You should critique Naomi Klein’s piece titled “We Are the wildfire: How
to fight the climate crisis

1)A summary of the central argument(s) of the reading. What were the conclusions of the article? How were those conclusions supported (what evidence was provided)? If there was a research question, what was that question? And what were the answers to that question based on the
research?

2) How convincing was the central argument/thesis of the reading? Were there flaws in their argument, either in the evidence they provided or in how they applied that evidence to support their thesis?

3) How does the thesis of this article hold up when compared to other readings? What critiques of this reading are suggested either explicitly or implicitly by the authors of other readings? Does considering the selected reading in the broader context of other readings strengthen or weaken the argument presented in the selected reading?