ANALYTICAL REVIEW

Review of “ ___”

Topic (general idea): The article (en)titled…, published in…on…

• Examines the current trends…, the role of…in…, the changes taking place…
• Analyses the weak points and strengths…
• Discusses the effectiveness …/the problem of…
• Seeks to prove…addresses the debates…presents a spirited defense of… aims to disprove/rebut/overturn claims…
• Addresses/raises the issue of…

Thesis (specific message the article conveys): The author

• Argues/claims /believes/posits/contends that…refutes…calls on ..to…

The purpose/main goal of the review is/ the review seeks to

• to critically evaluate the argumentation
• to analyse the key points
• to evaluate the validity of the central claim…

To prove the point/thesis, the article\author… (The article claims that…)

• Highlights… discusses…presents several arguments to support the claim…builds his arguments on…outlines a number of arguments…
• In support of his/her position the author argues that…
• To begin with…furthermore…moreover…finally…
• As a result… consequently…on the other hand…
• Concludes…admits…challenges the criticism by reframing the debate as…
• Counters the critique of…seeks to refute claims…concedes that…

• One of the (central) arguments is/seems/appears…controversial…effective…strong…implausible…propaganda-driven/ideologically driven…biased/untenable…
• The article’s weakest point/argument/claim/ most vulnerable aspect of the argumentation/idea is that…
•  The idea that… is unfounded/not supported by evidence/flawed/based on a Manichean view of the world
• The argument that…is plausible…but it oversimplifies/reduces the debate/problem to…\underestimates…
• The author is hyperfixated on/exaggerates/underestimates/ignores/neglects/dismisses as insignificant/fails to account for… the flaws/benefits/idea/fact
• The argument that… does not stand up to scrutiny…seems inadequate/one-sided
• The argumentation seems rather tenable, but it overlooks…, uses double standards/relies on/is premised on biased narratives/selective evidence/unsustainable
• It fails to corroborate/substantiate/ … the claim
• The author’s reasoning concerning… is dubious/weak… as he appeals to emotions rather than logic…
• The author’s argument that… is weakened by several factors…
• The author’s argument may seem plausible at first sight as…, but…

• In conclusion…all in all…to conclude,.. taking everything into consideration,..
• The article fails to… interpret correctly/give a thorough analysis of/
• The arguments are not persuasive enough to prove…
• The arguments may seem well-founded, but…do not stand up to scrutiny…are overly speculative
• …offers a defense of…, but idealizes/vilifies/demonizes/presents a biased picture
• The author’s treatment of (the problem) lacks support, is unconvincing, is based on false argumentation and misconceptions and thus may be regarded as a piece of propaganda aimed at…/
• The article overemphasizes the role…while downplaying…/oversimplifies the issue/reduces the conflict to a competition…/frames behavior as…but neglects/ignores…/overstates the significance/proposes unrealistic solutions…/is biased in the way it frames the conflict between good and evil…/ignores the historical context…
• While giving useful insights into (the decision-making process of…)…, the article’s analysis remains idealistic/lacking in clarity and coherence…
• …but provides food for thought.
• The author strives to present a compelling case for…, but his perception is distorte by outdated paradigms dating back to …

How to write a review of an article.

Sample Review

• Analyze the structure of the review below. What is the function of each paragraph? What language is used to highlight the logic of the text? Underline/highlight useful expressions.
• What idea does the author of the review choose to critically assess? Is it mentioned in the summary paragraph? Does the author agree or disagree? What is the purpose of the topic sentence in paragraph 3? What are the arguments to support the claim? Write out useful language to evaluate ideas.
• What ideas does the concluding paragraph rehash? Does the author use the same language as in the body of the review? How many sentences does this paragraph have?
• Look up the criteria of a successful review. Does this sample meet all of them? Is there anything missing?

1. In her article «The Global Succession Crisis» (Prospect, September 2025), Isabel Hilton examines the risks posed by the aging leaders of Russia, China, and the United States—Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump—who dominate their political systems without clear succession plans. Hilton argues that the lack of structured leadership transitions in authoritarian regimes, contrasted with the stability of democratic systems, could lead to global instability, economic disruptions, and geopolitical chaos upon their deaths or departures. (77)
2. The author claims that authoritarian countries are inherently fragile as stability is guaranteed by power hungry autocrats whose power structure crumbles once they step down, leaving behind resentment and chaos. Hilton supports her thesis by highlighting one historical precedent, the turbulent succession following Mao Zedong’s rule in China, where power struggles led to violence and instability. She warns that similar crises could unfold in authoritarian Russia and China, triggering internal conflicts, economic turmoil, and regional insecurity—such as North Korea exploiting instability in China to attempt a recapture of its southern neighbour. Additionally, Hilton notes that today the U.S. under Trump has lost\relinquished many democratic safeguards and may lack the capacity and internal unity to mitigate these global risks. The article underscores the potential for widespread chaos if succession plans are not established, and given the anti-democratic tendencies today we should prepare for global turmoil. (145)
3. Isabel Hilton’s emphasis on Mao’s chaotic succession as indicative of broader trends in authoritarian power transitions is unduly selective, as it disregards subsequent periods of more orderly leadership change in China, such as the transitions from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin and from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping. These later transitions suggest a degree of institutionalization within the Chinese Communist Party aimed specifically at minimizing the risks of personalist succession crises. Moreover, Hilton’s framing neglects the considerable instability that can accompany democratic transitions. For instance, the contested results and subsequent violence surrounding the U.S. 2020 presidential election, as well as France’s 1958 political crisis, each highlight that democratic systems are not immune to turbulence during leadership change. By highlighting only authoritarian volatility while neglecting analogous democratic crises, Hilton perpetuates a simplistic dichotomy which posits authoritarian regimes as uniquely vulnerable to chaos, while depicting democracies as inherently stable. In reality, both regime types are susceptible to succession-related instability; the crucial distinction lies in the mechanisms and institutional safeguards each system employs to manage such moments. A more balanced assessment would recognize that, although authoritarian regimes frequently lack transparency and avenues for legitimate dissent, democracies can also experience significant crises when institutional norms erode or fail. (204)
4. In conclusion, Hilton’s analysis is hardly tenable as her depiction of succession politics unduly exaggerates authoritarian instability while overlooking similar vulnerabilities in democracies. A more nuanced assessment reveals that both regime types face succession-related challenges, and it is the nature of institutional safeguards—not the regime label itself—that determines their capacity to manage transitions without crisis. (57)

• While the author makes a compelling case, their ideas are not something I can agree with, The article neglects…(other potential solutions)   Logic
• Such oversimplification, frankly, is an unacceptable way to examine the highly complex issue…   St
• While the overall thesis (American power is the only possible force that can underpin and maintain the global order amid the imminent threat coming from rogue regimes such as China and Russia) is (!) persuasive, its most vulnerable fact is …   Lex, logic
• First, the author says…, later he points out, then he demonstrates…   Logic
• The author’s argument about… may seem rather arguable.   Lex
• Although the author proves his point of view, the issue still remains questionable. logic