In class, we have reviewed excerpts from Mastermind and Critical Thinking in addition to Prof. Levy’s “Validity” and Prof. Hopper’s “Aristotle’s Proofs of Rhetoric” and “Loving Lit,” and we have discussed the ways in which a writer can approach or attract an audience. Michel Butor and Paul Theroux utilize strategies to target their audiences and offer myriad and oppositional ways of thinking about travel experiences. This way of thinking is what we call critical reasoning.
Now, you will choose a selection (e.g. a page, a paragraph, a subsection) from either the Theroux or Butor selections and write a statement-driven analysis of that section. You will discuss one specific flaw in the writer’s reasoning, in the way he misuses or manipulates information to try and explain away personal responsibility for travel.
When necessary or relevant, you may refer to other sections of the text. Apply some of the “structured procedures” (Konnikova 73) of critical reasoning we have covered in our class discussions to investigate the writer’s claims about reasons for travel.
Choose one of the following options as you discuss the flawed aspect:
How effectively does your selected author use evidence? Does the evidence make the premises and conclusions of the argument strong? Is the evidence accurate, relevant, representative, and sufficient enough to prove the point?
What is the source of the evidence? What authorities are cited to support the premises? Are these authorities reliable and credible? Has the evidence been manipulated in questionable ways?
How does your selected author engage or fail to engage a specific community in his paper? How does the writer treat the targeted community as he or she develops his paper?
Suggestions: Assume you know more about the text and critical reasoning than your readers. As such, make sure you provide readers with enough background and context to understand your argument and the techniques you are using to make them.
Consider the difference between facts and the interpretation of facts. The authors provide us with many “facts,” but how can we employ critical reasoning to interpret those facts and offer more rational explanations for the events of the story and the narrator’s claims about them?
