Developing Critical Reviews and Effective Writing Strategies

To develop the critical reviews it is necessary to focus down the scenarios developed in coursework 1 into clear actions and associated issues. The student can use a range of techniques and determine a  collection of themes to narrow down. 15 marks are awarded for this.

Clarification and justification of themes/issues to focus on To allow for depth of analysis the themes or issues are required to be focused down to two or three key topic areas. This section awards 5 marks for the ability to filter the content and select the focus  for the work.

The critical review of issues is split between theoretical underpinning and practical realism. The student is expected to examine each issue and explain from a theoretical perspective the implications and potential actions. This is worth 40 marks. The student then explores the issues from a practical realism perspective using their own experiences, reflective practice and experience within the industry and field. This is worth 20 marks.

Consider Your Audience For The Paper

Decide how your readers will use your document and narrow your message to their interests. Choose details to be included on the basis of the audience’s experience and knowledge of your subject.

Will there be a single reader or multiple readers?
What are the interests of your audience?
How will the readers use your information?
How much do your readers already know about the subject?

If you think your audience will be skeptical because of the data you cite or the polices you advocate, or if you foresee a personality or situational problem in the reader’s accepting your message, deal with the problem up front. Usually this consideration means refuting alternatives and supporting your conclusions with additional evidence and authority. Will there be skepticism?  Is there a personality or situational problem?

Think before you write. Summarize your entire message in two or three sentences at most.

what action your reader needs to take or what action you plan to take. Answer
Who
When
Where
Why
How
And How Much Detail

Next expand this basic outline in to some logical format. Begin with a random list of ideas. Then shuffle your ideas into a logical order, chronological, geographical, most to least significant, categorical, or some other arrangement.

Pose unknowns or problems
State your hypothesis or answer
Present your support material in descending order of significance in most presentation styles
Address and refute any alternative hypotheses or answers
Restate your answer or hypothesis

State your conclusions/recommendations in terms of the audiences needs
Explain your reasons and benefits
Refute objections and address alternatives
Restate your major conclusion/recommendation

Do not write in long hand. The faster speed will improve the tone and give you momentum in getting your ideas down on paper. As you develop this fist draft, do not stop to edit and polish the grammar but rather concentrate on the logical flow of ideas.

We now come to the rather more sinister problem of plagiarism -

 "To purloin the published thoughts or words of another"

 "The wrongful attempt to pass off another's literary mark as one's own"

 "Copying without permission or acknowledgments"

"Come on now : surely you would not submit work that you had not read thoroughly yourself .....would you ?"

Even if you only read over your report / report / essay 20 or 30 times you may not spot simple mistakes like spellging or pu-nc'tuat.ion. Take pride in your work, enjoy it and do not let yourself down by making silly mistakes.

Some advice that you may find useful for assignment report / report / essays, is to put your report / report / essay away when you think it's finished, and do not read it until a day or two later. Repeat this three or four times, and you will find new insight - who knows you may even surprise yourself!

Creating a Reasoned Argument

What kinds of features make some arguments strong, well founded and persuasive, while others are weak and unconvincing, or even baseless?

What is an argument?

An argument is the sequence of reasons that together from an inter linked chain which establishes the content and force of the position put forward.

What is the appraisal process?

Essentially, when considering an argument the following process is gone through: The initial claim is identified The foundations of that claim are then probed, i.e.; question the grounds on which rational support can be given to the claim the solidity, reliability and relevance of the beliefs and evidence are then tested The value of an argument has to do with the reliability and trustworthiness other facts, grounds, evidence and so on that are put forward as contribution to the argument. But also, of the links between the different elements of an argument. In a well conducted argument you do have to produce enough reasons, you must also produce those reasons at the right time and in a cohesive manner if they are to do the job they are required to do.

When a claim is put forward, it invites the reader to consider some form of destination (i.e., conclusion). The reader therefore will question the claim by considering:
What exactly is it you are claiming?
Where precisely do you stand on this issue?
What position are you asking me to agree with as the outcome of your argument?

What information are you going on?
What grounds is your claim based on?
Where must I begin if I am to see whether I can take the step you propose and so end by agreeing to your claim?

Remember, the claim under consideration can be no stronger than the grounds that provide its foundation.

Knowing what grounds a claim is founded on is only the first step towards being clear about the claim’s solidity and reliability. Next it is necessary to check whether those grounds really do provide genuine support for the claim put forward, or whether it is based on irrelevant information. The next series of questions therefore are: Given the starting point, how do you justify the move from these grounds to that claim? What road do you take to get from this starting point to that destination?

Warrants in themselves cannot be taken on trust. Once the principle being relied on is identified the next set of questions the reader will as are: Is this really a good move to make?
Does this route take me to the required destination securely and reliably?
What other general information do you have to back up your trust in this particular warrant?

So aside from the facts that are given as grounds for an argument, its is also necessary to find out what the general body of information, or backing that is presumed by the warrant provided in the argument.

Not all arguments support their claims or conclusions with the same degree of certainty. Some warrants lead to the required conclusion invariably, other do so conditionally or with qualifications - usually, possibly and so on. So, it is necessary to ask: Just how reliably does this warrant lend weight to the given step from grounds to claim Does it support it with qualifications, or does it give at most, the basis for a more or less risky bet?

Most practical reasoning is concerned with what is probably, presumably or possibly the case rather with certainties alone. So it is necessary to look at the different kinds of qualifying phrases (modals) and their characteristics.

Unless faced by one of those rare arguments in which the central step from grounds to claim represent as a certainty, it is also necessary to know under the circumstances the argument might let us down. So, the final set of questions are:

What kinds of factors or conditions throw us off?
What possibilities might upset this argument?
What assumptions are we relying on in trusting this step?