for my writing class I need to do a critique essay. here are some of the instructions for you to come up with some thorough, specific and detailed critique [please read the instructions properly before starting to critique, I already asked this question here and the responses i got are exactly what the instruction says not to do. So people did not read the instruction.]

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

- 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?* -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.