- Does it have all the information it needs to have?
- Is all of its necessary information correct?
- Are there any problems with its logic, its argument?
There are all kinds of different directions you could go with this last criteria. Adler suggests a few:
- Maybe its conclusions were fine as far as it went but didn't address all the questions it raised; it left unsolved something that was really important.
- Maybe the argument was valid as far as it went but missed some important implications, corollaries, or ramifications. (Many rhetoricians and logicians would say this is a problem with the argument itself and ought to fall under point #3, but "normal" academics have a narrower definition of "logic" and say this inadequacy had more to do with limited scope than flawed logic.)
- Maybe certain key terms were too general, and finer distinctions should have been made with their definitions. (Another logic problem that most people see as an adequacy problem!)
- Maybe the argument itself should have been carried further than it was, and its conclusions were too timid, too restrained. (This is a question of opinion, not logic, so if you're going to say this, you need to back up your opinion really well!)