Analysis of an Argument
For the Analysis of an Argument task, you will need to analyze the reasoning behind a given argument and then write a critique of that argument.What Is Measured
The Analysis of an Argument task tests your ability to formulate an appropriate and constructive critique of a specific conclusion based upon a specific line of thinking.
Directions
In this section, you will be asked to write a critique of the argument presented. You are not being asked to present your own views on the subject.
Writing Your Response: Before you begin writing, take a few minutes to evaluate the argument and plan a response. Be sure to organize your ideas and develop them fully, but leave time to reread your response and make any revisions you think are necessary. You have 30 minutes to complete your response.
Evaluation of Your Response: Your essay will be given two independent ratings, one of which may be performed by an electronic system that evaluates more than 50 structural and linguistic features, including organization of ideas, syntactic variety, and topical analysis. Trained raters with backgrounds in various subject-matter areas, including management education, will also evaluate the overall quality of your thinking and writing. They will consider how well you—
- identify important features of the argument and analyze them,
- organize your analysis of the argument presented,
- provide relevant supporting reasons and examples, and
- control the elements of standard written English.
Strategies
There are several basic steps you can take to be certain that you answer the questions that are being asked.
- Ask yourself questions
Your task is to analyze and critique a line of thinking or reasoning. Get used to asking yourself questions like the following:
- What questionable assumptions might underlie the thinking?
- What counterexamples might be raised?
- What additional evidence might prove useful in fully and fairly evaluating the reasoning?
- Use well-developed illustrations and examples
When discussing alternative explanations or counterexamples, introduce illustrations and examples drawn from your observations, experiences, or reading. Do not simply list examples; develop them.
- Make your response read like a discussion
Your finished response to this writing task should not read like an outline. It should read like a discussion with full sentences, a coherent organizational scheme, logical transitions between points, and appropriately introduced and developed examples.
Scoring Guide
This section is designed to give you an idea how your essay will be scored. There are sample essays and answer explanations for scores of 2, 4, and 6 based on the following topic:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.
“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
OUTSTANDING: 6
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
A typical paper in this category—
- clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully;
- develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions;
- effectively supports the main points of the critique;
- demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety; and
- demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws.
STRONG: 5
A 5 paper presents a well-developed critique of the argument and demonstrates good control of the elements of effective writing.
A typical paper in this category—
- clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally thoughtful way;
- develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions;
- sensibly supports the main points of the critique;
- demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety; and
- demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws.
ADEQUATE: 4
A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing.
A typical paper in this category—
- identifies and analyzes important features of the argument;
- develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions;
- supports the main points of the critique;
- demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with reasonable clarity; and
- generally follows the conventions of standard written English but may have flaws.
LIMITED: 3
A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in analytical writing skills and in its control of the elements of writing but is plainly flawed.
A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
- does not identify or analyze most of the important features of the argument, although some analysis of the argument is present
- mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly
- is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
- offers support of little relevance and value for points of the critique
- does not convey meaning clearly
- contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics
SERIOUSLY FLAWED: 2
A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing skills.
A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
- does not present a critique based on logical analysis, but may instead present the writer’s own views on the subject
- does not develop ideas, or is disorganized and illogical
- provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support
- has serious and frequent problems in the use of language and in sentence structure
- contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that interfere with meaning
FUNDAMENTALLY DEFICIENT: 1
A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing skills.
A typical paper in this category exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
- provides little evidence of the ability to understand and analyze the argument
- provides little evidence of the ability to develop an organized response
- has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure
- contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that results in incoherence
BLANK OR OFF TOPIC: 0
Any of the following will result in a score of “zero”:
- off-topic or blank response
- in a foreign language
- merely attempts to copy the topic
- consists only of keystroke characters
