Body Paragraph (Analysis)
Page Author: Eamon Cunningham
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.
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.
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.
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?
- Example: A study by Pew Research Center found that 72% of American teenagers use Instagram. An essay analyzing this could argue that this high usage rate reflects a shift in teen communication from traditional methods to digital platforms. The essay might explore various interpretations: while some see this as a positive move towards global connectivity, others view it as a decline in face-to-face interactions. The differing opinions are influenced by factors like generational differences in technology use and varying perspectives on social media's impact on communication skills.
- Explanation: This example demonstrates how to delve into the deeper significance of evidence, exploring different perspectives and the reasons behind them.
- 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?
- Example: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report breaks down climate change into several key factors: greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and fossil fuel use. An essay might focus on these elements, emphasizing that while all contribute to climate change, the burning of fossil fuels is identified as the most critical element needing immediate action.
- Explanation: This approach shows how to analyze a topic by examining its constituent parts, highlighting their importance and interconnectivity.
- 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?
- Example: A comparative study on renewable energy sources places solar energy in the broader category of sustainable technologies. The essay compares solar energy to wind and hydroelectric power, noting that while solar energy is more versatile and less location-dependent, it can be less efficient in certain climates.
- Explanation: This example illustrates how categorizing and comparing parts of evidence can provide a clearer understanding of their place within a broader context.
- 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?
- Example: An analysis of internet censorship might start with its early forms, such as the censorship during the Arab Spring, and trace its evolution to the present day, where it includes sophisticated methods like deep packet inspection. The essay could discuss the implications of these historical developments for future internet freedom.
- Explanation: This historical approach helps to contextualize evidence, showing how past events shape current situations and may influence future trends.
- 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?
- Example: A study on urbanization's effects in Beijing shows that economic growth led to rapid urbanization, which subsequently caused increased pollution and traffic congestion. The essay might argue that while urbanization brought economic benefits, it also created significant environmental and infrastructural challenges.
- Explanation: Here, the cause (economic growth) and its effects (pollution, congestion) are clearly linked, demonstrating how one leads to the other.
- 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?
- Example: Research from Harvard University suggests a correlation between increased use of smartphones and rising rates of teen depression. An essay could explore this relationship, discussing how the constant connectivity and social media use associated with smartphones might contribute to mental health issues in teenagers.
- Explanation: This shows how to establish a relationship between two pieces of evidence, exploring how one influences or correlates with the other.
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.
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.
Implies
The verb indicates the source presents information tentatively or skeptically.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Hints |
| Indicates |
| Offers |
| Point towards |
| Proposes |
| Suggests |
Concludes
The verb indicates the source draws a point of discussion to a close.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Completes |
| Concludes |
| Decides |
| Determines |
| Resolves |
| Settles |
Continues
The verb indicates the writer is making repeated references to a source.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Adds |
| Builds |
| Expands |
| Extends |
| Goes on to say |
| States further |
States Erroneously
The verb indicates the source makes a statement that the writer is skeptical of.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Alleges |
| Asserts |
| Assumes |
| Charges |
| Contends |
| Declares |
Argues Against
The verb indicates that the source is responding critically to the writer’s own position.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Attacks |
| Contradicts |
| Denies |
| Differs |
| Disagrees |
| Refutes |
Argues in Favor
The verb indicates that the source is being used as supporting evidence.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Argues |
| Asserts |
| Contends |
| Holds |
| Indicates |
| Maintains |
Says
The verb introduces the quotation as information.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Adds |
| Believes |
| Comments |
| Described |
| Discusses |
| Emphasizes |
Agrees
The verb indicates that the source agrees with another source or the writer’s own position.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Adds |
| Believes |
| Comments |
| Describes |
| Discusses |
| Emphasizes |
Concedes
The verb indicates that writer acknowledges that a conflicting point is valid.
| Signal Verbs |
|---|
| Acknowledges |
| Admits |
| Agrees |
| Allows |
| Grants |
| Recognizes |
Developing the Interpretation
“So What?” Question
The central concern for a writer when expressing their analysis is the answer to this question: “why does this quote matter and how is it working towards the overall purpose I’ve identified in my thesis?” This is sometimes referred to as the “So what?” question and it is a crucial part of the body paragraph. A well-written explanation should show readers how the writer arrived at their interpretation and why this analysis is reasonable. Readers may not always agree with interpretation, but if a writer cannot persuade them to accept the analysis, they should still try to convince readers that their take on the subject is insightful and well considered. “So what?” questions range depending on the given text, but below are some considerations that will generally push the writer in the right direction:
Analysis:
- What patterns emerge in the text? Why are these significant?
- What are some keywords and ideas? How are these presented and why?
- Have my ideas changed? If so, how did this quote accomplish that?
- What parts of this text link to others? How does the second text’s ideas add to the first?
- Where do I connect with the text? How has it affected my views?
Argument
- Do you have a different interpretation of the evidence? Why?
- Does the text raise questions that it does not answer? Why may the author leave these unaccounted for?
- Does the author consider opposing points of view and treat them fairly? If so, what’s your take? If not, how could you critique this?
- What’s the author's thesis? Why does it need to be argued, explained, or explored?
- What has the author overlooked in presenting this thesis? What's missing and is its omission significant?
- Could a reasonable person draw different conclusions about the issue? If so, what are they and why?
During the drafting process, writers are likely to generate more reasons than can possibly be used. If this occurs, it is recommended to still try to generate as many potential reasons as possible, taking care not to rule out any at first, no matter how trivial or ridiculous they might seem. Once the writer generates a substantial list of potential reasons, it’s best to then select the ones that are most directly related to the paper’s interpretation and include those most likely to convince readers that the analysis is sound.
Common Errors
Summary vs. Analysis
A common error in analysis is the substitution of summary for analysis. Summary places its primary focus on what the quote “says” whereas analysis places its emphasis on what the “does” for the thesis. A summary is something that's superficial—it doesn't go into depth and most just recaps what the quote says. An analysis, on the other hand, has depth: it goes into detail and discusses how the evidence relates to the interpretation/argument. Writers can ask themselves some of the following questions when editing to determine if summarizing or analyzing a piece of evidence during editing: “Do I have connections between my interpretation/argument and what this piece of evidence says? Or am I just reiterating the quote in my own words?”
Summary vs. Analysis: After she is picked, Tessie says. "It wasn't fair." This shows that she doesn't think the lottery was selected honestly.
Lack of Development
A common error in analysis is providing only a single sentence of analysis. For most writers, the thinking goes that there should be one quote and an equal-and-opposite sentence of follow up to give the paper balance and symmetry. It's important to ensure that each quotation gets more than a single sentence of discussion in the paper's body paragraph. Typically, a single sentence will struggle to communicate the full significance of the evidence and, often, the effect on readers is that there is a potentially interesting point that gets moved away from too quickly. In most cases, a writer is likely to take 2-4 sentences to communicate the ideas. A reader is likely not to understand on their own why evidence matters or what they should take away from it without the writer helping them see their reasoning.
Single Sentence: In his story “Snapping an Iconic Photo,” Nardo writes “my eyes were glued to the wet and gleaming highway that stretched out ahead.” This shows that the author wanted to emphasize how the character is feeling.
Announcing Without Justifying
A common error in analysis is to make a claim about the quote's effect while not explaining why this view is sensible or why the writer believes this to be the case. This issue often overlaps with the “sentence” error and leads to a superficial analysis that does When editing, questions like: "Did I give enough reasons to back up my main idea in the topic sentence?" and "Am I providing evidence that supports those reasons?" If a writer can't answer yes to both of these questions, then it's likely that the analysis needs more development. The best way to fully develop an argument is to think about the questions “why does this matter?” and “how can I explain my thinking to the reader?”
Announcing Without Justifying: In paragraph 1, it says, "it was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen." This shows that the author is creating a threatening mood.
Denial in persuasive writing goes beyond mere rejection by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the counterargument entirely. This approach argues that the opposing viewpoint lacks a valid basis for consideration, thus eliminating the need for direct engagement. While potentially powerful if successfully executed, denials risk being perceived as dogmatic or dismissive, as they close off dialogue by not entertaining the possibility of valid opposition. Effective use of denial requires a strong evidentiary foundation and careful rhetorical skill to persuade without alienating the audience.
Example:
“The assumption of no supernatural input into the universe is unscientific. At best, it is unfounded, impossible of proof, and religious to the extreme. The basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being has ever been involved in this universe. The basic definition of science even has been changed to imply Naturalism. If there is no Creator, there is no creation, and teaching creation is folly. Furthermore, the claim that creation is religious implies that teaching it would violate the "establishment clause" in the Constitution. Beyond that, the claim that creation ideas have been disproved by science implies it would be a waste of valuable classroom time to teach it. The claim that only evolution is scientific is patently false.”
Explanation:
The author challenges the prevailing scientific consensus that evolution is the definitive theory for the origins of human life. In his critique, he accuses proponents of evolution of employing a logical fallacy that dismisses Creationism by default, essentially arguing, "Since the existence of God cannot be scientifically verified, He must not exist, and therefore, human origins must be attributed to natural processes alone." He elaborates on this point by contesting the underlying premise of modern evolutionary theory, which assumes the absence of any divine intervention in the universe and suggests that the definition of science has been altered to exclude supernatural explanations. By questioning these foundational assumptions, Morris outright rejects the entire basis of evolutionary theory, challenging its exclusion of supernatural considerations.