LUMS Study advice
Examples of critical writing
This handout shows two extracts from student writing, both of which show that the writer is
being critical. Read the extracts and accompanying notes.
Extract 1 below is from an essay about the possible impact of social media on companies.
Read through the extract and refer to the numbered notes below, which explain how the
writer is being critical and structuring her argument.
Extract 1:
1. The first downside of social media is that companies can begin to lose control
over information made available about them online. 2. In the past, companies could
monitor what information the public received about them through strategically
placed press announcements and good public relations managers (Kaplan and
Haenlein, 2010). However, this is no longer the case and, 3. while electronic Wordof-Mouth (e-WOM) generated on various social media platforms can bring benefits if
the messages about a company are positive, it can also be a disaster if bad news,
scandals or complaints are spread freely online. 4. This can be seen in the case of
Tesco, a British supermarket, when its ready meals advertised as beef products were
found to contain horse DNA. 5. Customers' anger was spread through many online
comments, tweets and shares online. Almost 6000 negative comments were posted
online in the three weeks after the incident happened, which exacerbated Tesco's
position during the crisis (Brown, 2013). 6. In some cases, firms do not have the right
to alter information that has been published about them. 7. For example, Wikipedia
does not allow corporations to participate in composing information about their
business. 8. This means that potentially inaccurate or negative information about a
company could be posted on Wikipedia, which may have a negative impact on its
sales and reputation. 9. To address this challenge, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010)
suggest that organisations pay attention to and acknowledge what is said about
them online, and use this knowledge in their interactions with consumers.
Notes on Extract 1
1.
The writer has written a topic sentence giving one limitation / drawback of
the theory / model / idea. This is descriptive – is answers a “what…?”
question (What are the drawbacks of social media for companies?)
1
LUMS Study advice
2.
The writer includes a couple of sentences explaining this limitation /
drawback and giving some details, plus citations from the literature. This
gives evidence to support the writer’s claims. It answers “when…?” and
“what…?” questions (When did this potential problem with social media
arise? And In what way can companies not control information about
themselves?). This part of the text also acknowledges the complexity of the
issue by admitting that social media can be positive as well as negative.
3.
Here the writer includes a sentence or two saying what the implications of
this limitation / drawback are. This answers a “what if…?” question (What
can happen if negative information is spread online?). This shows that the
writer is able to make intelligent hypotheses and talk about possible
consequences of events.
4.
The writer gives a specific example. Claims will be stronger if they are
supported by evidence, which can take the form of specific examples.
5.
The writer explains the example and shows how it relates to the assignment
topic by linking the case of horsemeat to negative online comments. Note
that the writer includes a reference to show where this information came
from.
6.
The writer includes another limitation / drawback / challenge. Here the
writer moves on a new sub-topic, relating to what happens once negative
information has been published. This sentence is quite general because it is
introducing a new sub-topic.
7.
Having written a general sentence, the writer now elaborates, giving a
specific example. The writer’s general claim that companies cannot always
change information about them is supported by the specific example of
Wikipedia.
8.
The writer includes a sentence or two saying what the implications are. Here
the writer explains why this problem matters. This is the “So what…?” part of
her argument. She addresses questions such as Who cares if companies
cannot change information about themselves? What are the implications of
negative information remaining online? Why is it important?
9.
Here the writer suggests a potential solution or alternative The writer links
the real-world examples with what the theories say, and answers a “How…?”
question (How might this problem of negative information online be
addressed by companies?)
The strengths of Extract 1 include:

The writer has a good paragraph structure, with a topic sentence telling the reader
the general topic of the paragraph, followed by details and explanations.

The writer gives specific examples to show the reader what she means.
2
LUMS Study advice

The writer addresses “So what…?” questions, by saying what the implications of
things are (especially in point 8). This is important because it shows the reader why
the information is important.
To get a good grade, this writer would need to continue this critical approach in her
discussion of the theory. Following point 9, she should not just accept that Kaplan and
Haenlein’s (2010) suggestion is perfect, but should discuss the pros and cons of their
suggestion. This might include pointing out limitations (perhaps not all companies have the
resources to follow what is said about them online?) and perhaps including alternative
suggestions from other scholars.
Extract 2 below is from an essay about e-business models. Read through the extract and
refer to the numbered notes below, which explain how the writer is being critical and
structuring his argument.
Extract 2:
1. Despite being a useful tool for analysis, Hamel’s framework has certain drawbacks.
2. For example, the current fourth pillar of the model (see Figure 2.) only emphasises
suppliers, partners, and coalitions as key components of the value network, whereas loyal
consumers and valued opinion leaders are not included. 3. Adding these elements would be
of enormous benefit to e-businesses as they are free sources of positive Word-of-mouth. 4.
Withers (2006) and Lau and Ng (2001) note that positive Word-of-mouth can influence
many customers and may indirectly result in higher sales. 5. However, user-generated
content (UGC) may be even more effective in encouraging consumers to engage with online
information (Tuten and Solomon, 2013). Reputation management is arguably more
important for e-businesses than conventional businesses because customers’ only contact
with e-business is online. Therefore, e-businesses need to take steps to ensure that their
customers hold positive opinions about them and, if possible, share these opinions online.
1. The writer includes a topic sentence previewing what the paragraph is about.
This sentence also acknowledges that the model / theory / concept is useful to
some extent and says that it has some limitations / drawbacks. This shows that
the writer has evaluated Hamel’s framework and has managed to identify some
problems with it.
2. The writer incudes specific examples and details – what is missing / what is
wrong with the theory and what should be added / changed? This part of the
text addresses not only what is mentioned in Hamel’s model, but also what is not
mentioned.
3
LUMS Study advice
3. The writer writes one or more sentences saying what the effect would be of his
suggested change. This part of the text addresses a “what if…?” question (What
would happen if new elements were added to the model? Who would benefit?) In
this sense, the writer is using Hamel’s model (and his questions about it) to make
an informed hypothesis about possible consequences.
4. The writer provides evidence to support his claim that word-of-mouth would
benefit companies. This evidence is not discussed in detail and there is no critical
analysis the claim that word-of-mouth can influence customers or increase sales.
This may be because this is not central to the writer’s argument – he quickly
moves on to talk about UGC instead because he thinks it is more effective /
relevant in this case.
5. The writer points out a potentially better way of influencing customers. In saying
that UGC may be better than word-of-mouth, he is implicitly criticising word-ofmouth. Note that this writer hedges his claim here by saying “arguably”. The
writer then goes on to explain to the reader why UGC is especially important for
e-businesses.
In just a few sentences, the writer of Extract 2 shows that he is critically evaluating Hamel’s
framework by identifying its limitations, speculating about possible alternatives and giving
reasons and evidence for his opinions.
You may want to refer to the Manchester phrasebank for examples of language you can use
in writing to show criticality.
4