“Kripke’s Critique of Smart’s Identity Thesis: An Evaluation”

are true at all. This shows, Kripke believes, that Smart’s “identity thesis” can’t be
true. What is Kripke’s reasoning here? Explain and evaluate.
Kripke claims that identity statements such as “water is h2o” are necessary if they are true at all. This shows, Kripke Believes, that smarts’ identity thesis can’t be true. What is kripke’s reasning here? evaluate and explain.
My suggestion is this. Return to Smart’s article to understand what exactly the identity thesis is. Think: what are the conditions for the identity thesis to be true? It might also be helpful to consider what would *counter* the truth of the identity thesis. Then, yes, I would recommend just focusing on the excerpt we read from Kripke. It was a long time ago so I don’t remember, but I think that is all you need. Just make sure you discuss the relevant section where he’s implicating the identity thesis.
In Kripke, look for the claim discussed in the prompt and try to explain, as if to a peer who isn’t in the class, what exactly Kripke means when we say that identity statements are necessary, if true at all. 
Then, put Kripke and Smart in conversation and try to bring out Kripke’s argument for why such a statement would negate the identity thesis. Try to explain this in a slow, step-by-step way, as thoroughly as you can in five double-spaced pages. 
You can, of course, also disagree with Kripke that his claim means that Smart’s identity thesis can’t be true. But either way, you should spend time evaluating whether (and why) you think Kripke is right or not.