- Identify the three most important parts of the text (you can use journalistic questions to help with this- who, what, when, where, why, and how. Who is writing/speaking? Why are they writing/speaking? What is the main idea of this text, which is likely in the title…)
- Those parts might include certain arguments or claims that the author makes.
- They might include examples or illustrations that the author employs.
- They might be key parts of the argument, or you simply may have enjoyed or barely endured those parts.
In identifying those three important parts, you may opt to summarize them, but do so with enough detail that someone who has not read the text will understand what you reference. After you have identified your three important parts, briefly explain why you selected those parts.
- Identify two problematic parts of the text.
- They might be parts that you did not understand.
- They may be parts that you disagree with, that you felt did not belong, or that you thought interfered with the author’s purpose.
Briefly explain your choices.
- Pose one question for the author. That question should move to extend his or her examination of the topic and delve beneath surface-level commentary. Rather than question a problematic section that you have identified, as in question two, ask a question that engenders discussion. Such a question might begin with, “When you said [X], did you want your readers to [Y]?” or “What was the purpose of discussing [Z]?” In a way, in your own writing, you might decide to pose possible answers to those questions in your own writing.
0. Find a golden nugget. What one sentence or two is so well written or so well stated that it left an impression upon you? Remember to introduce and cite the quote.
