PROFESSOR BOB NOWLAN
 

GENERAL QUESTIONS TO POSE IN CRITIQUING ONE'S OWN AND OTHERS' WRITTEN WORK IN PREPARATION FOR REVISION OF AN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY (BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING CORRECTIONS AT THE LEVELS OF GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, PUNCTUATION, AND MECHANICS)

1. Does the essay follow the directions of the assignment, completely and thoroughly?

2. Does the essay include the explicit articulation of a narrowly focused, precisely stated, and strongly posed thesis of the writer's own?

3. Does the essay argue for a position rather than merely assert an opinion of what the writer thinks, feels and believes?

4. Does the essay argue in a way that is clearly designed to compel serious attention, interest, and response from even those readers who remain highly skeptical of or altogether opposed to the writer's position?

5. Does the essay argue in a way that is clearly designed to at least attempt to convince those who do not already agree with the writer's position to change their position and support the writer's position?

6. Does the essay argue in a way that is clearly designed to at least attempt to persuade those who do not already agree with and support the writer's position not only to change their position to support the writer's position but also to take up this position and act in accord with it in their own lives?

7. Does the essay clearly and precisely define and explain its key terms?

8. Does the essay provide sufficient reasons to support its thesis, are these reasons relevant and effective for the case the essay is making, and are they organized and presented in a logical and compelling manner?

9. Does the essay provide sufficient evidence to support each of its reasons, is this evidence relevant and effective for the case the essay is making, and is it organized and presented in a logical and compelling manner?

10. Does the essay avoid logical fallacies (drawing conclusions without warrant, without adequate justification for so doing)?

11. Does the essay anticipate, respond to, and refute opposition to its position?

12. Does the essay establish and maintain a coherent and logical organization within and among its paragraphs and sections?

13. Does the essay avoid vague, overly general statements, especially in its introduction and conclusion?

14. Does the essay use concrete references in illustrating, citing, and elaborating, and does it consistently use fresh, vital, and active language?

15. Does the essay avoid use of clichés?

16. Does the essay account for its principal assumptions (i.e., its founding premises - what the writer must absolutely believe in order for her to advance the kind of claim and to support it and defend it as she does in the essay) and for the consequences of taking up its position and carrying this out in actual practice to its furthest logical conclusion (i.e., what happens if the writer persuades people to follow and do what he strives to convince them to do)?

17. Does the essay demonstrate that the writer has taken charge of the assignment and made it his or her own by arguing for a position that is clearly his or her own, toward an end or for a purpose that is also clearly his or her own, in a voice and a style which is clearly his or her own, and with a clear and powerful sense of genuine passion and conviction?

18. Does the essay demonstrate that the writer has made sufficient, precise, and effectively relevant and compelling use of his or her own particular knowledge and experience?

19. Does the essay demonstrate the need to take the time to break down the process of composition further into more steps, and, in particular, to give greater attention and care to the process of pre-writing?

20. Does the essay demonstrate that the writer needs to take greater time carefully to review, critique, and revise what he or she has written before turning in or publicly presenting his or her essay?

FIRST CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEWING AND CORRECTING FOR PROBLEMS IN GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, PUNCTUATION, AND MECHANICS

1. Is the writing likely to be consistently clear to an interested and intelligent audience which does not know the writer (and therefore does not know what he or she "means" or "intends")?

2. Is the writing likely to be consistently complex enough to engage the attention of an interested and intelligent audience which does not know the writer (and therefore does not know what he or she "means" or "intends")?

3. Is the writing consistently unambiguous and non-contradictory (other than where the writer clearly intends ambiguity and contradiction)?

4. Is the writing sufficiently fresh and varied to compel the attention of an interested and intelligent audience which does not know the writer (and therefore does not know what he or she "means" or "intends")?

5. What does this sound like when read aloud? How can and should it be corrected so that it will sound even better when read aloud? How can we make sure that an audience which will read this writing rather than listen to the writer's actual speech will be able to understand and respond to what he or she has written just as positively (if not perhaps even more so) than as if the writer were able to take the time to speak directly to this audience and directly to answer the audience's questions?
 

This material is copyrighted (©)