Writing Evaluations ENC1101 Sp20

1. A concise description of the subject

When writing an evaluation, it is important that you give background information on what you're evaluating. However, as the Norton Field Guide explains, "You should include just enough information to let readers who may not be familiar with your subject understand what it is" (205). Remember, the goal of an evaluation is to evaluate, not summarize.

Q: How might the information we give differ between types of subjects? For instance, if we're evaluating a movie, what kind of background information might be necessary? What if we were evaluating a new energy drink? A local gym?

2. Clearly defined criteria

An evaluation is not an evaluation, or at least not a successful evaluation, without clear criteria that act as the basis for your judgment. You can either integrate these criteria into your writing, or you can more explicitly announce your criteria. The way you incorporate your criteria into your evaluation depends on different aspects of your rhetorical situation, such as your audience and your media/design.

Q: Using the previous examples, what criteria might be best to use when evaluating a movie? An energy drink or other beverage? A gym or other local establishment?

3. A knowledgeable discussion of the subject

Throughout the course of this semester, we've discussed the importance of ethos, not only how to identify it in others' writing, but also how to employ it in our own. Establishing ethos when writing evaluations is crucial; in order to "evaluate something credibly, you need to show that you know it yourself and that you've researched what other authoritative sources say" (206). Just one or the other will not make for a trustworthy evaluation.

Q: What are some other ways to establish ethos in your evaluation?

4. A balanced and fair assessment

As previously mentioned, "An evaluation is centered on a judgment" (202). If our judgments are not presented fairly, just like if we do not consider other authoritative sources on our subject, then our judgments will come across as unreliable and/or biased. The Norton Field Guide notes that "seldom is something all good or all bad" (206). Fair evaluations often acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of a subject; they are not completely positive or negative. (Consider the templates for both agreeing, disagreeing, and agreeing/disagreeing in They Say/I Say.)

Q: Think of a store or restaurant you've gone to recently. What were some good things about the experience? What were some bad things? Do the positives outweigh the negatives, or vice versa?

5. Well-supported reasons

In order to argue for your judgment, you need to provide good reasons supported by strong evidence. These reasons and types of evidence will depend on your subject, as well as your rhetorical situation. As you review how well your subject meets your criteria, you will decide how best to support your judgment, "providing reasons and evidence that might include visual and audio as well as verbal material" (206).

Q: To return to the previous examples, what kinds of evidence would best support an evaluation of a movie? An energy drink? A local gym?

Organizational Strategy 1: Start with your subject

This is a particularly useful strategy when your audience is not familiar with your subject.

Acknowledge objections or other opinions.

State your judgment.

Restate your overall judgment.

Describe what you're evaluating.

Provide reasons and evidence, discussing criteria as you apply them.

Organizational Strategy 2: Start with your criteria

This strategy, which first identifies your criteria and then discusses how well your subject meets those criteria, "foregrounds the process by which you reached your conclusions" (209).

Identify criteria for evaluation.

State your overall judgment.

Describe what you're evaluating.

Evaluate it against each of your criteria, one at a time, adding potential objections or other opinions in relation to each criterion.