Example Student Critical Response Essays

Example Student Critical Response Essays

Example #1

Terra Hurdle
Writing122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Critical Response Essay - Final Draft Revision
15 November 2005

The Color of Justice:

A Critical Response to an Essay on Affirmative Action

In student essay, “When Will Race Lose the Race?” author Charity Miller argues in favor of Affirmative Action. She uses personal experiences and analogies to convince her audience that Affirmative Action has helped establish fairness in our society and presently continues to do so. She makes her case with the intention of bringing forth a decision from the targeted audience: upper class white students (Crusius and Channell 16, 263). Miller supports her claims with reasoning and evidence that summon her audience to agree and take action for her cause. Thus, her argument aims to persuade (Crusius and Channell 15). She uses appeal to emotion through the style and personality apparent in her writing as a tactic for persuasion. The empathy drawn forth from the reader, with support from the mature reasoning and evidence in the text, makes an excellent effort in evoking a decision about the issue at hand (Crusius and Channell 228). With each real life example, Miller finds the means to identify with the audience on a personal level. She therefore persuades them to share in her opinion (Crusius and Channell 231).

Through Charity Miller’s writing, we can determine that she is a college student and encounters situations subject to Affirmative Action throughout daily life on campus. Her first hand experience strengthens her argument. She also interjects some historical background on Affirmative Action and how it played a role in her personal family history. Understanding how the author forms her opinions based off of her personal experiences builds a rational foundation for her argument that the reader can more easily relate to (Crusius and Channell 23). For example, Miller opens her essay with a personal story in which she goes to purchase a snack from a bake sale at school. However, when she approaches the table she finds a sign that reads, “Affirmative Action is Racist,” and another poster designating snack prices according to race and gender. The snack vendor refers to this display as “a practical example to show that affirmative action is unfair” (Miller 263). We can see that the author may direct her argument at affluent white students because, as the snack pricing suggests, whites must unavoidably pay more than other races and it is not fair to them. As this passage reveals her direct involvement with affirmative action and her target audience, other statistics and factual information continue to make her work credible. For example, “It is [also] insanely unfair that all minorities together make up only 19.9 % of students and 13.8% of faculty at Southern Methodist University” (Miller 263). Because Miller wrote her essay in a first-year college composition course, we can also speculate as to her incentive for discourse on affirmative action. The following passage may indicate motive:

My father is a product of mandatory Affirmative Action. Despite excellent grades in school, he could not afford college, and as a minority, he was not eligible for admission into the college of his choice because it was a ‘white school.’ However, Affirmative Action stepped in like Superman to save the day. The government threatened to suspend funding for the school if it did not admit and support minority students (264).

The author relays that the year in which she composed her essay and experienced these situations is 2003 (Miller 263). During present time, Affirmative Action remains an issue. We can hypothesize that because Charity Miller was a college student who dealt with these matters directly and also had a family member immediately affected by Affirmative Action, she wanted to advocate during a time significant to the future of her cause.

As a fellow student of written argumentation, I consider myself a member of the author’s targeted audience. After examining Charity Miller’s rhetoric, I can see that she strives to create a common thread between herself and her audience and I therefore find it easy to agree on many of her contentions. In past English classes, I have studied arguments on the same subject but in opposition to Miller’s views. Some of these articles argued that Affirmative Action is reverse racism. I believe a previous understanding of another viewpoint on the issue allows me to weigh equally the positive and negative aspects of both arguments. After I read Miller’s article, I also gained knowledge of how Affirmative Action directly affected my own family history. One of my family members could not obtain much needed financial aid for college because he did not belong to a minority. I then had to reassess my response to the content of Miller’s article. Maybe Affirmative Action was not an act of justice when my family member needed financial aid just as much as a minority applicant. After all, he had high aspirations for shaping a successful future. Despite this knowledge, I know many people possess pre-established judgments on a variety of topics and I make great efforts to temporarily dismiss my beliefs in order to judge arguments fairly. When evaluating Miller’s essay, I maintained an open mind by first recognizing the author's claims and then verifying she has mature reasoning and evidence to support them. Mature reasoning will allow me to acquire the most knowledge from what I’m studying.

One of Charity Miller’s easily recognizable strengths is revealed in her frequent use of analogies. Her ability to conceive corresponding situations strengthens her argument because it shows how the claim applies in a less controversial situation from a simplified perspective. She therefore illustrates her reasoning for the reader in another way. A similar scenario that the readers can relate to might make them more apt to agree with her thesis. For example, when Miller tries to persuade her audience that Affirmative Action is a strategy to resolve inequality, she says, “Our government, our schools, and even our families implement laws and procedures to resolve life’s inequalities” (Miller 263). She then supports her statement with the following analogy:

A mother with two sons may give her ill son two tasty Flintstone vitamins but give her well son only one. She “unfairly” gives the sickly son two vitamins to maintain a healthy level of nutrition in both of her children. In the same manner, some tactics that appear biased are intended to make up for the biases of life (263).

The idea of “maintaining a healthy level of nutrition” for both the strong and weak child, is parallel to providing an adequate education for both the advantaged majority and the disadvantaged minority. Thus, Miller argues: “Justice does not equal fairness. Rather, justice creates fairness” (264). By portraying her reason in a situation people can more easily assent to, the author convinces the reader that he or she should view Affirmative Action the same way. This tactic of persuasion builds a stronger foundation for her argument.

While her analogies support her argument well, some of the statistical evidence provided does not. Although the statistical information she supplies can be effectively applied to her argument, she focuses only on a limited part of the data that she should incorporate to support her claims. For example, Miller makes several references to how statistics show minorities are under populated in college student bodies. However, she only uses records from Southern Methodist University. In order to prove Affirmative Action’s success in colleges nationwide, she would need to offer an evenhanded sampling of data from several universities, thus illustrating the accuracy of its effects. In Miller’s conclusion she says: “…some schools, such as SMU, no longer adhere to Affirmative Action policies, and minority percentages are still increasing. The 2003 incoming class at SMU is one of its most diverse ever. This proves Affirmative Action has impacted some schools and is becoming less necessary” (265). The fact that Affirmative Action has proven successful at SMU does not support the idea that “Affirmative Action has impacted some schools” positively. Although the author does not assert Affirmative Action’s efficiency in all schools, the phrase “some schools” remains misused because she only demonstrates its accomplishments in one school. As far as the audience knows, every other school in the nation could suffer from highly negative effects directly resulting from Affirmative Action. Additional evidence is needed to show the effects nationwide.

Despite Charity Miller’s limited statistical evidence, she does an excellent job of qualifying her claims. By identifying the exact circumstances in which reader should apply her thesis, she establishes boundaries for the function of Affirmative Action and makes it more defendable. An absolute claim on an opinion basis can prove impossible to substantiate (Crusius and Channell 48). Towards the end of her essay she makes sure to qualify her argument by saying:

If it [Affirmative Action] outlives its purpose, it will generate a counterproductive effect. If the government continues to aid minorities when schools have become more diverse, equal opportunities more available, and discrimination less tolerated, then Affirmative Action will unjustly discriminate against Whites. Affirmative Action should serve only temporarily to resolve inequalities (Miller 265).

Stating that the need for Affirmative Action will only exist temporarily may persuade a whole new part of her audience, such as those who do not want Affirmative Action as a permanent solution. Qualifying the claim is also extremely important to her argument because her purpose for writing is not to give any one race an advantage over another, but to create equality. She doesn’t want reverse racism to occur for Whites and her qualifier supports this point.

Over all, we can see that Charity Miller addresses the controversy of Affirmative Action effectively and makes a well-supported case for her thesis. Not only do we receive insight on how society should address racial discrimination, but also an excellent example of how we can approach persuasive writing. By keeping Miller’s strengths and weaknesses in mind, students of written argumentation can implement the knowledge they have gained in their own writing. A wise-minded person can discover a lesson from almost any source in life. Charity Miller’s essay is like a garden abundant in knowledge that those both in agreement or opposition can pick from.

Works Cited

Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide.
5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Miller, Charity. “When Will Race Lose the Race?” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 263-265.

Top of this Page

Example #2

Jackie Boisineau
WR 122, Prof. C Agatucci
Critical Response Essay/Final Draft
27 October 2005

Assessment of an Argument

In the student essay “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?” the author, Justin Spidel, argues in support of same-sex marriage. He proposes that allowing homosexual couples to legally marry would benefit society as a whole (222). However, not everyone shares his view. He acknowledges this opposition, which is based mainly on religious beliefs and the perceived threat to family values. Many of these opponents feel so strongly that he does not even consider trying to convince them. Therefore, he targets a specific group of individuals. He states in his audience profile that these individuals are heterosexual adults that already accept same-sex couples (204). These people oppose the marriage of homosexuals but not homosexual relationships in general. Spidel believes they object to such unions because they seek to preserve the traditional family (204). In addition, Spidel feels that his target audience are supporters of basic human rights and the right to the “pursuit of happiness” (204). By appealing to this support, Spidel attempts to convince this audience that the denial of same-sex marriage is not a threat to family values, and that it is a violation of human rights. I feel that this is an argument to convince, because by providing reasons and evidence to support his position, he is trying to change the thinking of his target audience and get their “assent to his thesis” (Crusius and Channell 16).

After considering Spidel’s target audience, I realize that I am not a member of it. Although I am a heterosexual adult that believes in basic human rights for everyone, I do not believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would be detrimental to society. For example, I have many friends that are homosexual and I support them in their relationships. I think that they should have the right to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. While I do agree with Spidel, I feel that I read the essay with a fairly open mind. I approached his essay as a mature reader, and I was objective and willing to consider the opposition arguments. I feel that this objective analysis is necessary for critically evaluating arguments.

For tips on evaluating this argument I referred to The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Spidel’s essay actually appears in this text as an example of a written argument. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell wrote this book with the intention of teaching techniques that are useful for writing and evaluating arguments. Therefore, I used it as a guide for my evaluation of Spidel’s essay. Among other techniques, Crusius and Channell suggest “picking out the best reasons and stating them in a way that appeals to our readers” (207). Consequently, I needed to isolate each reason to evaluate the supporting evidence. To accomplish this I chose the Toulmin Method, a method of analysis suggested by Crusius and Channell (45-53). After analyzing, I realized that Spidel used numerous reasons to support his claim and that these reasons were all relevant (45-53). Then I evaluated the reasons and to determine if Spidel’s argument would actually convince his target audience and change their beliefs. After evaluating his supporting information, I clearly saw the strengths and weaknesses of his reasoning.

One such strength is apparent in his discussion about discrimination. As previously stated, Spidel’s audience upholds the idea of basic human rights for everyone. So Spidel appeals to this shared value by citing the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 (224). According to Craig Dean, this act states, “'every individual shall…have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life'” (qtd. in Spidel 224). He contends that legal marriage is one of these aspects and the denial of it is a violation of the act. This appeal to the “audience’s belief system” is a useful technique according to Crusius and Channell (207). I too believe that this tactic is beneficial to Spidel’s argument. Since Spidel knows his target audience has a belief in basic human rights, he uses that to sway their opinion. Spidel also supports his reasoning by quoting two lawyers. In one quotation, Craig Dean states that legal marriage is an important civil right because of the benefits that come with it (qtd. in Spidel 224). In the other quote, Thomas Stoddard refers to domestic partners as “second-class” citizens (224). This use of expert opinion is another technique suggested by Crusius and Channell (207). By using these quotations, Spidel brings credibility to his reasoning. As a result, by appealing to his target audience and using professional opinions, Spidel validates his claim.

While Spidel includes expert opinions in his essay, I think his choice of experts is somewhat flawed. For example, he argues that allowing homosexuals to legally marry would strengthen family values and provide good role models for children. This point is important to prove, because his audience supports good family morals and values. For the most part, he uses quotations to support this reason. These quoted experts have valid points and sound arguments, but upon further investigation I found that they are all supporters of gay rights. One quote is from Newsweek, which is a fairly liberal periodical. Others were taken from homosexual publications such as The Journal of Homosexuality and The Essential Guide to Lesbian and Gay Weddings. Spidel even refers to Jonathan Rauch as a “gay writer” in his essay (223). Sources such as these were used throughout the whole essay, and I feel they weakened his argument. While these quotations do support Spidel’s reasoning, I think his audience would like to see some support from a more conservative source as well. I think that it would benefit Spidel to use sources with which the target audience can relate. This may give his audience more incentive to change their views.

Although I feel some of his tactics are flawed, I do think that the quantity of reasons that Spidel offers is beneficial. He presents five reasons to support his thesis. These reasons are promoting family values, providing a secure environment for children, relieving of a “burden on society,” discriminating, and separating church and state (222-225). He approaches the subject from many angles. This tactic provides ample information for his audience to consider. Each of these reasons relates to his main claim, so they are valid. He sufficiently supports these reasons with quotations from experts, survey results, and legal information. Although these reasons are powerful on their own, Spidel strengthens his argument by including the objections to these reasons. For example, he states that some people think that allowing domestic partners to have the same legal rights and benefits as married couples is the answer to this dilemma (224). The acknowledgement of this opposing view is important because is allows Spidel to present his refutations. As a result, I feel that Spidel’s inclusion of opposing information as well as the plethora of support for his claim adds to the strength of his argument.

Although I think Spidel’s essay has strengths, I believe that it is ultimately weak. As an objective reader I considered all the ways this essay could be viewed, which includes Spidel’s target audience’s perspective. He did offer numerous reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage, and these reasons were well constructed and supportive of his claim. Unfortunately his evidence used to support his claim was often one-sided and unsatisfactory. So, even though I personally agree with his point of view, I have to conclude that he may have failed to reach his target audience. As a result, Spidel has written an interesting and insightful essay, but not a very convincing argument.

Works Cited

Crusius, Timothy W. and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Spidel, Justin. “Who Should Have the Right to Marry?” The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 222-225.

Top of this Page

Example #3

---- -----
Writing 122, Prof. C. Agatucci
Critical Response Essay-Final Draft
08 February 2007

Critical Response to L. Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise’s
“Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Heath Threat to Children”

PART ONE: Introduction & Rhetorical Analysis of the Argument Essay
Summary & Aim/s of the Argument
      In “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children,” psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise attempt to prove beyond any doubt that the violence seen in the media by children has an irrefutable effect on the way they will behave in later life. The authors explain, through multiple studies and statistics, that exposure to violent media by children, will result in more aggressive and violent behavior. By stating statistics and thoroughly explaining each fact, this essay aims to persuade by appealing to the audience’s reason, and strives to influence the reader’s future actions (Crusius and Channell 16). In addition to aiming to persuade, Huesmann and Moise also aim to convince by providing a plethora of information and credible examples of violent media-related child aggression. (Crusius and Channell 16). This essay strives to make a case against allowing children to experience violent media (Crusius and Channell 16). Although Huesmann and Moise do not argue to persuade throughout the essay, they do include a statement which makes a demand for action (Crusius and Channell 15). They state, “The studies are conclusive. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression. It is time to move on and consider how best to inoculate our children against this insidious threat” (Huesmann and Moise 181).
Rhetorical Analysis
      The essay “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children,” is written by two professionals who have earned their Ph. D’s in psychology. Their educational backgrounds help to strengthen their argument because the reader can assume that the authors’ opinions are well founded and come from educated minds. Also, by including hard evidence through statistics and explanations of past studies, Huesmann and Moise provide a way for the audience to find good reasons to agree with the authors’ thesis (Crusius and Channell 207). This essay first appeared in the Harvard Mental Health Letter in 1996 (Crusius and Channell 177). Because it appeared in such a prestigious publication, the essay leaves the reader with little doubt that the authors have thoroughly investigated their subject and, through much thought, have arrived at an educated decision. In my opinion, it seems that the targeted audience for Huesmann and Moise’s essay are parents or child care-givers, as well as the media industry. Because the essay makes such a point to convince the readers that exposure to violence in the media will in fact influence children in a negative way and also demands action in the last paragraph, it is my conclusion that the audience for which this essay was written are those who care for children, as well as those who create the media itself.
Self-Analysis
      Currently, I am a part-time babysitter for a nine year-old boy, thus making me a member of the target audience. As a child care-giver, I am in charge of the television viewed by this boy and the music to which he listens. Therefore, I conclude that I am part of the authors' intended audience and, after reading this essay, I felt more apt to think about the effect of violence in the media that this boy is exposed to. I understand and appreciate the point that is being made by Huesmann and Moise, but I could not accept their thesis claim without some serious reservations. In addition to baby-sitting, I grew up in an environment where violence was apparent not only in the media but also in my home and school(s). And my experiences have taught me that not every child exposed to such violence is destined to imitate aggressive behavior or resort to violence in solving problems in later life.

PART TWO: Critical Analysis and Evaluation of the Argument Essay
      The main strengths of Huesmann and Moise's argument are their professional expertise in the field, their presentation of convincing evidence, and their effective rebuttal of a worthy opponent's objections. As stated above, Huesmann and Moise both have doctorate degrees in psychology and “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children” was subject to peer review by other leading experts in the field before publication in the prestigious Harvard Mental Health Letter. The facts and evidence presented throughout this essay may, therefore, be trusted.    "More than 100 such studies over the last 40 years have shown that at least some children exposed to visual depictions of dramatic violence behave more aggressively afterward both toward inanimate objects and toward other children" (Huesmann and Moise 178), demonstrates the authors' in-depth knowledge of relevant field studies. Evidence such as the following is well-selected to support the authors' case: "In 1982 Eron and Huesmann found that boys who spent the most time viewing violent television shows at age eight were most likely to have criminal convictions at age 30" (Huesmann and Moise 179). The authors also briefly but effectively refute the opposing opinions of Jonathan L. Freedman, showing that "Dr. Freedman's highly selective reading of the research minimizes overwhelming evidence" to the contrary (Huesmann and Moise 178). “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children” presents a powerful argument, supported by a convincing range of facts and expert opinions, that excessive exposure to violent media is likely to have a destructive effect on some children.
         The main weakness I find in Huesmann and Moise's argument is that they appear to be somewhat egotistical and far too sure of themselves at times. However esteemed Huesmann and Moise may be, their argument does not meet one of Crusius and Channell's four criteria of mature reasoning. According to Chapter 1 of Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide, "mature reasoners are self-critical and open to constructive criticism from others" (Crusius and Channell 14). But at key points in “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Heath Threat to Children,” Huesmann and Moise do not admit any room for error nor concede any exceptions in advancing to their thesis claim. For example, in their concluding paragraph, they state: "The evidence leaves no room for doubt that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression" (Huesmann and Moise 181). Although it may be true that many children, especially those at a young age, are more inclined to behave aggressively when they have been exposed to violence, it is not a black and white situation. As with most problems, there is some gray involved. For example, my brother was beat as a child and watched extremely violent television and movies. He, however, has been in very few fights throughout his life and does not use violence as a solution to his problems. This fact disproves one statement made by Huesmann and Moise: “…children are likely to imitate [a television hero’s] behavior and learn that aggression is an acceptable solution to conflict” (181). Also, the nine year-old boy I watch over views horror movies, listens to albums by the rapper Eminem, and has seen domestic abuse. This boy is another example of someone who has been exposed to violence but is nothing like how Huesmann and Moise predict he should be.   Despite the facts and studies explained in this essay, not every child is negatively affected by media violence. Although it may be true that test subjects did react with aggression after viewing violent film-clips, the gray area emerges when one realizes that not every child acts the same or reacts with the same behavior to a stimulus.
      When I take into account my experiences as subject and observer, I find it difficult to accept that children's exposure to dramatized violence in the media necessarily leads to aggressive and violent behavior.   But L. Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise offer a compelling argument that "Media Violence" can pose a serious "Public Health Threat to Children," and have certainly made me think seriously about the damaging effects that uncensored exposure to media violence can have on some of our children.

Works Cited

Crusius, Timothy W. and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Huesmann, L. Rowell, and Jessica Moise. "Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health
Threat to Children." The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006.177-181.

See also:
Critical Response Essay Directions - Topic Choices:
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/wr122/CriticalResponseEssayDir.htm
More MLA-Style Models for Citing AofA Sources
Plus Addendum: MLA Style Models for Citing WWWeb Sources
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/wr122/MoreMLAmodels.htm

You are here: Example Student Critical Response Essays
URL of this webpage: http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/wr122/ExampleCriticalResponseEssays.htm
Last Updated: 21 May 2008