[dont give me hints, or small points, or propmts or question. I have to submit tonight. so please give me points that will be helpful.]

for my writing class, I need to plan an essay critiquing two articles that have the same topic but different views. I am struggling to find some strong points to critique from these articles as I am not familiar with this sort of writing. I need some strong and very specific points from the articles to critique. I don't need an essay, but some specific points to critique and how to critique them would be helpful. here are the two articles-

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-09/los-angeles-school-board-to-vote-on-student-vaccine-mandate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-need-school-age-vaccine-mandates-to-end-the-covid-pandemic/

some things to consider -

1. please don't talk about how logical, clear and organized the articles are as they can be said about any articles posted in newspapers.

2. if you mention bias please mention which specific type.

3. don't talk about how counterarguments or the other side is not represented.

4. don't write what went well, criticize what did not go well.

5. be as much specific as possible.

6. use vocabs that are used for critique essays.

7. please read the instruction of the essay below-

Interacting with Sources

Basic Instructions:

perform a detailed critique. What makes their argument effective or ineffective? Does it rest on questionable premises? Does their evidence fail to substantiate their claims as well as they think it does?*

Once you have done this for both of your sources, weigh in a little. What are your thoughts on all of this?

Advice for Sources:how to set yourself up well! -The author of the source should be the person making the argument. If you're getting an argument second hand so that you're summarizing somebody's summary or somebody's distillation of or reportage on a viewpoint, that doesn't work for this assignment.

-Let's expand on that. Something like procon.org which is a compilation of arguments made by people on opposing sides of a given topic isn't a good source. Textbooks summarizing different perspectives on a topic also don't lend themselves to the kind of summary or analysis required for this assignment. Editorials often work quite well. Certain blog posts can work. Live, recorded debates can work depending on the format. News stories don't work. Interviews usually don't work. White Papers are kind of hit or miss. Peer reviewed journal articles typically don't work. Also, try to get your sources natural and unprocessed. -Make sure the sources you're engaging with are argumentative and complex. There should be enough substance there to allow for detailed critique. -Make sure you can take their position seriously enough to perfrom disciplined critique of their argument without slipping into counter arguments or derisive comments about the author or their position. -Feel free to ask if you have questions about a source. Getting this part of the assignment right is critical!

Writing Effective Summaries: the "friend test" and the "yeah, that's about what I said" test

-Read carefully. I often have to say, "that's notquite what they're saying."

-Can a person who hasn't read the source get a fairly accurate and comprehensive sense of what and how the author argues from your summary? If you have a willing friend, it's not a bad idea to give the summary to them and see if they can reconstruct the author's argument in their own words. How accurate is the impression they came away with? Did anything confuse them?

-Represent their argument as fairly, and objectively, as possible. If you gave the author your summary of their argument, you would want them to approve of what is included in the summary and how it is presented.

-Summarizing, by its nature, requires selectivity. It's impossible for the summary to include everything in the source, but it should include everything essential to the author's argument. Ultimately, you'll need to make some judgment calls, so try to use your best judgment.

-An effective balance of quoting and paraphrasing will be essential to conveying critical information about the style and content of the author's argument as economically as possible. -After writing the critiques, it's a good idea to revisit your summaries. Do they provide sufficient context for the critiques? -These tend to sound better if you can avoid referring back to the author every other sentence once it's clear that you're summarizing someone's argument, not making your own.

Writing Strong Critiques:

-Discuss your source's argument, not the issue! This is a good thing to be particularly vigilant about because it's easy to slip from one to the other without entirely realizing it. For most of the points you make in your critique you should be able to point to the specific sentences that illustrate the point you're making.

-What we're talking about with the critique isn't a mere description of what the argument does (i.e. this author refutes counterarguments, they use data, they use examples of x, y, or z.). Nor is it a purely subjective valuation (I liked the fact that this author did x, y, and z. They made this point which was a strong point. I agree with them when they say a, b, and c.). Rather it's a detailed assessment of what precisely is effective or ineffective about the argument and what precisely makes these aspects of it effective or ineffective. -Please don't talk about "counterclaims," "calls to action," "logos," "ethos," or "pathos." Please don't say these things. It's also probably a good idea to refrain from making sweeping claims about "credibility."

-Your source's readers are not a monolith. Avoid sweeping assumptions about effects upon readers. Do not claim that something your source does "makes the reader think________," or "compels the reader to believe that_________." At least hedge if you're going to speculate.

-So whatshouldyou talk about? The possibilities are endless, but here are a few thoughts: (1) Does the author represent their opposition fairly? Keep an eye out for strawmen, bulverism, and low-hanging-fruit. (2) Consider checking the author's sources. Are their claims well-sourced?** If they cite a study, does the study show what they're claiming it shows? Consider how recent the study is, how large its sample size was, and whether it is representative of the broader body of research on the topic. (3) Are the author's facts, statistics, and quotations adequately (and accurately) contextualized? (4) Most importantly, does the author's reasoning sufficiently support the main claim? Do their conclusions actually follow from their premises? -Be analytical! Avoid making claims about the source or the argument that are overly vague, subjective, arbitrary, or dismissive. "She uses connotative language" and "She writes in a direct, matter of fact style" could be said about almost any editorial. Such statements come off sounding like filler. -Be honest about what your source is and what it is trying to do. Don't accuse the author of neglecting questions that are clearly outside the scope of their argument or for not doing things that it wouldn't make any sense for them to do given the genre of the piece. If the author is making a fairly complex argument and/or is capable of sympathizing with both perspectives on the topic, don't automatically interpret any disclaimers or points of agreement with the other side as weakening their argument. -Interpret statements sensibly. No Amelia Bedelia-isms. -There is no mandatory number of discrete points that your critique is required to make. Ultimately, you should aim for at least enough material to fill a few paragraphs or one long paragraph (without fluff). Quality is more important than quantity. Focusing on making quality critiques rather than striving for a specific number of critiques (or a certain amount of page space) is a good way to avoid grasping at straws.

Does this seem like a lot to take in?

Keep in mind that as long as you hand it in on timeyour draft of this paper will not affect your grade in any way. And we'll have lots of time during the group feedback session to discuss your draft and talk about how it could be more effective, and after getting feedback there will be plenty of time to revise in accordance with that feedback. Historically, I've always been pretty reluctant to tell anybody, "this won't work!" when looking at their draft. I'm pretty open-minded and I'm interested in helping you find ways to make what you want to do fit within the parameters of the assignment.

Stumped?

Feel free to come talk to me if you're struggling to come up with a topic or if you have more general questions about the assignment. I don't want to comment too extensivelybefore the feedback session, but I'm happy to discuss topics or approaches more generally with you as much as you like.

Grading Criteria:

-Does the paper consist of summary and critique?

-Is it clear when a source is being summarized and when it is being critiqued?

-Are personal opinions on the topic and attitudes toward the sources withheld until the end of the paper?

-Are the summaries clear, coherent, fair, accurate, and comprehensive? -Are the critiques honest, fair, detailed, nuanced, and insightful?

-Are sentence-level choices effective?