Overview
I'm working on a political science question and need guidance to help me learn.
your goal is to find slippages in the
argument under consideration. Does the work fail to follow the logical
consequences of its argument? Does the work fail to evidence argumentative
claims that it advances? Does the work suffer from serious contradictions?
Does the work conveniently mishandle its evidence (e.g. incorrectly
encapsulate the work of another theorist)?
Perhaps the reader you are addressing misses the meaning of the text because
they have yet to attend to the rhetorical and literary tropes in the work.
Do particular figures or metaphors do significant work that complicate a
straight-forward reading of the text?