Choose the analysis that logically connects the evidence to the claim
Key notes :
Argumentative writing is based on claims, evidence, and analysis. The analysis explains how and why the evidence supports the claim.
Strong analysis makes this connection by providing a statement of value, underlying principle, or general interpretive rule that helps readers to understand how the evidence supports the claim.
A statement of value is a statement about fundamental priorities that can be used to guide decisions.
Claim: Parents should not let their children watch television for more than an hour per day.
Evidence: Children who watch several hours of television per day spend less time outside than they would otherwise.
Analysis: It’s vital that children spend time outside.
An underlying principle is a belief or understanding about how the world works.
Claim: Romeo and Juliet do not really love each other.
Evidence: They claim to be in love after only a few brief conversations.
Analysis: True love requires long periods of time in which two people get to know each other.
A general interpretive rule is a rule that can be used to interpret a certain type of information.
Claim: Mahatma Gandhi was a visionary.
Evidence: He led India to its independence from Great Britain and inspired similar movements for freedom and civil rights around the world.
Analysis: The mark of a visionary is the ability to effect social change by standing up for one’s own beliefs.
Analysis should not:
x present further evidence
x discuss aspects of the evidence that are unrelated to the claim
x jump too quickly to conclusions about ‘what should be done’
x make assumptions or interpretations that are not actually supported by the evidence
Learn with an example
➡️ Read the claim and the supporting evidence.
Claim: Finley should not have been made team captain.
Evidence: Half the players on the team are more talented than Finley is.
Why does the evidence support the claim?
Choose the analysis that better explains the connection.
- Only a top player should be team captain.
- We should let the coach know that this was not a fair decision.
Taken together, the evidence and analysis support the claim:
Evidence: Half the players on the team are more talented than Finley is.
and
Analysis: Only a top player should be team captain.
so
Claim: Finley should not have been made team captain.
The analysis provides a general interpretive rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
The other answer choice jumps to a conclusion about what should be done instead of connecting the evidence to the claim.
➡️ Read the claim and the supporting evidence.
Claim: Parents should limit the sugar-sweetened beverages their children drink.
Evidence: Sugar-sweetened beverages can contribute to health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.
Why does the evidence support the claim?
Choose the analysis that better explains the connection.
- Parents are obliged to take steps to protect the health of their children.
- Sugar-sweetened beverages are often marketed to children through television and print advertisements.
Taken together, the evidence and analysis support the claim:
Evidence: Sugar-sweetened beverages can contribute to health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.
and
Analysis: Parents are obliged to take steps to protect the health of their children.
so
Claim: Parents should limit the sugar-sweetened beverages their children drink.
The analysis provides an underlying principle that connects the evidence to the claim.
The other answer choice fails to address the claim.
➡️ Read the claim and the supporting evidence.
Claim: Peter is remarkably virtuous.
Evidence: Peter is generous with his time.
Why does the evidence support the claim?
Choose the analysis that better explains the connection.
- Peter believes generosity need not involve money.
- Generosity is a key virtue.
Taken together, the evidence and analysis support the claim:
Evidence: Peter is generous with his time.
and
Analysis: Generosity is a key virtue.
so
Claim: Peter is remarkably virtuous.
The analysis provides a larger value that connects the evidence to the claim.
The other answer choice fails to address the claim.
let’s practice!
