I. HOW DO I ANALYZE AN ARTICLE?
II. WHAT DO THE WORDS PATHOS, ETHOS, & LOGOS MEAN?
III. HOW DO I WRITE AN OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE SUMMARY?
IV. HOW CAN RIVAL CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS FOLLOW
CONCLUSIONS?
I. To analyze means to "take apart logically a whole discussion [essay, speech, theoretical
debate, sermon, or classroom lecture] to consider the parts in comparison with established
criteria." We ask questions that allow us as readers/listeners to understand the text in a
broad context. Critical thinkers begin with these questions as criteria:
Questions to Ask:
1. Who is the author? Is s/he an expert in the field? Has s/he written or researched this
before? What degrees or work experience does the writer/speaker have? Is the person a
member of any well known organization or political/religious group? Does the writer
hope to persuade the audience or just inform us?
2. Who is the primary audience [to whom was the piece written?] Can we include
ourselves in the secondary audience? Do you feel the author is speaking to you or to
others, not you?
3. Can you paraphrase [write in your own words] the main argument(s) after finding the
thesis sentence [look in paragraph 2 or 3]. State the problem/claim/main assertion.
4. Locate and identify the specific types of real evidence the presenter gives to prove the
thesis problem is real. Look for examples with statistics, reasons with evidence, first hand
observations, reports from earlier research on the topic, and quotes from experts in the
field that have references you can check out. If evidence is lacking, note this. If the
evidence doesn't make sense, note this.
5. Look for examples of language: propaganda or logical fallacies that try to persuade us
without proof. Consider why the presenter wants to fool us.
6. Look for specific examples of "loaded language, buzz words, weasel words,
euphemisms, figures of speech" that show the author's feelings, emotions, point of view.
Write the author's point of view in a clear sentence. Identify his/her bias and give reasons
for that prejudiced opinion. If this is not clear, read other things the author has written;
compare other examples of his language to "emotional phrases" in this essay or speech.
7. Read the last two paragraphs or the final section to identify the conclusion. Write the
author's recommended solution to the problem in a sentence. If s/he recommends some
action, write down "who should do what and how" to solve the problem, according to the
author. If the essay has two opinions or sides/points of view, write both conclusions/calls
to action as "point vs. counter-point."
8. Decide if you believe the conclusion really solves the problem, given the evidence.
Decide if you would solve the problem this way or some other way. Are there other rival
causes for this problem that were not mentioned? Did the author's bias cause him/her not
to consider all of the reasons for a complex problem: economic, psychological, cultural,
religious, historic practices, political, etc.
RULE: List evaluation criteria first, read essay; underline and label the parts according to
the criteria, evaluate the evidence as it applies to
 claim/problem +
 reasons/evidence + conclusion/recommendation +
 use of persuasive language +
 consideration of other possible causes or conclusions
II. According to Aristotle, practicing the art of rhetoric is "the ability to see the available
means of persuasion in an essay or discussion." He described three main forms of
rhetoric: ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos is an appeal based on the character of the
speaker/author. An ethos-driven document relies on the reputation of the author. Logos is
an appeal based on logic or reason. Documents distributed by companies or corporations
are logos-driven when they provide real solid evidence for the conclusion. Scholarly
documents are also often logos-driven. Pathos is an appeal based on emotion.
Advertisements tend to be pathos-driven. When analyzing articles, it is a good practice to
make notes on these three appeals:
Pathos





emotional value judgment words, personal connotations, obvious bias
propaganda and logical fallacies used to persuade
psychological manipulation of tone with tear-jerking stories or anecdotes
figures of speech and analogies that are emotional
love/hate/fear words that raise anxiety or cause fear
Ethos






the honesty of the author/researcher
the quality of sources in the reference list and foot notes/refereed journals
the author's certification, degrees, past work experience
the level of moral responsibility as "purpose for writing"
the quality of factual evidence that supports the argument
consistent definitions of terms as denotations, not jargon mixed with connotation
Logos






statistics that are reliable and valid
facts that can be proven or measured
quotes from authorities respected in the field for past research
valuable references that are up-to-date and correctly cited
use of past research to establish a new hypothesis or thesis
workable call to action or recommendation that considers a broad context
Exercise: Read the essay by George Orwell, "What is Science?" List on paper these
criteria. Fill in from your notes.
1. What do you know about George Orwell as an expert? What did he write? What
point of view does he have on most topics? Where did he live, when? Note things that
worry him in the essay. Explain how the time and place [Germany, late 1940s]
influenced Orwell's thinking. Look up on line "Animal Farm" for a critique of
Orwell's philosophy on politics and government.
2. State the audience and publication Orwell addresses in this essay [primary
audience]. See the purpose of the essay as both "defining science education" and
"arguing for a way of thinking for problem solving."
3. Write the thesis sentence to explain the problem/issue [concerning the dangers of
allowing a small group of scientists to control public opinion on issues in politics,
philosophy, and humanities; write down Orwell's concern for the general citizens.
4. Write down 5 assertions [main points] Orwell lists to prove his thesis. For each
write the type of evidence he uses to convince readers. What are his reasons for
arguing that scientists are not "all knowing, or honest" men.
4. Find words and phrases that show Orwell's bias against a narrow definition of
"science as smug," List his values for a broad view of science as a basic way to
examine life in a democratic society. List 3 assumptions you make about Orwell as a
man: What do you think was important to him? Why? Identify words/phrases that you
found that say this; consider "method, apologist, attitude, prestige, pendulum swings,
sane men in a world of lunatics."
5. Find phrases that show "ambiguous language" like the definition of "science" as
the exact study of chemistry vs. as a method of clear, logical thought all educated
people need. Look for "vague words" that have more than one meaning: like
"problem-centered thinking" of lab scientists vs. philosophers. Find a few emotional
connotations [personal meaning to Orwell—show bias and values]. Identify at least 3
fallacies Orwell uses to convince us: Look for over-generalization, people speaking as
authorities who are not experts, name calling, false dilemma.
7. In the final three paragraphs, write Orwell's opinion about "science education as a
method." What will (in his opinion) solve the problem in science education? List his
recommendations to the people reading the essay.
8. Consider the implications [outcomes for us today] given our definition of "science and
technology" as "the way to solve human and global problems. Write one
recommendation you could add to Orwell's conclusion [for us as the
secondary reading audience].
III. WRITING AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY of a scientific or academic article, never
write over 10% of the total words in the article. Summaries run between
100 and 200 words in publications.
Do not include your opinion. Include these data in some rational order.
Combine as many parts as possible in the first two sentences.
1. Author, title, source, year of publication
2. Thesis sentence or hypothesis and author's 3 main assertion(s)
3. Theory behind the research question
4. Type of essay/purpose [expository, narrative, satire, research study]
5. Intended audience [primary and secondary]
5. Tests or procedures followed with a short statement of outcomes
6. Conclusion, recommendation, call to action
7. Acknowledge bias if bias is obvious
SUBJECTIVE SUMMARY when requested includes your opinion on these criteria:
1. The validity of the author/researchers and their methods for collecting and
studying the data
2. Agreement or disagreement that the conclusion/call to action answers the question
presented in the thesis research question—does the solution follow from the
reasons given? If logical fallacies are evident, point out the type and say how the
author used each one.
3. Agreement or disagreement with the conclusion/recommendations as they apply
to the theory.
4. NEVER SAY you liked it or didn’t like it…that is not important to a researcher or
to a college instructor. Show that you understand the argument and its outcome.
Show that you can analyze and evaluate the parts of the essay.
IV. HOW CAN RIVAL CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS FOLLOW
CONCLUSIONS?
Because most problems or behaviors we consider in college courses are complex, and
because scientists are constantly re-testing hypotheses under new conditions to verify
conclusions, no one cause is usually the entire answer. Yet we know that too often
persuasive salesmen try to convince us with one type of evidence so we must constantly
question the evidence and ask "What else could have caused this outcome?"
With both research articles and ads, begin by looking at the purpose, what organization
supported or paid for the project? Was there a profit motive? If someone made money on
the project, who gained and who was injured or not included in the study?
Was "the cause" discussed just one step in a longer, causal chain of events? What group
of people, animals, or events did the researcher study? Did those people or groups share
any particular characteristics that make them unique or different from larger groups: i.e.,
all females over age 50, all under-weight children, all Europeans by birth, all diabetes?
Consider the hypothesis or thesis in the essay and ask, "What else could have affected the
outcome of this study?" Look at how the evidence was collected and analyzed? Ask
serious questions about this process. Was the sample large, randomly selected, fairly
analyzed without bias, was some form of control group used for comparison? Recall that
"just because one event comes before another event, the first event may not have caused
the second." Some third event could have affected both.
Consider the recent increase in AUTISM is American children: researchers are busy
looking for multiple causes that interact with the child's genetic makeup, DNA changes in
chromosomes, environmental pollutants in air, water, plastic bottles, food products
(especially meat from animals raised in feed lots or crowded fattening pens), as well as
chemicals used to create injections that prevent diseases as measles or the flu. No one
cause has been found to explain why so many American children are now AUTISTIC.
Researches must consider all possible rival causes because the implications [outcomes]
for future generations are critical to the well being of our population.
If some chromosomes show DNA changes, which genes are affected? When did the
change occur? What behaviors or chemicals influenced the change in these genes? What
events or items (like foods or drugs) triggered changes as the baby's brain was
developing? What are the implications (outcomes or consequences) for AUTISTIC
children as they grow up requiring expensive medical and training procedures at public
expense; and if the autistic children also have children, will AUTISM pass to the next
generation? As you can see researchers will be testing multiple hypotheses for many
years to consider all the interactions in these many variables. The purpose of research is
to conduct many controlled studies that suggest new ways to understand causes for
complex problems, ways that inform us with new knowledge that leads to solutions.
RULE: All complex problems have many possible causes, and most causes interact. Do
not be fooled when a presenter tries to tell you that one cause is the only possibility.
Many implications or outcomes follow every solution we select. Outcomes can affect the
reader or the patient personally, socially, economically, politically, even culturally.
Because human, animal, and environmental behaviors are so complex, we cannot accept
one narrow conclusion as the "correct outcome."
Exercise:
For these two examples, state
 The problem or claim
 The evidence or reasons
 Two or more implications that follow from the conclusion: rival causes
A. People suffering from mental illness are nearly twice as likely to smoke
cigarettes as people with no mental illness, according to a new study by Harvard
Medical School researchers. The researchers found that people with diagnosable
mental illness comprise nearly 45 percent of the total U.S. tobacco market. The
study suggests that people with mental illness often use the nicotine from
cigarettes to enhance their mood, relieve anxiety, and cope with stress.



Problem/claim
Evidence/reasons given
Implications/outcomes/rival causes
B.
A recent court case in Hawaii involved the question of the legality of same-sex
marriages. Because many voters are conservative, most people are probably
against same-sex marriages as a values issue. Questions of economics and civic
legality also matter. Same-sex couples face many financial problems that
heterosexual couples do not face. For example, if a married person dies without a
will, the property automatically transfers to the surviving spouse. However, samesex couples must draft wills that leave their property to their partner. The cost of
drafting these wills can range from $5,000 to $30,000. This cost is an economic
burden to same-sex couples. Furthermore, health insurance for a heterosexual
partner is usually offered through an employer. However, same-sex partners are
not covered through employer insurance. Although there are many financial
biases against same-sex couples, these people face the problems because of their
mutual love.



Problem/claim
Evidence/reasons given
Implications/outcomes/rival causes