I think that you can derive a strong argument from “your definitions aren’t specific enough,” if the theory allows for more than one interpretation (which should arise as a result of nonspecific definitions being used). The “specific” criticism could come from looking at your answer for the first part of the essay, suggesting an analysis that is sufficiently different from yours that they differ in key points, and then supporting this alternative analysis using the theory as well. Or, as an alternative way of phrasing question—is there one clear answer to the first part, or does the theory allow for multiple courses of action with non-trivial differences?
So although the original problem arose from the definitions, the actual criticism would be along the lines of “the theory is not specific/developed enough to prescribe a unique course of action in all circumstances.”
I think that you can derive a strong argument from “your definitions aren’t specific enough,” if the theory allows for more than one interpretation (which should arise as a result of nonspecific definitions being used). The “specific” criticism could come from looking at your answer for the first part of the essay, suggesting an analysis that is sufficiently different from yours that they differ in key points, and then supporting this alternative analysis using the theory as well. Or, as an alternative way of phrasing question—is there one clear answer to the first part, or does the theory allow for multiple courses of action with non-trivial differences?
So although the original problem arose from the definitions, the actual criticism would be along the lines of “the theory is not specific/developed enough to prescribe a unique course of action in all circumstances.”