English 102

Critique Paper Organization Examples

These examples are taken from a hypothetical Critique paper analyzing and evaluating the evidence in Richard Manning’s article, “The Oil We Eat.” Both cover the same material. In the first, analysis is presented separately from evaluation. In the second, analysis and evaluation are woven together.

Analysis first, then evaluation

(275 words)

Manning repeatedly uses illustrations from standard American farming practices to illustrate his points, whether describing the loss of soil or the use of petrochemicals to replenish the soil or the processing of grains into food. He cites Iowa as a typical example of these practices. For instance, in paragraph XX he writes that Iowa uses the energy equivalent of “4,000 Nagasaki bombs” each year to fertilize its farms. Elsewhere he says that the most recent study (now over 35 years old) indicates that agriculture consumes one calorie of oil for every calorie of food produced. These illustrations demonstrate how modern farming uses immense amounts of energy and speak to his claim that because of its wastefulness and destructiveness farming is an “insane system.”

These examples are certainly sufficient; he typically provides at least one such illustration for every point he makes and his statistics are equally frequent. They are also relevant to the question of agricultural waste, although the specific comparison of petrochemical energy to nuclear weapons is not, and seems designed to frighten rather than to inform. It is less clear whether they are representative, only because the target of his criticism is somewhat ambiguous. While the first half of the article condemns agriculture as a whole, the overall thrust seems to be to condemn industrial agriculture specifically. That being the case, one wonders whether industrial farming in twenty–first century Iowa is the most representative example of all agriculture at all times. If his target is primarily industrial agriculture, however, then Iowa is quite representative and he even points out that it is becoming more so as more of the world adopts similar practices.

Combining analysis with evaluation

(298 words)

Manning repeatedly uses illustrations from standard American farming practices to illustrate his points, whether describing the loss of soil or the use of petrochemicals to replenish the soil or the processing of grains into food. He also provides numerous statistics, such as the most recent study (now over 35 years old) of agricultural energy efficiency, which indicates that agriculture consumes one calorie of oil for every calorie of food produced. Such examples and/or supportive data are given for every point and are certainly sufficient. They are also relevant. For instance, Manning uses Iowa as a sort of test case, which seems quite appropriate given that Iowa is in the heart of the American agricultural region. Some of his specific facts, however, are less relevant, as when he writes that Iowa uses the energy equivalent of “4,000 Nagasaki bombs” each year to fertilize its farms. While the amount of energy used is relevant, its equivalence to nuclear weapons is not, and seems designed to frighten rather than inform. Overall, however, these illustrations do demonstrate how modern farming uses immense amounts of energy, and they speak to his claim that because of its wastefulness and destructiveness farming is an “insane system.” What is perhaps less clear is how representative they are, simply because the target of his criticism is somewhat ambiguous. While the first half of the article condemns agriculture as a whole, the overall thrust seems to be to condemn industrial agriculture specifically. That being the case, one wonders whether industrial farming in twenty–first century Iowa is the most representative example of all agriculture at all times. If his target is primarily industrial agriculture, however, then Iowa is quite representative and he even points out that it is becoming more so as more of the world adopts similar practices.