ASU Edin & Shaefer’s $2 a Day and Schwalbe’s Rigging the Game Paper Critical Review Assignment based on Edin & Shaefer’s $2 a Day and Schwalbe’s Rigging th

ASU Edin & Shaefer’s $2 a Day and Schwalbe’s Rigging the Game Paper Critical Review Assignment based on Edin & Shaefer’s $2 a Day and Schwalbe’s Rigging the Game

( The book is free on Some website like Amazon)

A full citation of the work being reviewed appears at the beginning and may serve as the title of your critique.If you have a specific title other than the full citation, then the citation appears before your first paragraph. Reading is not a passive process when attempting to review the work.To read actively, you will find that engaging in a dialogue with the author enhances your ability to be critical.Approach what you read with an open mind.Your task in writing a critique is to evaluate fairly yet be discerning about what you have read.Formulate a thesis that states your evaluation position and develop that throughout the review. It’s fine to note when you disagree or have an issue with content or style.However, your effort should focus on the author’s argument, first; then, you may make a critical or evaluative approach of that author’s work. When writing your critique, it should address all components in the following outline:

I).The introduction catches the reader’s attention and identifies the subject of the work and provides a thesis statement (yours!) regarding your emphasis and overall evaluation of the work.

II).The body of your critique is the most important part.

 Begin by noting the author’s thesis.What is the thesis statement and how well do you find that it was supported?

 Provide a condensed summary of each chapter – one to two paragraphs – that includes terms and ideas addressed in the chapter; identify the author’s main idea or point and how it was explained.

 Distinguish the theme(s) in the work by focusing on how a specific chapter emphasizes the theme(s). That is, how does the chapter you selected support the author’s main points and how clear are references and examples? Are there assumptions that underlie the author’s argument(s)? Has the author overlooked important points, or failed to consider important evidence? Are the author’s conclusions valid?Is there any additional subject or point that you wish the author had addressed?

 Whenever possible, compare other authors or commentators knowledgeable about the subject regarding the arguments made in the work.

III). Comment on stylistic components by focusing on the organization and coherence.

 Describe the layout of the work and how this adds or detracts from coherence.

 Regarding clarity, organization and language, how well is the work written?

 Do stylistic or rhetorical features affect the source’s content?

IV).Consider biographical and professional information about the author. Is the author living?

 What other works has the author written?

 What are the author’s qualifications and biases on this topic?

 Is the author affiliated with any organization that might espouse a particular point of view affecting the content?

 Is the author affiliated with a college, university, government agency, political group, and/or industry that may have interest in the content?

 Does the author’s background enhance or bring in to question the author’s credibility and reliability of the information?

V).Conclude your critique with a statement that reminds reader of your critique position, what the author has accomplished and your recommendation to others who might read this. As a final statement, note how the work relates to this specific course or a specific topic within sociology. [5]

If you make reference to other source material, be sure to include bibliographic references at theend of your critique. (You do not need a separate page).

* Responses are complete at critical thinking levels indicated below:

Level 1: Elementary clarification is provided; information is there without elaboration. Surface information is provided and statements are made without justification. That is, there are no reference citations. (You may earn 75% maximum).

Level 2: In-depth clarification is provided as evident by analysis that looks at assumptions as well as findings. Additional information is alluded to but is not provided or specified. That is, there are no specific examples. (You may earn 85% maximum).

Level 3: Inferences are made, and conclusions are based on evidence from prior statements; generalizing is evident by use of examples. In-depth information is provided and substantiated with citation or other reference, and examples are provided. The more specific and concrete the examples, the greater the earning. (You may earn up to an additional 15%).