WRITING AN EVALUATION ESSAY
(adapted from Gareth Thomson)
source: Greg Lyons, 4/18/02 to Humanities / Composition MSoutlook

Description

An evaluation (or critique) is a written document which describes an argument that you have read, states your judgment of the argument, and explains to readers the bases of that judgment.  An evaluation, thus, consists of three functional components:

1)   an analysis of the essay being evaluated

2)   judgment of the argument it presents

3)   an argument in support of  your judgment; that is, a discussion of the argument's supporting reasons, evidence, appeals, etc., that demonstrates the validity of the judgment you have made.

Key features

First of all, it's essential that you provide readers with enough description of the argument so they can follow your evaluation of it.  It's also important to present them with a clear judgment.  After all, that is why they are reading your piece.

            Furthermore, readers will discredit your work if your evaluation is too one-sided.  So, while you must make a firm and clear judgment, your judgment should also be balanced, recognizing both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument you are analyzing.

            NOTE:  No argument is bulletproof.  If you want to be hyper-critical you can shoot down any argument.  Remember that some arguments published in textbooks have been condensed by editors to fit available space.  The nature of the original publication or its audience also may have limited the author in one way or another.  So, while evaluating an argument it is important to consider these factors, or else you'll find yourself overly suspicious of every argument.  And even if an argument does deserve to be rejected, most readers will not appreciate watching you completely shred another writer’s work.

Evaluation of an Argument

There are numerous factors you can take into consideration en route to making your final judgment, the most important of which is how well the author supports his or her argument.  The discussion that follows is fairly comprehensive, though by no means complete.  But note that there is no need to evaluate an essay on each and every potential criteria.  Make your judgment utilizing only those criteria that make sense.

            For instance, if the author has an incredibly weak persona, it makes sense to include this as one factor in your overall judgment.  On the other hand, if the author's persona does not stand out for good or ill, it can be ignored in your judgment.  For another example, if the author has conducted extensive and worthwhile research on the subject, it makes sense to consider this (ethos) as one factor in your judgment and to praise the author for it.  In short, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the argument and base your judgment upon those.

As mentioned above, the most important criteria on which to base your evaluation is the author's use of supporting material.  It only makes sense that the quality of the argument depends largely on whether or not the author's reasons are relevant, whether or not sufficient and appropriate evidence is provided, and whether the motivational appeals are effective.

            So, after you have read and fully understood the essay you will evaluate:

1)  Divide the essay up into its component sub-arguments.

2)  If the sub-argument states a reason to accept the author's main claim, jot it down.

3)  Consider if this reason is relevant to the main claim.  Write out why you believe the reason is relevant or not.  If the reason is not relevant, you are finished with that particular sub-argument.  Move on to the next.  If the reason is relevant, you will still have to evaluate the rest of the sub-argument.

4) Now tackle one sub-argument at a time with the intent of identifying and evaluating the material offered in support of the section's sub-claim.

Steps One and Two

Every main claim is supported by a series or chain of sub-arguments, which make and support their own sub-claims.  It makes sense, therefore to divide the essay into its parts--as you did in preparation for your summary assignment.   Once you've divided the argument into its sections, consider the assertion being made in each section as a reason in support of the main claim.   For example, in an essay called “Competition is Destructive,” one reason Kohn provides in support of his main claim is this: "competition is having an equally toxic effect on our relationships."

Step Three

Once you've extracted the reason, you can then evaluate whether or not the reason is relevant to the claim.  If you claim that competition is destructive, is it relevant to offer as support, that our human relationships suffer as a result of competition?  Probably, yes.  Why?  That's tougher.  We could say that the meanings of the key terms in the claim and in the reason are essentially equivalent: a "toxic" negative effect on "our relationships" as a result of competition is equivalent to saying that competition is destructive.   On the other hand, in the essay "No Red Squirrels:  Mother Nature May be Better Off," the author claims that the developers and owners of Mt. Graham ought to be allowed to build an astronomical observatory without being hindered by the Endangered Species Act.  One reason offered in support of this claim is that environmentalists have ulterior motives in their fight to prevent development.  Relevant?  No.  The motives of those in opposition are irrelevant to the issue of whether the observatory will damage the ecosystem on the summit of Mt. Graham.

Step Four

Now you can turn your attention to the information the author uses in support of the section's sub-claim.  What you see below is called a support tree, which identifies the various kinds of supporting material authors typically provide. 

                                                               Support

 

                          Evidence                                                                      Appeals

 

     factual evidence              opinions                                    emotions   needs   values   beliefs

 

examples   stats            judgments   inferences

 

                                                causal   predictive  solutions

 

 

To evaluate the supporting material in an argument, you first need to determine if it is a form of evidence or a motivational appeal.   Appeals are discussed immediately after the discussion of evidence.

Evaluating Evidence

It's plain that many kinds of statements we make need to be supported with evidence.  If, for instance, I assert that women are still discriminated against in the workplace, you have a couple of options.  You could simply accept my statement because you trust me.  Or you could say, "Oh yeah, how do you know this?"  In the latter case, you are asking for evidence.

            Evidence consists of facts and their interpretation, the latter being called opinions or authoritative testimony. 

            Factual evidence consists of a variety of material: observations, examples (real or hypothetical), the raw data from experiments, polls, or surveys, examples, and statistics.

            To evaluate most factual evidence you can simply ask these questions:

            Is the evidence sufficient?  That is, has the writer provided enough material to justify accepting his or her statement?  Or has the writer jumped to conclusions based on too few examples?

            Is the evidence relevant?

            Is the evidence up-to-date or current?  Some evidence can remain current for years, eons...but some data (e.g., in the scientific, technical, and medical fields) is outdated within a matter of a few years.  Check to see if more recent data is available--and if that data confirms or contradicts the evidence at hand.

            Is the evidence accurate?  Is the writer's depiction of the data accurate?

            Is the evidence slanted?  Almost any statement can be supported--if you select the evidence carefully.  Be sure, for instance, that the examples provided by the writer are typical of all examples.  For instance, suppose I say that sodas are harmful, and attempt to demonstrate this by providing two examples of sodas that include esters of wood resin (turpentine) and propylene glycol (similar to anti-freeze).  While my data is accurate, my examples are really not typical of all sodas, since only two sodas contain this stuff (it's true!).

Evaluating Motivational Appeals

People are more than just reasoning minds.  We are a biochemical complex with various physical and psychological needs, appetites, desires, and beliefs.  As such, we are influenced by more than just logical reasons and evidence; we are also motivated to satisfy our needs and wants.  Advertisers know this as do writers of arguments.  Thus, in almost every argument you read, you will find that the author attempts to persuade you to accept his or her claim on the basis of motivational appeals as well as evidence.  If you are to thoroughly evaluate an argument, it makes sense that you should be able to recognize those appeals and understand how to evaluate their legitimacy and effectiveness.

            What is a motivational appeal?   The purpose of a motivational appeal is to convince an audience that doing X will satisfy a particular need or bring about a desirable state.   Appeals can be made to emotions (e.g., pity, fear, guilt), to physical and psychological needs (e.g., safety, esteem), as well as to values and beliefs (e.g., self-reliance, justice, patriotism). 

Appeals to emotion

Appeals to emotion are often framed in concrete images or in narratives.   For example, one student’s argument opposing abortion included a description of the fetus near the end of the first trimester: the little hands, face, etc.  After describing the fetus, she described the horrific procedure--I'll omit the details.  Needless to say, readers can be profoundly moved by such description, our emotions swinging from pity to fear and back again.  While the evidence provided may help us to understand the writer’s point of view, her appeal helps us to emotionally experience her point of view.  We can feel what she and other opponents of abortion feel.   

Evaluating appeals to emotion

If a writer's appeal to emotion intensifies your experience of the issue and helps you experience it from the emotional point of view of the writer, that is fine.  However, appeals to emotion become a problem if they inhibit clear thinking or if the appeal attempts to arouse emotions that are irrelevant or inappropriate to the issue.  For example, one convict, attempting to justify his life of crime, appealed to his audience's sense of pity.  Apparently he had been raised in a lower class neighborhood by parents whose means were limited.  Because he had been denied many of the things he had seen others with, he turned to theft to procure them.  In this case the appeal to his audience's sense of pity is out of order for two reasons:  (a) his thefts exceeded his needs and (b) we might believe that, like everyone else, he had free choice to satisfy his needs by legitimate means.  In this case, the appeal to pity is not legitimate.

            Overall, consider the balance. Does the writer rely heavily on appeals to emotion?  That's a weakness in the argument.  Appeals to emotion should be balanced with logical evidence.  Also watch out for language that seems designed to manipulate your emotions. 

Appeals to needs and values

Writers of ads and argument often appeal to our needs and values.  For example, in an essay proposing handgun controls, one author cited lots of evidence to show handguns are responsible for much of America's crime.  But in addition, he also appealed to his audience's need for safety and security, which he believed could be best accomplished by placing a ban on handguns.

            Is this OK?  Well yes and no.  Actually the issue is not whether this or any appeal is OK, but rather whether it is effective.  In order for an appeal to be effective, it must be "pitched" at those values which the writer's audience have uppermost in their minds.  Consider the following example.

            An amateur astronomer likes a dark sky.  He doesn’t want his neighbors to light up the night with those blasted security lights.  Suppose he wrote a letter to his neighbors, asking them to switch from their current mercury vapor light to a low-pressure sodium light with a full-cutoff fixture.  (The full-cutoff fixture directs light down and prevents light from spilling out the side.)  Clearly the astronomer needs to appeal to his neighbors' values.  For instance, he could appeal to their aesthetic values by describing the beauty of the night sky that they and others are missing out on...the awe and wonder.  Or, he could appeal to his neighbors' needs for security (lights with full-cutoff fixtures  minimize dangerous glare--because they direct the light only where it is needed...on the ground) and to their thriftiness (low-pressure sodium lights use less electricity while putting out the same amount of light).  In the first case (aesthetics) his chances of success are probably about zilch.  In the second case, while slim, his chances are better because his neighbors are more likely to respond to appeals that are pitched to their need for security and economic well-being.

Evaluating appeals to needs and values

First consider whether the author's appeals are effective based on his or her target audience.  Are the needs and values those which are uppermost in that audience's mind?

            Then check to see if the writer provides evidence in support of these appeals.  For example, if the astronomer writes his neighbors, it's not sufficient for him to say they'll save money if they switch to low-pressure sodium lights.  He also needs to provide factual evidence that the cost of switching over is offset over a period of X months due to lower electric bills.  Second, writers often appeal to values such as responsibility, patriotism, etc.  Fine.  But are these terms defined?  If not, who knows what's being appealed to?  If the author's appeal includes abstract terms, are these terms defined?  They should be, or else what readers take to be responsibility may be quite different from what the writer intended

Other Criteria

The following list presents additional elements that can be evaluated in this essay.  These are especially useful to keep in mind as you strive to present a balanced judgment.

            Audience:  While you are not evaluating the argument on audience, per se, it makes sense to identify who the author's target audience is, else you may criticize an author for making appeals that don't move you, when in fact the author was not targeting you.

            Persona:  Ask yourself how effective the author's persona is.  Is it                                        overbearing?  Insulting?  Silly?  Pompous?  Respectful?  Polite, Diplomatic?

            Ethos:  Does the author display the characteristics of good sense, good character, and good will? Or does the author demonstrate that he/she is ill-informed on the issues, mean spirited (i.e., bent on attacking the personalities of those on the opposing side), etc.?

            Credentials:  Is the author qualified to argue on the subject?  How well qualified?  If the author is not qualified, does he or she rely on reliable authorities?  That's redeeming.

            Sources of data:  What are the author's primary source of data?  Is it personal observations?  The results of published studies?  Government documents?  Scholarly journals?  Are the sources cited?  If not, that  may be OK; it would depend on the original place of publication and intended audience.  If sources are specified, you can certainly evaluate their reliability.   The more scholarly the publication, the better; thus, the journal Nature is better than Reader's Digest, which is better than the National Enquirer.

            Concession/Refutation: Does the author consider or ignore the arguments of the opposition?  If the author does acknowledge the opposition (or at least recognize that there are other viewpoints) and chooses to refute these points, the refutation must be evaluated on the basis of how well the author supports his or her point.  If the author concedes a point and you feel this is a good strategy given the context, you can note this in the author's favor.

            Completeness:  Does the author cover all the bases?  Or are certain, crucial issues overlooked?  Obviously, if a crucial issue is overlooked, this would not be a positive sign.

            Organization:  Is the essay organized to make an effective rhetorical impression?  Or do a series of weaker and weaker points bring the essay to a weak close?  Note that some authors do this deliberately because they feel it's essential to start strong.  Still, it's probably a good idea to reserve one strong point to conclude with.  Also consider where the author chooses to state his or her claim.  Is its placement effective?  You could also examine the argument to see if it is organized in the most logical order--entirely up to you.

            Language:  Does the author employ language (e.g., word choice, imagery, metaphors, etc.) in an effective way?  Or do you feel manipulated by loaded language (e.g., "those gun-toting little boys in the NRA..." is not a phrase likely to win critical acclaim since it substitutes the use of put-downs for substantive argument).

Evaluation Essay
URL of this webpage: http://www.cocc.edu/humanities/HIR/Assignments/evaluation_essay.htm