Part 1: Do you see a problem with the authors having a vested interest in the view presented, why or why not?
Whether you do or do not see a problem; what are the gaps in this view, what assumptions are necessary for it to work or not work because of the validity of the assumptions.
In other words this is one view, so what do you think works, or does not work and why.
Back up your thoughts with other sources and other readings (i.e. references), besides the text.
Part 2: NEXT, I want you to pick a chapter that appeals to you, in terms of you being interested in that topic area. The chapter presents the authors view point on that topic. You are going to critique the chapter you select.
For your critique of the chapter you picked, I want you to first give a short summary of the chapter. Two to four paragraphs on what the authors are saying. Then I want you to decide whether or not they made their argument, i.e., did they present the topic in a fashion that they made their point or not? This is in your opinion but I then want you to show me how they made their point or how they did not. What arguments did they make that proved their point of view on that topic or where did their arguments fail to make their point.
Basically I am asking you to critically look at their writing and show me why they have a good supporting argument or why they have not. I want a blind acceptance of the authors or any other particular point of view but a reasoned acceptance, rejection or a modification of their view. This is critical analysis, a very necessary skill.
