Your second read should be more careful. Try to understand each sentence and the point of each paragraph. Discern the relationships between premises and conclusion. Clearly identify the sub arguments and be sensitive to directional cues. You should try to outline the argument eliminating much of the persuasive prose in the process - just plainly restate the argument. Now you should read it again and begin evaluating the argument. First note its structure. Does the conclusion actually follow from the premises and the reasoning? If so, consider the premises. Is there a reason to reject a premise, to think it may not be true? Write down what you think of the argument and why. Evaluation is crucial, but you cannot evaluate if you do not understand. Ultimately, you want to criticize an argument. However, in order to criticize you must understand; in order to understand, you must accurately restate the argument in your own words (outline); and in order to restate the argument, you must identify it.
It may take at least three readings:
Remember, three readings may not be enough. Further, when evaluating an argument you are thinking critically about it (even if you agree with it). This evaluation process will help you identify what you may want to write about, because reading and writing philosophy are intimately intertwined. If you think you have good reasons to declare the conclusion does not follow or that the premises are not true, or even that the whole issue is misguided, try to write a careful argument explaining why you think that is the case. Now you are doing philosophy.
|