Critical Response and Analysis
What this domain tests
Critical response asks you to evaluate an author's choices and argument: Is the evidence sufficient? Is the reasoning sound? What is the purpose and audience? How does style serve the message? Key concepts: thèse, argument, preuve (evidence), exemple, contre-argument, réfutation, appel à l'émotion vs. appel à la logique, public cible, intention de l'auteur, and fiabilité de la source (reliability).
Traps to watch for
- Opinion vs. analysis. "I disagree" is not a critical response; you must evaluate how the text works.
- Attacking the person, not the argument (attaque personnelle) - a distractor may describe a flaw in tone rather than in reasoning.
- Confusing persuasive technique with proof. An emotional anecdote may be effective but is not evidence of a general claim.
- Missing the counter-argument. A text that acknowledges and refutes an opposing view is stronger; questions often test whether you noticed this move.
- Ignoring source and date. Reliability depends on who wrote, when, and for what purpose.
Worked example
Text: « Une seule élève a essayé le nouveau menu végétarien et l'a trouvé fade. Il est donc clair que tous les élèves préféreront l'ancien menu. » Which criticism is most accurate? (A) The author's tone is rude. (B) The conclusion generalizes from a single case. (C) The menu is unhealthy. (D) The student is unreliable.
Apply the rule of thumb: name the claim, name the evidence, test the link. The claim is about all students; the evidence is one student. The gap is overgeneralization - (B). (A) misreads tone; (C) introduces outside information; (D) attacks the source rather than the reasoning.
Rule of thumb
Use the three-part frame: The author claims ___, supports it with ___, but ___. The blank you can fill with a specific reasoning flaw is your answer.