Critical Reading Analysis: Evaluating Logic and Bias in an Article

This report provides a critical reading analysis of an article, focusing on the logic, biases, and counterarguments presented. The analysis begins by examining the author's credentials and potential biases, including their expertise in early childhood education and their use of emotional reasoning. The report then assesses the author's tone, word choice, and whether the argument is more emotional or logical. It also evaluates how the author addresses opposing views, noting that the author does not directly address counterarguments. The analysis concludes by considering how the author's biases strengthen or weaken the argument, particularly the oversimplification of the impact of school shootings. The report acknowledges the reader's potential biases and emphasizes the importance of maintaining objectivity. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the article's strengths and weaknesses, offering insights into the complexities of the argument.

Critical Reading Analysis Worksheet Part 3
Read the article assigned by the instructor again with a focus on the logic of the argument and
how it considers and addresses opposing views.
This section will focus on the particular concepts of logic, counterarguments, and bias.
Once you are confident that you understand how the text constructs its argument, evaluate the
logic and potential biases within the argument.
Part Three: Logic and Bias
1. Determine the author’s biases in relation to the issue by reviewing the author’s
credentials. Do a Google search to learn what you can about the author? What are
the author’s potential biases? Does the author acknowledge his/her own biases,
background, or “stakes” in the conversation? Does the author have authority on the
topic (ethos)?
Erika Christakis is a graduate on social anthropology and an American writer whose area
of expertise is early childhood education. This is one of the main reason why she appeals to
emotional reasoning of raising the same children in a fearful atmosphere whom we wanted to
give a safe future. She has the authority on the topic for she understands a child’s psychology
and can comprehend the intensity these incidences can leave on them.
2. Consider the author’s tone and word choice. Is there anything in the writing that
would alienate people who have a different position on the issue?
Her choice of word and the tone of the article is authoritative and yet appealing to the
reader. She indicates the possibility of the drill mishap and how an event which is unlikely to
happen and is the responsibility of the government to control can leave a child traumatized for
life.
3. Does the author seem to be presenting an objective consideration of the topic?
Does the article seem more emotional (pathos) or more logical (logos)?
Christakis consideration of the subject is in no way objective, rather it is subjective of the
psychological aspects of the matter. The article is more logical than emotional for being a

graduate in social anthropology, she understands the reason behind these drills but she shows
how this cannot be taken as a solution.
4. What counterargument or alternative views does the author address? Does the
author engage with opposing arguments and respond to them? Or, does the author
oversimplify or fail to acknowledge opposing views?
She does not addresses the counterargument in the article and her view on the topic is
concentrated on a single approach. As a matter of fact she reiterates the number of deaths which
was the result of the school shooting casually oversimplifying the death to a mere number.
5. Do the author’s biases strengthen or weaken the argument? In what ways?
The author’s otherwise strong argument is weakened by her biases when she
oversimplifies the death of 150 children in twenty years. Her argument regarding the
psychological aspect and the wastage of resources going into the practice of these is valid and yet
her counterargument renders it weak for even one life matters.
6. What biases might you be bringing to your reading of the article? What prior
experiences might shape your view of the issue or affect your ability to give the
argument fair hearing? What can you do to keep those biases in check?
The biases that I would like to address and bring into the reading is the involvement and
security measures from the government to avoid the occurrences of such incident. Being
subjected to one such drill I can be biased in favor of the argument for the experience left me
with nightmares for a long time.