1. Was there enough evidence and was the type
of evidence used compelling? Why or why not?
2. What other evidence could have been used?
3. Does the author deal adequately with counterevidence
(information that does not support the thesis)? Explain:
4. Was the piece well-organized, with the
argument clearly laid out?
5. Is there anything the author says he/she
is going to do, but does not?
6. Did the author make any leaps in logic
when formulating his/her argument?
7. What are the author’s assumptions
and biases? Where do you see them?
8. Does this author’s interpretation
support or challenge others you’ve read? Explain:
9. Do you agree with the author’s conclusions?
Why or why not?
10. Are you left with any questions? List
them.
