- The base or premise of the claim.
For example, does it claim to apply in all situations? If you can show that a general claim in a premise is false (e.g. all swans are white is not true, there are also black swans) then you will have critically analysed the premise and shown its fault. If the premise is faulty, the whole argument is faulty. You will need to provide examples of exceptions to the general rule that the premise claims to be true to demonstrate critical analysis. Sometimes you can show that the claim should be weaker - it is only sometimes, not always true.
(See example) - The relationship between the premise and the next step(s) and the conclusion.
For example, Theory X worked in situation A and must therefore work in situation B.
Here the premise may be true - theory X did work in situation A - but that is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will work in another situation. This is because a particular instance is being used to make a general claim. (Appropriate logic goes from the general to the particular, not the particular to the general.)To further analyse the claim (to suggest in more detail why it may or may not in practice work in situation B) involves considering the similarities and differences between situations A and B and whether there are the necessary and sufficient conditions in B to produce the same result as in A.
Conditions can include such aspects as time, place (geographical location), social, cultural and economic conditions, education, foreign policy and trading treaties and so on. A necessary condition is an essential component but it may not be sufficient. Usually, to meet sufficient conditions requires a number of necessary conditions being present.
For example, for a car to be driven, it needs parts - wheels, an engine etc. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions. When the car has all its mechanical and other parts in working order and fuel and a qualified driver, then all together, these would meet both the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to be driven.In general terms, because something works in one situation is no guarantee that it will work in another. It is necessary to find out why, under what conditions it works in one situation and to see if the same conditions hold in the second situation. To critically analyse and reject a claim, it may be enough to show that there are enough differences to make the outcome uncertain in situation B
Similarly, sometimes two claims are acceptable, but the conclusion drawn from them is not.
For example, water is necessary for survival; food is necessary for survival; therefore, to survive, we need only water and food. Here again, there is the problem of necessary conditions (water and food) which are not sufficient for survival. Heat, shelter and other things are considered as also necessary (see World Health Organisation charter for basic minimum conditions). Critical analysis for academic purposes often involves considering necessary and sufficient conditions (are there enough necessary conditions to make them sufficient, has anything been left out?).
See also: Argument and Logic
What is an Argument? (in detail) Critical analysis (above) is about how we evaluate and understand other people's work, that is, their argument. How we put together our own claims, how we link ideas is our argument. Academic argument must be based on factual information and previous theoretical claims (even if these are to be rejected) not on personal experience (which is too particular and not generalisable) or beliefs which are not grounded in fact and are therefore not generalisable.
When we write essays or make presentations in seminars, we usually have a choice about how we approach the topic or which particular aspect of the topic we are interested in. We can start off with our own ideas, but we need to be able to demonstrate them.
A good way to begin is to ask the following questions.
- What needs to be true to support my ideas (claims)?
- What theoretical basis is there to support them? Or, what theoretical base considers similar issues which I wish to argue against? (This is more difficult).
- What factual evidence is there for my argument (case studies, legal or other documents or reports-etc.)?
- Can I find the evidence I need (is it available and easily accessible - where and how can I get it)?
- Is there enough evidence to support my ideas (claims) or should I be less ambitious and reduce the focus of my work or think again?
If you cannot find the evidence/information you need, then you will need to adopt an alternative approach. If you can find appropriate evidence, sometimes it will support a view opposing your original idea more easily. This means you can keep the topic you chose but may need to change you orientation (opinion) in the light of the evidence. This is part of the academic process. In researching your essay or seminar presentation you will have discovered new facts or information which have caused you to review your own stand-point. You can, if you wish, mention this in the conclusion. You will produce a better argument if you can find and use evidence to support a particular claim (upon which you base your argument) or give evidence to suggest the claim is weak or false and use this as your argument. You can. of course, use other academics' criticism of claims (using a 'for and against' format).
You need to take a position yourself in your analysis and/or or concluding remarks after your assessment of the evidence but you do not have to support either position. You can mention the merits/demerits/inconsistencies of both. You can suggest the need for more data or research to clarify or strengthen claims, the need for more specificity in the application of models, the need for a new approach, different kinds of data, point out what is missing or not given enough consideration and so on. In other words, you can suggest that the claim has the status of a hypothesis - it may (might) be true, but more research and evidence is needed to clarify/support it.
The whole point of your work will be to demonstrate how you reached this conclusion.
That is your argument - what theory or theories you used, what evidence you used, how you analysed and evaluated them to show what conclusion you came to, the steps in your thinking and thought processes. You need to make sure these are clear to your reader or listener, that you show how the parts link together and how and why you reached the conclusions you did. When you are thinking about a topic, it is useful to play 'devil's advocate', that is, to think about the counter-arguments or criticisms that might be made against your statements. Compare and contrast essays are designed to help you do this.
(See choosing essay titles, brainstorming and methods of note-taking)
What is Opinion in Academic Work? (in detail) Opinion in academic work does not mean personal opinion. It means the view-point or conclusion you come to after considering the evidence for or against a particular theory (analysis/explanation of events) and with reference to factual evidence or the logic structure of someone else's argument. Opinion in academic terms has to be demonstrated using evidence. The role of students is to select evidence which is appropriate and present it in such a way that any intelligent person could come to a similar conclusion (opinion).
For example, undergraduate essay titles often include phrases like:
What is your opinion of the role of the welfare state in Post World War II (1945-55) Britain?
To answer this question involves:
- finding out what the objectives, motives for and focus of the welfare state were in the period mentioned and perhaps choosing an area, for example, health or unemployment (as there will not be enough space in an undergraduate essay to cover all aspects) and looking at government legislation, policy documents and so on.
- considering the logic system of the documents and identifying the underlying argument. In the case of the welfare state, the basic claim would be that the best/quickest way to improve conditions is for the state to take responsibility for welfare. This involves taxation/insurance to pay for the service and also has implications for redistribution (employers contribute to the system, employees benefit, for example).
(A more extreme example. The Contagious diseases Acts of the 1860s in UK were based on the assumption that venereal diseases were passed from female to male and so the way to control venereal disease was to control the activities of prostitutes (effectively, any working class woman.) The Acts were thus basically flawed in their premise (knowledge base and beliefs/attitudes of the time). Men can also pass venereal disease to women, therefore the logic that controlling the activities of women would reduce the incidence of venereal disease was flawed. In practical terms, the Acts had little chance of success because of the flawed premise and this proved to be the case in fact. There are several other issues connected to these Acts, but the most basic is the flawed, implied premise.)
- considering how far these objectives were (or could be, see the extreme example above) successful in bringing about the practical conditions envisaged by the legislation by considering the condition of people in the welfare section you have chosen before and after the legislation. What improved? How did people's lives change? How did they benefit and what sort of benefits were there (e.g. more disposable income).? Were the changes intentional or were there other, unintentional, side effects? How important was the welfare state in improving conditions? Were there other factors which helped (e.g. birth rates, the economic system, etc.) If the motives were merely political, was the government re-elected etc.?
This is using factual evidence to assess what the aims were, how far the aims were successful and how important they were at the time. The theoretical concepts and factual evidence will lead you to give your opinion (in the conclusion) of the role of the welfare state - what its intended role was, what its actual role was (how far intentions were achieved) , how successful or unsuccessful it was and what the repercussions were. You will have done this by considering the (theoretical) objectives, the factual evidence (the situation before and the results after), analysing and evaluating these and, based on the information you have selected, giving your judgement or opinion.