summarize what you think are the paper’s primary arguments or points. This is your re-description and honest summary of what you think the author is arguing. (There may be multiple points, it’s up to you to create a summary that you think makes sense.)
say why you think the paper matters (what is its value or contribution)
argue for how and why the paper should be extended or revised. E.g., does it fail to do something critical? Does it make a mistaken assumption, logical progression, or rely on an erroneous definition? Be specific and clear. This is not you saying whether you “liked” the paper or not – this is you building an analytical critique of how the paper could be better.
cite/use text from the paper to illustrate your summary and your analysis (there is no minimum or maximum number of citations, do what you think is reasonable).
The reading that has to be analyzed is attached. Thank you