Does the work fail to follow the logical consequences of its argument?

he idea is to critically evaluate the text by posing an interpretive problem and advancing a claim as to how we ought to read the text in light of it. This critical analysis should only be done using quotes from the first 60 pages. No outside sources or even modern-day examples.

– Length of the essay should be 4-6 paragraphs

Note: It is not merely just a summary of the first 60 pages but a critical analysis. Points should be backed by text.

Often great interventions are made by attending to the 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?

Requirements: | .doc file

ATTACHMENTS
attachment_1