Finding Gaps in Sources

Overall Use“MAN” analysis—ask what is:

M–issing; what information is left out

A–skewed; what use of data is misrepresented or problematic

N–eglected; what point should have been better emphasized

Do an Initial TallyIf book, Google the title and the word “review”; scan then the review for key terms

Reference another article on the same topic to see what parts are missing

Google name; Google name and “resume”

Look for profession, length of employment, reputation of business that employs the author, awards and affiliations. Excessive bias?

Look for conceptual patternsUse GRAB analysis

G--aps: again, check for info left out and for shortcomings; espec. a line of reasoning or claim not developed enough

R--epetitions: check for word-for-word or conceptual; note R often =emphasis; what the author deems as significant

A–nomalies: check for info/words that do not seem to fit

B–inaries: check for opposing ideas that indicate tension; these often are false (there is a 3rd option)

Check the Genre and SyntaxWhat is the genre of the text? Given the genre does the author write within its limits?

Does the author appropriate genre conventions properly? (example: for news stories does the author follow the logic of the format of the inverted pyramid?)

Check punctuation and figures of speech. What do they emphasize? Are they fair? Does the word choice and grammar seem professional and appropriate? Is the tone sincere?

Check the Argument

Are statistics used fairly? Check sample size, random sample, problematic graphs, and “average” defined as mode or mean over the more helpful median.

Is there a balance of pathos, ethos and logos commensurate with the project the author is trying to advance?

Does the author acknowledge other views, concede appropriately, and counter appropriately?

Check the Argument

Be suspicious of non-specific references to studies such as, “Many studies show. . .” and “Experts say. . .”

Surface values: Point out relevant terms or ideas that the author does not mention, has obscured or has repressed. Look for terms or writing that problematically labels or obscures gender, ethnicity, or religion.

Ask , “what does the author not find interesting?”

Is the information and argument given relevant and helpful for its intended primary audience?

Does the date of publication make the text less relevant?

Is damning evidence buried in the document? Does the document purposefully obscure important points?

Are sources cited? Accurate? Relevant?

Check Sources for Relevance

Check the Logics EmployedIs there a clear central claim?

Does the author imply their claim is absolute, when in fact it is relative to certain contexts? What evidence backs the warrant?

Is enough quality evidence given? Quantity?

Do the use of pathos, ethos and logos appeals match the project the author is trying to advance?

Check the Logics Employed

Does the headline match the content of the piece?

Does the author jump to conclusions? Overgeneralize? Stereotype?

Does the author confuse cause with correlation?

Are there problematic (often assumed) definitions of key terms?

Check for Logical Fallacies

Tangential argument? (one pursuing a sidepoint to the main argument)?

Circular argument? (one in which little or no proof is given; instead one repeats the conclusion as a “given”) “There is no statistical chance that anyone but Mitt Romney can win the Republican nomination” (does not deal with variables or issues; sidesteps his own probability of not getting the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination)

Check for Logical Fallacies

Non-Sequitur? (logic does not follow) “Elementary school students’ test scores are low. Therefore we need to cut funding to schools.”

Straw man? (knocks down most vulnerable aspect of opposing argument but doesn’t deal with main opposing pts)

Ad hominem? (impugning person’s character rather than discuss issue and context for that person’ decision or arg.)

Check for Logical Fallacies

Ad populem? (impugning a group’s character) “Patriotic Americans support the war efforts in Iraq.” (implies the group of Americans who don’t support the war are unpatriotic)