The analysis is the paragraph-level discussion of why or how the provided evidence is relevant to the paper’s controlling interpretation or argument. Analysis is an extension of the evidence that creates a link between the words of the sources, the author’s own insights on the topic, and the essay’s controlling ideas. It should provide answers to the paper’s central questions and also reflect the demands of the writing assignment. Analysis requires the writer to draw on critical thinking skills such as remembering, understanding, reflecting, analyzing, and synthesizing.

<aside> <img src="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/20651af7-b9cc-4182-a182-bca14f2ee94b/1_120_transparent.png" alt="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/20651af7-b9cc-4182-a182-bca14f2ee94b/1_120_transparent.png" width="40px" /> Contents

1 Generating Analysis

 1.1 [Considerations](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      1.1.1 [Posing Critical Questions](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.1.1.1 [Analysis](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

               1.1.1.1.1 [Examples and Explanations](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.1.1.2 [Argument](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

               1.1.1.2.1 [Examples and Explanations](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)            

 1.2 [Integration Methods](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      1.2.1 [Lead-in Phrasing](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.1 [Implies](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.2 [Concludes](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.3 [Continues](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.4 [States Erroneously](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.5 [Argues Against](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.6 [Argues in Favor](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.7 [Says](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.8 [Agrees](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.2.1.9 [Concedes](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

 1.3 [Developing the Interpretation](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      1.3.1 [“So What?” Question](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.3.1.1 [Analysis](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

           1.3.1.1 [Argument](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>) 

 1.4 [Common Errors](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      1.4.1 [Summary vs. Analysis](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>) 

      1.4.2 [Lack of Development](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      1.4.3 [Announcing Without Justifying](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

2 Refutations in Persuasive Writing

 2.1 [Concession](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.1.1 [Example](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.1.2 [Explanation](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

 2.2 [Rejection](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.2.1 [Example](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.2.2 [Explanation](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

 2.3 [Denial](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.3.1 [Example](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

      2.3.2 [Explanation](<https://swamp-drip-4f6.notion.site/Body-Paragraph-Analysis-0c81c28a6c224c138a0435b05c2f75ca>)

</aside>

Traducir esta página al [Español] | Traduzir esta página para [Português]

Generating Analysis

Considerations

Analysis looks at how a text conveys its main idea in order to form a judgment or interpretation of it. Assignments calling for an analysis of evidence vary widely, but they usually ask the writer to look at how the text's parts contribute to its central argument or purpose, often with the aim of evaluating its evidence or overall effect. When a writer analyzes evidence, the main intention is to communicate what the evidence means and why it matters in the context of the paper’s bigger arguments. The following are the central considerations a most writers should consider as they generate analysis in the body paragraphs:

• Ground the analysis in the evidence: In most analyses, the evidence is the primary focus of the discussion. Although writers may reflect on the issues raised by the interpretation, it is a best practice to maintain a clear focus on the evidence and to keep the analysis grounded firmly in what can be located within it. Evidence can support and enhance the analysis, but it cannot speak for itself and cannot do the work of interpretation for the writer.
• Consider the evidence in its full context: In the early stages of generating analysis, it can be tempting for the writer to focus on a detail before seeing it in the broader context of the text as a whole. The writer may decide to narrow the analysis to a particular aspect of the text, but it is a best practice to lay the foundation for a fair, well-informed interpretation by first considering the text as a whole.
• Avoid cherry-picking: "Cherry-picking" refers to the process of focusing only the aspects of a text that support the overall interpretation and ignoring others that might weaken or contradict the interpretation. Writers must factor in all the evidence. If the evidence, taken in full, doesn't support the interpretation, the writer should rethink the approach to the analysis.

Traducir esta sección al [Español] | Traduzir esta seção para [Português]

Posing Critical Questions

Writers can help generate analysis by posing critical questions to the evidence. The answer to these questions typically forms the basis of the analysis. While the prompt and the selected evidence will determine the eventual direction the analysis will go, the following questions are a useful starting point:

Analysis

• Purpose: What did the writer hope to accomplish? Was it accomplished and, if so, how well? If not, why not?
  • Example: In Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," her purpose was to raise awareness about the harmful effects of pesticides on the environment. She effectively achieved this through compelling scientific evidence and evocative narrative, sparking an environmental movement and leading to policy changes.
  • Explanation: This example shows how to analyze an author's objective and the effectiveness of their work in achieving it. Carson's aim was not only to inform but also to inspire action, which she successfully did.
• Style: What strategies did the writer use to present this evidence? Is there anything noteworthy about the author’s writing style/structural decisions in the text? The author’s word choice? The author’s logic, examples, or evidence? The author’s assumptions?
  • Example: In Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, his style is marked by the use of powerful rhetoric, vivid imagery, and repetition. His choice of words, like "freedom" and "dream," resonate deeply, and his logical and passionate delivery strengthens his call for civil rights and equality.
  • Explanation: This analysis focuses on the author's stylistic choices, examining how they contribute to the overall impact of the piece. King's style is integral to the persuasive power of his speech.
• Reader/audience: Who is the intended audience? Did readers react to the document as the writer hoped? Why or why not? What aspects of the needs, interests, values, beliefs, and experiences of the audience might have led them to react to the document as they did?
  • Example: J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" series was initially intended for young readers but ended up attracting a broad, multi-generational audience. The series' appeal can be attributed to its universal themes of friendship, courage, and the struggle between good and evil, resonating with readers of all ages.
  • Explanation: This analysis examines the intended audience versus the actual audience, exploring how and why the work resonated with a broader demographic than initially anticipated.
• Context: How did the context in which the document was composed shape it? How did the context in which it was read shape the reaction of the audience? Would it be reacted to differently 50 years from now? 50 years earlier? Why?
  • Example: George Orwell's "1984," written in the post-World War II era, reflects the prevailing fear of totalitarianism. If written or read 50 years earlier or later, its reception might differ due to changing political landscapes and societal attitudes towards surveillance and government control.
  • Explanation: This analysis explores how the context in which the document was written and read influences its interpretation. The historical and social context at different times would alter its relevance and impact.

Traducir esta sección al [Español] | Traduzir esta seção para [Português]

Argument

• Meaning: What is the significance and implications or the evidence? Can different people find different meanings in the evidence, and if so, why? Does a closer examination of the evidence reveal a new way of thinking about it?
• Elements: Think about the subject in terms of its parts. How does it break down into smaller pieces, or how can it be divided in different ways? Which parts are most important, and which are less significant? Why?
• Categories: What group or category does the evidence belong to? How is it similar to or different from other ideas in a particular group? How can comparing this evidence to related evidence help a reader understand it in a new way?
• History: Look into the origins of the subject. What recent events are related to the evidence, and what are the implications of those events? Does this evidence build on previous events? Will it continue to have influence in the future, and if so, how will it do so?
• Cause and effect: What caused the evidence, and why is it the way it is? What influence has this evidence had on people, events, and objects? What effect is the evidence likely (or unlikely) to cause in the future?
• Relationship: How is the evidence connected to other ideas, events, or objects? How does this connection influence the evidence at hand and how one may see it?

Writers can pose variations on these questions to match the character and content of the text in their hands, but these are generally considered to be a good starting point since their answers lead to an interpretation or a judgment of a text rather than to a summary.

Traducir esta sección al [Español] | Traduzir esta seção para [Português]

Integration Methods

Lead-In Phrasing

Integrating analysis requires a special type of transition - often in the form of a verb - to purposefully mark the changeover from the evidence to the analysis. The way a writer determines which phrases to use depends on the quote and how they plan to explain it. Writers who can accurately capture the link between evidence and analysis with a well-chosen transition do two important things: 1) they let the reader know how the quote is operating, while 2) providing a bit more information about why it is important.

Traducir esta sección al [Español] | Traduzir esta seção para [Português]

Developing the Interpretation

Refutations in Persuasive Writing

Refutations in persuasive writing are crucial for addressing and countering opposing viewpoints. Effective argumentation involves not only presenting one's stance but also recognizing, engaging with, and challenging contrary opinions. This process requires a careful balance, ensuring that counterarguments are not trivialized or misrepresented. Engaging with opposing views demonstrates an openness to dialogue and can strengthen the persuasiveness of an argument. Refutations typically follow three general forms: concession, rejection, or denial, each serving different rhetorical purposes and strategies.

Concession

A concession in persuasive writing acknowledges the validity of a point made by the opposition. This strategy involves admitting that an opposing argument has merit, even if one does not fully agree with it. Concessions are a sign of intellectual honesty and can create goodwill among readers by showing that the writer has considered multiple viewpoints. By integrating concessions, writers demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, contributing to a more balanced and persuasive argument.

Example:

“The title of my talk is ‘Two Cheers for Examination’. Why not three cheers? Because I know that there are drawbacks to examinations. Examinations can indeed deal in trivia, they can be badly conceived and thus can cause needles anxiety in the student who struggle to make sense out of poorly written and poorly focused questions. Most damaging of all, perhaps, is the fact that professors are human beings and therefore will sometimes grade examinations unfairly…I confess that I often found grading to be a tedious job, but I must also add that examinations were often a learning experience for me as well for the students.”

Explanation:

While advocating for the educational advantages of conventional testing methods, Joy Alonso acknowledges the limitations of her stance by pointing out that inadequately designed exams fail to measure student learning accurately, the inevitability of human error, and the monotony involved in grading. It is important to observe how Alonso effectively shifts from acknowledging these shortcomings to reaffirming her support for examinations in her concluding remarks.

Traducir esta sección al [Español] | Traduzir esta seção para [Português]

Rejection

Rejection involves dismissing the legitimacy of a counterargument, often by illustrating its flaws or demonstrating its incompatibility with the writer’s thesis. While acknowledging the existence of the counterargument, this approach does not concede any merit to it. Instead, it systematically dismantles the opposing view through logical reasoning, evidence, or highlighting inconsistencies. Rejections are typically structured through the strategic use of transitional phrases to smoothly counter the opposing argument while reinforcing the writer’s stance.

Example:

“Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim…but torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched…If the individual is all that important – and he is – it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of the individual threatened by terrorists.”

Explanation:

Michael Levin openly recognizes the opposing viewpoint with a straightforward declaration. He employs a strategy of differentiation and reasoning, using contrasts to delineate the distinctions between capital punishment and torture, and employs logical arguments to suggest that valuing an individual necessitates a commitment to safeguarding that individual's rights. This forms the basis of his rejection of the anti-torture stance, categorizing it as unfounded. Levin's approach exemplifies a rejection tactic; he refrains from acknowledging any merit in the counterargument, citing a fundamental disagreement with its core premise. He argues that in the context of terrorism, a proactive approach through the use of torture is more effective in preserving lives than the retrospective application of capital punishment.