| name | critical-reading |
| description | Analytical evaluation of texts for argument quality, author purpose, bias, credibility, and rhetorical strategy. Covers the distinction between comprehension and critique, argument analysis (claims, evidence, reasoning, warrants), rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), bias identification (selection bias, confirmation bias, loaded language, omission), source credibility evaluation (CRAAP test, lateral reading), propaganda techniques, media literacy, and multi-text synthesis. Use when evaluating arguments, identifying bias, assessing source reliability, analyzing rhetoric, or synthesizing across multiple texts on the same topic. |
| type | skill |
| category | reading |
| status | stable |
| origin | tibsfox |
| modified | false |
| first_seen | "2026-04-12T00:00:00.000Z" |
| first_path | examples/skills/reading/critical-reading/SKILL.md |
| superseded_by | null |
Critical Reading
Critical reading is the practice of evaluating what a text claims, how it supports those claims, and whose interests it serves. It goes beyond comprehension -- understanding what a text says -- to judgment: is what it says true, well-supported, fair, and complete? In an information environment saturated with persuasion, misinformation, and motivated reasoning, critical reading is not an academic luxury but a survival skill.
Agent affinity: achebe (postcolonial reading, "An Image of Africa," whose story gets told), austen (irony detection, social observation), morrison (race and narrative, Playing in the Dark)
Concept IDs: read-author-purpose-perspective, read-argument-analysis, read-evaluating-bias, read-literary-analysis
Comprehension vs. Critique
Comprehension asks: "What does this text say?" Critique asks: "Should I believe it, and on what terms?" These are sequential, not competing, operations. A reader who critiques before comprehending misrepresents the text. A reader who comprehends without critiquing accepts claims uncritically.
Reading order:
- First, understand the text on its own terms (comprehension).
- Then, evaluate its claims, reasoning, and perspective (critique).
- Finally, situate it among other texts on the same topic (synthesis).
Argument Analysis
The Structure of Arguments
Every argument has three components:
| Component | Definition | Question to ask |
|---|
| Claim | The assertion the author wants you to accept | "What is the author arguing?" |
| Evidence | The facts, data, examples, or testimony offered in support | "What support does the author provide?" |
| Reasoning | The logical connection between evidence and claim | "How does the evidence actually support the claim?" |
Toulmin (1958) adds three more components for full analysis:
| Component | Definition | Question |
|---|
| Warrant | The underlying assumption connecting evidence to claim | "What unstated belief makes this argument work?" |
| Qualifier | The degree of certainty ("most," "probably," "in many cases") | "How strongly does the author state the claim?" |
