I. Introduction a. Identify the work being criticized b. Present thesis – argument about the work c. Preview your argument – what are the steps you will take to prove your argument II. Summary/Evaluation of the work a. Does not need to be comprehensive – present only what the reader needs to know to understand your argument. b. Where does the argument go wrong III. Your argument a. Your argument will likely involve a number of sub-arguments –mini-theses you prove to prove your larger argument true. For example, if your thesis was that the author’s presumption that the world will soon face a “clash of civilizations” is flawed because he inadequately specifies his key concept, civilizations, you might prove this by: i. Noting competing definitions of civilizations ii. Identifying how his examples do not meet the example of civilizations iii. Argue that civilization is so broad and non-specific that it is not useful b. This should be the bulk of the paper – I want to read your argument about the work, not a summary. IV. Conclusion a. Reflect on how you have proven your argument. b. Point out the importance of your argument c. Note potential avenues for additional research or analysis http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html