Article Analysis

I. Your Introduction:

Must introduce author’s name and title of article

Must include your claim re: your overall view of the article.

II. Your First Body Paragraph: Title

Quote the title of the article. Is it well written? Strong? Weak? Does it stand out? Does it grab the audience’s attention? Is it too long? Too short? Is it catchy? Does it represent the article well?

Explain specifically why it is strong or weak. If it is weak, then give a suggestion for a strong title.

III. Your Second Body Paragraph: Claim

What is the author’s claim? Quote it.

Is it strong or weak and why?

Is the claim backed up by the evidence, or is it quickly forgotten/abandoned?

What might have been a more fitting claim for the evidence provided?

IV. Your Third Body Paragraph: Opposition

What is the “other side” mentioned in the article (the one that disagrees with the author of the

article)? Quote it. Is the opposition represented fairly and appropriately? Explain why it is

represented fairly or why it is not. Be specific. If it is not, then tell what should have been there to

make it an effective opposition.

V. Your Fourth Body Paragraph: Common Ground

Quote the common ground (the place where there is a “meeting of the minds,” the point

where both sides agree before they part ways). If there is not one, mention that as a negative

and tell what should have been stated to show common ground re: the topic.

VI. Your Fifth Body Paragraph: Statistics and Other Supporting Evidence

Give quotes of the strong and weak types of supporting evidence used in the article

(1 of each). Tell why it is positive or negative. Tell what should have been written to make it

strong if it is weak. (e.g. What is the name of the study/survey? When was it done? Who did

it? How many people were used/asked? How many males, females, etc? What racial

diversity was used? Where was the study/survey done?

VII. Your Sixth Body Paragraph: Experts/Credibility

Give examples (at least 2) of experts used and tell why those people are or are not experts.

What position do they hold and for how long? What vested interest do these people have and

why? What makes them credible? Explain. What makes them not credible? What degree do

they have? From where? What should have been mentioned in order to prove to the reader

that this person, organization, people are experts?

VIII. Your Conclusion:

Give your overall analysis of the article. Be specific. Is it an article you would recommend

for someone else to read? Why or why not? In this paragraph, you can also tell whether you

agree or disagree with the subject-matter presented in the article as well.

Other options for additional analysis/body paragraphs: Rhetorical appeals, logical fallacies, assumptions made by the author, inappropriate language used.