a. Identify the work being criticized
b. Present thesis – argument about the work
c. Preview your argument – what are the steps you will take to prove your argument
II. Summary/Evaluation of the work
a. Does not need to be comprehensive – present only what the reader needs to know to understand your argument.
b. Where does the argument go wrong (look back at the Rebuttal PowerPoint)?
III. Your argument
a. Your argument will likely involve a number of sub-arguments –mini-theses you prove to prove your larger argument true.
For example, if your thesis was that the author’s presumption that the world will soon face a “clash of civilizations” is flawed because he inadequately specifies his key concept, civilizations, you might prove this by: i. Noting competing definitions of civilizations ii. Identifying how his examples do not meet the example of civilizations iii. Argue that civilization is so broad and non-specific that it is not useful
b. This should be the bulk of the paper – I want to read your argument about the work, not a summary.
a. Reflect on how you have proven your argument.
b. Point out the importance of your argument
c. Note potential avenues for additional research or analysis