SDSU Haves Win in the Legal System Critical Reading and Response

Purpose:

Critical reading is an active way of reading that privileges deep engagement with a text. When

we read critically, we use our critical thinking skills to question both the text and our own

reading of it. To read critically, you must think critically. This involves analysis, interpretation,

and evaluation. Each of these processes helps you to interact with the text in different ways:

highlighting important points and examples, brainstorming, outlining, describing aspects of the

text or argument, reflecting on your own reading and thinking, raising objections to the ideas or

evidence presented, drawing connections to others texts, and so on.

This assignment will encourage you to develop your critical reading skills, your academic

writing skills, and your verbal presentation skills, as you draft a two-page response to a course

reading and the present that response paper to the class.

Instructions:

Write a two-page response to your assigned reading. The response should be comprised of three

sections: (1) a brief summary of the reading, (2) an analysis of the reading, and (3) two

discussion questions.

Your first paragraph should be a summary of the reading. The summary should include the main

argument presented in the article or book chapter, and it should identify the evidence the author

uses to support his/her/their argument. Your summary should be concise – you do not need to

cover all points made in the reading; use your best judgment to determine which parts of the

reading are most important.

Your analysis paragraph should follow. In this paragraph, you will present a claim about the

reading. First, think about the main argument of the reading. Did you find that argument and the

evidence used to support it compelling? Why or why not? If not, what information would you

need to see to be convinced of the author’s argument? How could the author strengthen

his/her/their argument? Second, think about the reading and its main argument in comparison to

the other arguments we have covered. How does this reading fit in with the other readings we

have discussed in class? Does the author make an argument that is consistent with or that

contradicts the other arguments about law and courts?

TOPIC:

Marc Galanter (1974) “Why the Haves Comes Out Ahead” Law & Society Review

(pp 95-160)