How to Do a Critical Thinking Analysis:

Analyzing the Logic of an Article

Below you have a rubric (a guided series of steps) to help you understand
better what you read. Every piece of writing you're given to analyze in this
course has a purpose, seeks to answer some key question, uses information to
support its argument, etc. The most important point for you to keep in mind as
you do these analyses is that you are evaluting an historian's writing, not the
subject the historian is writing about. If, for example, you are doing the
analysis in 1301 on Potter's essay about the Loyalists and you get to the section
on assumptions, you are concerned with any assumptions that Potter may have
made, not any assumptions that the Loyalists were making about the Patriots.
Thus, what you are doing is a meta-analysis, evaluating the quality of the
writing assigned you. We genuinely hope that this may become habitual for
you, with these questions coming naturally to you as you read all manner of
things in the future. This is a very valuable skill, one that will serve you well
the rest of your life.

NOTE: The questions in parentheses are not ones that you have to answer
they are there simply to help you understand what this particular point is
about.

1. 1. The main purpose of this article is: ________________ (Why might

the article have been written? Was the probable audience others in the
field, the average reader, students who have to read this stuff in an
history class?!! Its hard to imagine something written that isnt trying to
convince someone of something. What is that in this article? )
2. 2. The key question that the author is addressing is ______________.
(This may look like the purpose, but it isnt. Is there a question that the
writing addresses and tries to answer? What is that question?)
3. 3. The most important information in this article is _______, _______,
_______, ______. (This is always the longest part of your analysis
because here youll be listing the support the author calls upon to
convince you of what s/he is arguing. Think of the kinds of things that
the author mentions in support of his/her position and list them briefly
here.)

4. 4. The main conclusions in this article are _______, ______, _______,

________. (So what did it amount to? What are we to conclude now that
weve read the article?)
5. 5. The key concept(s) we need to understand in this article is/are
_______, _______. (There may not be anything new and different here,
such as historical consciousness or climate of opinion or the nature of
tyranny, but there may still be some ideas that most people think they
understand but are used differently here or have different meanings,
etc.)
6. 6. The main assumption(s) underlying the authors thinking is/are
_______, _______. (What is the author taking for granted [that might be
questioned]? Most of us make some assumptions when we write, even if
its as simple as My reader will understand this... or Everyone knows
that.... Are there things that the writer seems to be taking for granted
that we might question? Is there evidence that the writer was influenced
by his/her climate of opinion?)
7. 7. What are the consequences of this authors line of reasoning? (Lets
assume that we are convinced by what s/he says. Are there
consequences to that? Maybe it will only shape how we see the past.
Perhaps it will change how we see problems we face today. It might
even change how we think of human nature or how people behave or
how they organize themselves to accomplish common goals or respond
the challenges and threats.)
8. 8. The main point(s) of view presented in this article is/are
___________, _________. (This is often the hardest part for students.
You study POV in your English classes, and your insights there might
help. What seems to be the frame of reference of the writer? Does s/he
show respect or sympathy or disdain, etc. for those people described or
the events portrayed? How does the author seem to look at what is
presented?)