Table of Contents
Has all the relevant evidence been taken into considerations? Consider means
Is there an alternate explanation or interpretation of the evidence and is it acknowledged?
The writer has no responsibility to take the mind of the reader across all the stages of evidence. An assumption can be made that whoever was responsible for analyzing had in mind the possible interpretations after which he considered the interpretation given. Having deduced that, the writer should promise the reader, more so on complicated matters, to let him know that there is a possibility of another perspective, especially if that perspective is in the expert’s scope. To deduce and to show are likely to be the commonly used verbs of whoever is analyzing. The question that will linger in my mind is what else would be suggested in line with this development and why has theoretical issues been considered as the only possible way out?
Is this piece consistent with previous analysis?
If it involves departure, it demands for further elaboration of events. Another thing is whether a lot of time has elapsed since the case was given a treatment. A warning demands a very fast way of reviewing the already carried out review. A focus of what has been said should not be lost at the very least considering language used in the article as background information for one interested. As time goes by, those who have qualified alongside caveats stand a peril of being forgotten or discarded altogether more so when diverse people to analyze are involved a replica of Iraq saga.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Is it clear what is known? And has the analyst conveyed the level of confidence in the judgments and conclusions put forth in the piece?
When judgments are being sharpened it is different from making them firm. Sharpening involves being clear what the judgment entails and the confidence of whoever is analyzing should be put in mind. In an attempt to firm up the judgment, the level of confidence must be pleaded with at its best and in all aspects portray a concrete aspect of confidence that survives.
What assumptions underpin the analysis?
This is a system that increases firmness on the already done analysis. All issues should be put at a glance regardless of their impacts. Making assumptions is not the way to go about. These can make the analysis look weak. A common characteristic is made by the CIA director on the coming down of Shah of Iran in the 70s and weapons of destroying masses from Iraq at the start of millennium. They were based on assumptions that had widely been spread. As far as Iran is concerned it was deduced that Shah appeared mighty and the side of opposition was rather experiencing divisions besides being shaky. Looking at Iraq it was deduced that one Saddam Hussein is not in his right senses let his biological and chemical concoctions go up in flames. This led to analysts getting nowhere with their analysis as they based them on very flimsy and unreliable sources. The idea of how far they were from being correct was nowhere besides systems of testing.
What are the key variables, changes in which would alter the assessment?
These are the driving factors and connections in the whole analysis. They are firmly linked to assumptions but they portray a lot of evidence. A lot of main variables are elaborated in this article more so if United States actions are single as seen in most cases. The simplest known way to lay your hands on variables is in the form of ‘what if’. If a transition of any kind is altered the analysis will take a different direction. Through discussions, critical thinking and occasionally looking on what analysts have deduced is seen as main shapers and what fuels and easily to detect assumptions made. The relaying of message in the September six years back to Duelfer Report on war equipment to destroy crowds of people from Iraq by far did not expose Saddam’s way of looking at things and perception in a wider scope. The report deduced that Saddam perceived his condition, the United States and Iran in a very different way than earlier predicted. This provided a different casual connections, issues assumed, variables among others. Occasionally, the min variable is a specific perspective as perceived in the case of Saddam Hussein. Sometimes it may be vague as comparing if the railroad connection can manage to take the contraband to a port being time conscious to make sailing perfectly.