The Rational Critic (I obtained this from Prof. R. Scott (COM)

I. What is the central idea of the message?

II. What are the major arguments which taken together support that central idea?

A. Are there major arguments which do not support the central idea?

B. Do the arguments make a reasonable case for the central idea, given the audience for the message?

C. Do the arguments account for the main objections which a real or potential opponent might make effectively with this audience?

Do they deal with "the issues"?

D. Are there too many arguments for people to handle and, therefore, confuse the central idea?

III. Are the arguments arranged in an order which makes the most sense for this audience?

A. What is that order?

B. If there are breaks in the order are there reasons for those breaks?

IV. What kind of arguments are used?

A. Does the message tend to emphasize one kind of argument over another?

B. What does the type of arguments used tell you about the kind of thinking behind the arguments?

C. Do the arguments make sense?

1. Do they follow from data to claim?

2. Are they consistent with one another?

V. What is the nature of the evidence used?

A. What kind of evidence?

B. How much evidence?

C. How good is the evidence for this audience?

VI. Overall evaluation: To what extent does the message provide for the receiver a clear central idea supported by arguments and evidence which the receiver will find reasonable and sufficient?

A. Remember, to be critical of a message on these grounds is not to say it is not effective. It may be effective on other grounds.

Judith de Luce, Department of Classics, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056