which does adequately explain
or account for the phenomena in question? If so, what makes this science successful and the
pseudoscience a failure?
Furthermore, if this claim/theory is indeed false, can you think of any negative
consequences which may result from believing in it (ethics of belief)? If so, briefly state
what these negative consequences are (If you did the additional paragraph about negative
consequences [“In addition, we have seen that is it harmful…”]). If you do this, you will then
need to remark on it again in the next paragraph: the actual conclusion.
Conclusion
Give your research, what is your general assessment of this pseudoscientific idea? What
degree of plausibility would you now ascribe to the claim? Was your initial plausibility
assessment correct? Where were you correct? Where were you mistaken? Why do would
you say your research is adequate/complete? Most importantly, given the evidence you
have presented, should a rational person accept your conclusion?
Work Citied
Minimum 3 reliable sources, one of which is an academic source. MLA style specifies
guidelines for formatting manuscripts and using the English language in writing. MLA style
also provides writers with a system for referencing their sources through parenthetical
citation in their essays and Works Cited pages.
Writers who properly use MLA also build their credibility by demonstrating accountability
to their source material. Most importantly, the use of MLA style can protect writers from
accusations of plagiarism, which is the purposeful or accidental uncredited use of source
material by other writers.
GENERAL TIPS
• Summarize the main claim, or thesis, of the article. What is the main point the author is seeking
to make? The author may or may not state this directly, but you should always state your idea of his
or her main claim in your analysis as a complete sentence.
• Try to determine why the text was written. Is there an ongoing debate in other articles about the
topic which has prompted this author to write the article? Is the article directed toward a
specifically identifiable audience? What characteristics, interests, and/or experiences would the
people in this audience have in common?
• Assess the credibility of the author. What is his or her occupation? Personal background? Political
leanings? Sometimes you will need to consult other sources to find information about the author. Is
the text self-serving or can we suspect any biases. Is the author an expert (based on what
qualifications?)? Does his/her expertise conflict with other experts regarding the issue in question?
• Assess the credibility of the main claims. Do any claim conflict with your background
information, our experiences, and the claims of experts? If so, is an adequate account offered to
reconcile discrepancies that would otherwise be detrimental to the argument?
• Is the format of the article indicative of an argument type (deductive/inductive)? Is a deductive
argument used to form a premise, or if the premises supporting the conclusion form a deductive
argument, are they valid? If so, are the premises sounds? Otherwise, are elements of the argument
or the argument itself inductive? If so, is it strong? If so, is it cogent?
• Identify and evaluate the reasons the author gives for making the main claim. Are they really
good reasons? Are they relevant to the main claim? Sometimes authors present only one or two
reasons, often spending much time developing and supporting just one reason. Identify, analyze,
and evaluate the evidence given in support of the reasons. What kinds of evidence are given (data,
anecdotes, case studies, citations from authorities, research studies)? Is the evidence good
(sufficient, accurate, relevant, and credible)?
• Look for fallacies and rhetoric. If you discovery a fallacy, try to discern whether it is employed
intentionally or not. If not, could we rephrase or slightly modify the argument in order to salvage it,
thereby giving the author the benefit of the doubt or is it simply not salvageable? Look rhetoric
such as weaslers such as “on the whole,” “typically,” “usually,” or “most of the time” as well as
euphemisms, dysphemisms, etc.
• Determine what underlying assumptions the author might have. What ideas, beliefs,
philosophies, does the author seem to accept as mutually understood between himself or herself
and the audience? Are these assumptions valid? Note refutations. These are efforts the author
makes to anticipate objections and answer them in advance. Try to determine whether or not the
author demonstrates clearly why these objections, or counterclaims, do not undermine the basic
argument the author is trying to make.
• Note key terms. Does the author define these adequately? Would most readers agree with these
definitions? What clarifications might be needed? Note analogies and comparisons. What
connections does the author make between ideas and concrete examples? Are these appropriate?
Are the things being compared truly similar.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!
