For my critique assignment, I have chosen to read the fourth chapter of The Big Sort. I believe the thesis of this chapter is best stated on the last page: "The new society was more about personal taste and worldview than public policy. It was as much or more concerned with self-expression and belief as with social class and economics" (Bishop, 104). In this chapter, Bishop is trying to convince readers that what he's saying is true. His purpose is to persuade.
Clear definition of terms:
One of the points Bishop makes in this chapter is that, in the 1960s, politics were not moralized. In order to make this argument, Bishop must define what exactly moralized means. He does this by providing readers with a number of examples: "...there was no relationship between church attendance and party. Regular churchgoers voted both Democratic and Republican" (Bishop, 82). Through this example, readers understand that whether someone goes to church or not is a moral decision. Since church and party were not linked, politics were not controlled by morals.
Fair use and interpretation of information:
A key piece to Bishop's argument is the data Ronald Inglehart gathered. Inglehart found that "hungry people cared about survival... But those who grew up in abundance would be more concerned with self-expression. Those who lived in times of depression or joblessness esteemed economic growth. Those who knew plenty were more concerned about the environment and individual choice" (Bishop, 84). Bishop then uses the ideas of others to prove Inglehart's theory. He discusses Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow said that people needed to satisfy physiological and safety needs before they had a strong desire for love and esteem. This fits in with Inglehart's argument. Poor people could not discuss moral issues because they were still focused on hunger and financial security. Wealthier people already had those needs met and were, therefore, free to discuss moral issues.
Logical reasoning:
Bill Bishop then brings his discussion back to politics. He says that all of this moral thinking resulted in a decrease in trust. People stopped trusting the government just as much as they stopped trusting churches, education, medicine, large corporations, and journalism. Bishop sites the findings of scholars, saying that American trust is directly correlated with American experience: "American's trust was related to national political scandals. (Trust levels dipped sharply after Watergate in the mid-1970s, for example.) Also, if the economy hit a bad patch or if the government seemed overly prone to bungle, trust declined" (Bishop, 95). This is a very logical argument. Of course people are going to stop trusting politicians when they find out they've been lied to.

This chapter of What It Takes by Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen discusses critique. When writing a critique, one must summarize and evaluate the passage in question. Behrens and Rosen advise writers to ask themselves two questions when writing a critique. First, "To what extent does the author succeed in his or her purpose?" (Behrens, 37). Second, "To what extent do you agree with the author?" (Behrens, 37). These two questions divide the critiquing process into five steps: Introduce, summarize, assess the presentation, respond to the presentation, and conclude. To illustrate the critiquing process, Behrens and Rosen include an article by Joan Ryan titled "We Are Not Created Equal in Every Way." They also include a critique of this piece. I believe that Eric Ralston does a good job introducing the topic. He summarizes Ryan's article and spends an adequate amount of time evaluating the article. I like that Ralston mentions specific language in Ryan's essay, such as when he points out the difference between discriminating and discriminatory. Though it is apparent that Ralston agrees with Ryan's points from his assessment of the article, I still believe that Ralston should have spend more time responding to the presentation. His conclusion is strong.