How to Write a Critique Paper: Moving Beyond Summary to Actual Analysis

Let’s clear up a massive misunderstanding right away. Many students hear the word "critique" and think they're being asked to write a bad review or a "tattletale report" of everything the author did wrong. They think the goal is to point fingers and find flaws. That's a natural assumption, but it’s a mild contradiction to the assignment's true purpose.

Here’s the thing: a good critique paper is not about fault-finding; it’s about evaluation. You are being asked to step into the role of a professional peer—an expert in the field—and assess the work's overall quality, value, and effectiveness. You are judging its strengths just as much as its weaknesses. Think of it less like a review and more like a detailed referee report for a journal. It is a serious academic conversation where you decide if the work is worthwhile, logical, and fully supported. You must show that you understand the author's position deeply before you can comment on its success.

Phase 1: Reading Like a Detective—Breaking Down the Source Material

You can't critique something you don't fully understand. This is the stage where you put in the heavy lifting, the kind of deep reading that most students skip. I often tell my students in special needs classes that we need to break the reading down into three passes. You need to read the source at least three times, and each time you have a different job. This sequential approach guarantees you catch all the nuances.

The Three-Pass Reading System

• Pass One: The Gist. Read the entire piece quickly, focusing only on finding the central thesis—the main argument the author is trying to prove. Don't worry about the details or the evidence yet; just figure out the destination. What is the single, most important thing the author wants you to believe or understand?

• Pass Two: The Structure and Evidence. Now, you go slower. Read paragraph by paragraph, asking two questions: "What is the author trying to achieve in this section?" and "What kind of evidence are they using?" You should be marking where the author uses case studies, statistics, qualitative interviews, or personal anecdotes. Start looking for the signposts and transition phrases that show the author's organizational logic.

• Pass Three: The Assumptions and Biases. This is the critical pass. Now that you know the structure and the evidence, you can ask, "What is the author taking for granted?" Every piece of academic writing has assumptions—about the reader's prior knowledge, about the political or social context, or about the methodology. For example, if a paper argues that social media causes anxiety, the author might be assuming that a decrease in screen time is practical for all users. You need to underline these underlying premises.

Annotating is Your Superpower

Annotation isn't just highlighting; it's a dialogue with the text. I recommend using a simple coding system. Use one color (say, green) to mark things you think the author nailed—brilliant evidence, a tight argument, or a great turn of phrase. Use another color (maybe red) for areas that seem weak, unsupported, or logically contradictory. This physical act of labeling prevents the temptation to just summarize. It forces you to categorize the text into strengths and weaknesses, which immediately gives you the structure for your own critique.

Phase 2: Finding the Gaps—Developing Your Critical Stance

Once you have thoroughly broken down the source, you have to develop your own argument—your critical stance. This is where you synthesize your green and red marks into a concise, defensible opinion. You can find your stance by asking three fundamental questions about the source material.

Question 1: Is the Logic Sound? (Internal Consistency)

This is a critique of the paper’s internal consistency. Does the author’s evidence actually support the claim being made? You are looking for logical fallacies, places where the argument jumps too quickly from point A to point C, or contradictions in the text. For instance, if an author claims, "Technology X is too expensive to be widely adopted," but then later presents data showing a massive drop in the cost of Technology X over the last six months, that’s a logical breakdown. You must focus on the framework of the argument itself.

Question 2: Is the Evidence Sufficient? (Reliability and Scope)

This question tackles the quality and quantity of the author's supporting data. Are the sources reliable? Are they current? If the author is trying to make a broad claim about a global trend, but only uses three case studies from a single neighborhood in London, the evidence is not sufficient in scope. Likewise, if the author relies heavily on a 20-year-old study when dozens of more recent studies exist, the evidence is not reliable or current enough. This critique is less about the author's logic and more about their research process. It is the core of an academic evaluation, honestly.

Question 3: Does the Work Matter? (The Bigger Picture Critique)

This is the "So What" question. It’s a critique of the paper’s external context. The author might have written a perfectly logical, well-supported paper on a tiny topic. But you can critique the significance. Does the paper contribute anything genuinely new to the field? Did the author ignore important, alternative viewpoints that change the entire context of their finding? For example, if a study on educational policy fails to account for the impact of socioeconomic status on student outcomes, you critique the scope and the impact of that exclusion. Your critique shows why the paper, though perhaps technically sound, lacks wider relevance.

Structure is Your Superpower: Mapping the Critique Body

A good critique follows a structure that is both predictable and persuasive. Like a well-engineered bridge, it has solid foundations at both ends and a strong span in the middle.

The Introduction: The Hook, the Tiny Summary, and the Monster Thesis

Your critique introduction must accomplish three very quick things.

1. The Hook: Start with a broad statement about the topic. For instance, "The debate surrounding universal basic income remains one of the most polarizing issues in modern economic theory."

2. The Tiny Summary: This is your summary of the source, but it must be brief—no more than two or three sentences. You must mention the author and the title, then state the paper's main purpose. Do not start retelling the story here.

3. The Monster Thesis: This is the most crucial sentence in your paper. It states your overall judgment. This sentence should combine your strongest strength and your strongest weakness. A strong critique thesis might sound like this: "While the author's methodology for data collection is exemplary, the paper ultimately fails to account for critical external variables, leading to an oversimplified and narrow conclusion regarding policy implementation."

Body Paragraphs: The PEAL Model for Critique

For the main body, each paragraph needs to focus on a single evaluative point—either a strength or a weakness. I use an adaptation of the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) model that works perfectly for critiques. I call it PEAL, and here is how it works:

• P – Point: State your critique point clearly. (e.g., "A primary strength of the work is the author's innovative use of longitudinal data.")

• E – Evidence (from the source): Quote or reference a specific part of the source material that illustrates your point. (e.g., "The section detailing the five-year follow-up study [p. 45] provides robust temporal validity.")

• A – Analysis (your judgment): This is the heart of the paragraph. Explain why this point (strength or weakness) matters. How does it affect the author's overall conclusion? (e.g., "This rigorous temporal scope counters common cross-sectional studies in the field, making the findings far more reliable in predicting long-term outcomes.")

• L – Link: Briefly link this idea back to your overall thesis statement in your introduction, reminding the reader of your main judgment.

If you stick to this, you’ll avoid the common mistake of just dropping a quote and moving on. You are an analyst, not a transcriber.

The Tone and Language Game: Sounding Smart Without Sounding Mean

You know what? This is often the hardest part for students. They have strong opinions, but they express them with too much emotion or informality. The language of critique must be formal, measured, and focused entirely on the text, never the person.

Formal Distance and Scholarly Verbs

Always refer to the work—the paper, the study, the research—not the author's personality or intelligence. Instead of saying, "The author made a silly mistake by ignoring X," you would say, "The study’s scope overlooked the influential factor of X, which limits the applicability of the findings."

You should also use appropriate scholarly verbs. These are subtle words that show measured judgment. Instead of saying "The author proves," use verbs like suggests, implies, indicates, claims, or contends. This is called hedging language, and it is a powerful tool. It shows that you are aware that knowledge is tentative and open to interpretation. Nobody "proves" anything in social science with one paper. They suggest it.

The Conclusion and Final Polish: Ending with Authority

Your conclusion is simple: it is a reverse-hourglass. You start narrow, focusing on your specific critique, and then zoom out to the wider field.

The "So What" Question and Future Implications

1. Restate and Summarize: Begin by restating your main thesis in fresh language. Then, briefly summarize your major strengths and weaknesses. You can use two sentences for each.

2. The Implication: This is the "So What" part. What should happen next? If the paper is brilliant, how should the field respond? If the paper is flawed, what specific research should be done to fix the gap? You are giving marching orders to future researchers (or the author). For example: "Future research must specifically address the impact of age demographics on these findings to provide a more nuanced understanding of the economic model."

A Quick Post-Draft Checklist

Before submitting, you should always check these few things. If you are reading this out loud and you spend more than a minute summarizing the source, you have summarized too much. If you feel like you are arguing with the author in a chat thread, your tone is too informal. Did you keep your promise from your thesis? Does your critique of the evidence actually matter to the paper's main conclusion? If the answer is yes, you have written a powerful, engaging, and highly effective critique paper. Go get that A!