“Chapter 18. Analytical Essay” in “Read, Think, Write”
Chapter 18 Analytical Essay
Learning Objectives
- • Explain what it means to analyze
- • Demonstrate the ability to read closely and critically
- • Recognize the steps in a successful analysis
- • Compose a concise summary of your article
- • Explain and apply the elements of the four analysis types
- • Apply guiding questions to your own critical analysis
- • Use two structural formulas to organize a critique
- • Define rhetoric and rhetorical strategies
- • Identify and analyze the rhetorical techniques employed in a text
You may not be aware of it, but you analyze every day. For example, after watching a movie with a friend, you might discuss the characters, the plot, and the special effects. Or you might examine your child’s report card, carefully studying the teacher’s words to read between the lines, trying to figure out how your child is behaving in class. At work, you might analyze data (such as financial records or soil samples or medical test results) to determine a course of action.
Most academic work, including academic writing, involves some form of analysis. Whether you are writing a summary, an expository essay, an argumentative essay, or a personal essay, each of these tasks requires you to analyze an object or an artifact. In a summary, for example, you must carefully examine an author’s text to find its thesis and main points. That is a step in the process of analysis. However, what you subsequently do with that initial analysis will differ from essay type to essay type.
What Is Analysis?
In general terms, to analyze is to carefully and methodically examine something complex in order to understand and interpret its parts or features, its structure, and/or its nature. To analyze, begin by looking at the whole, and then separate it into its parts, examining each part individually and considering how each part relates to other parts and to the whole.
For example, the analysis of table salt would require a deconstruction of its parts: the elements sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl). Then scientists would study how the two elements interact to create the compound NaCl, or sodium chloride, which is also called table salt. The purpose of analyzing is to better understand something complex by considering what it is made of.
In your courses, you will often be asked to analyze something, be it a novel, a historical account, a social situation, a computer program, a work of art, or a roof structure. Regardless of the object of your analysis, ask the following core questions:
- • What is it?
- • What does it do or mean?
- • How does it do what it does or mean what it means?
Often, you will be required to focus on only one aspect or one part of the object or artifact, but the core questions will remain the same.
In the context of a post-secondary course, an analysis is the presentation of the results of analyzing, often in essay form. An analysis is a detailed and thorough explanation of the parts themselves, how they relate to one another, and how they contribute to the whole.
The purpose of an analysis is to demonstrate your discernment, your ability to look below the surface and identify or infer that which is not immediately obvious. The purpose is to inform and deepen your audience’s understanding of the object within the particular analytical context in which you undertake the analysis. Thus, the purpose of an analytical essay is to present the results of your analysis in essay form for others to read. Before you begin writing, though, think first about how to analyze effectively.
The Process of Analyzing
The analysis process begins with an artifact or an object. An artifact is a piece of art, a tool, or any other object made or modified by humans. Thus, artifacts include books, stone carvings, paintings, clothing, hammers, airplanes, buildings—and thousands of other human-made things. Examples of written artifacts are poems, novels, short stories, articles, research papers, and essays. The term object offers us even more flexibility, referring to something that can be seen, touched, or otherwise perceived—something to which a mental or physical action is directed. In the context of analysis, an object is anything that we direct the action of analyzing toward.
The analysis of any artifact or object—whether it’s a machine, a blood sample, a roof, or an article—has the same purpose: building an understanding of what (and how) the object is, what it does, and how it does it. To build that understanding comprehensively, the analyst works through five steps in the process of analyzing an object:
- 1. Observe the object as a complete entity; then pull a first layer off to uncover the core elements without which the object cannot be what it is and do what it does.
- 2. Begin to name and define the elements and the role they (potentially) play in the whole and in relation to one another.
- 3. Look at the occurrence of the various parts (where, how, how often, and so on) and begin to consider the elements’ importance to the whole.
- 4. Consider the spaces in between the core elements and their importance or meaning to the object, and formulate a (preliminary) understanding of how things work together to be the object.
- 5. Go back to the beginning to reconsider the observations and conclusions you arrived at the first time you worked through the steps to make sure you have captured all you need to capture to fully understand the meaning or being of the object.
The best way to understand the process of analyzing is to practice it yourself, so take a few minutes to complete Practice 18.1.
Practice 18.1
Complete the steps below to follow the process of analyzing an everyday object with the goal of understanding what the object is, what its parts are, and how the parts work together to perform a function.
- Step 1: Look at Figure 18.1. What object does the diagram depict? What parts of that object can you identify? Pause here for a moment to examine the diagram and to jot down some initial notes about what you think the object is and what you think its parts are. Then continue reading.
Figure 18.1: Roof Structure
- You probably recognize the diagram as a representation of a particular object: a roof. For the purposes of this example, we will analyze the interior structure of the roof. (We could, of course, also analyze the covering, shingles, or tiles, but for now we will focus on the interior structure.)
- What structural elements do you see? There are lots of wooden beams going in different directions, placed on top of or against one another. These are the most obvious elements that make up the object we are analyzing: the roof.
- Step 2: Looking closely at the diagram, how would you describe the specific elements of the roof and their relationship to one another? Look for the most easily observable elements and how they relate to other elements.
Figure 18.2: Roof Structure with Parts Labelled
- You’ll see that there are partially shown vertical wall studs, and there are double-plated beams on top of the studs. These double-plated beams form the base of the rest of the roof. The ceiling joists rest on the beams, as do the gable wall studs. The ridge sits on top of the tallest gable wall studs. The rafters rest on the double-plated beams and the gable wall studs, and they meet the ridge at an angle.
- Step 3: Now consider the functions of the elements: What do they do, and how do they do it? Look for the easily observable functions. Re-examine the diagram in even more detail to consider how the parts work together to create the whole. Jot some notes. Then continue reading.
It is unlikely that the roof was built from the top down, so we’ll start by examining the elements of the structure from the bottom up, considering their functions. First, the vertical wall studs hold up the double-plated beams, which hold up the whole roof structure. The double-plated beams provide stability to the wall studs so that they can support the weight of the roof, including the ceiling joists, the gable wall studs, and the rafters. Like the double-plated beams, the ceiling joists provide structure and stability to the wall studs and the double-plated beams. The gable wall studs provide support and structure to the end rafters. All together, the gable wall studs and the rafters hold up the ridge. The ridge holds the rafters in place and provides a supportive structure for the rafters while simultaneously resting on the rafters. The rafters connect the beams to the ridge and provide a supporting structure for a roof covering.
- Step 4: Now consider the meaning of the empty spaces, the points of connection (or not), and their why and how. Look for the things that are not obvious but are nonetheless essential. Make inferences. It is in this step that you begin to formulate a (preliminary) understanding of the whole thing. Take a moment to jot some notes, and then continue reading.
There is no one “right” answer here, and there are hundreds of possible questions that might arise in step 4. For example, what is keeping the rafters in place? Should there be metal forms here that are either screwed or hammered in to keep the rafters from falling? Could the “bird’s mouth” function as a support? Why is there so much empty space between the rafters? Wouldn’t the roof be stronger if the rafters were closer together? Or would that create so much extra weight that the structure would collapse? When you ask and answer these questions, you are making inferences on the how and the why of elements that are not directly clarified in the object under analysis.
- Step 5: Consider the gaps in your understanding. After working through Steps 1 to 4 the first time, you probably have an idea of what goes into a roof in order for it to be a roof. However, it is unlikely that you will have considered all the ins and outs of the whole object. Take a moment to jot down some questions you still have about a roof and how it functions.
- What questions remain?
- 1: _____________________________________________________________________
- 2: _____________________________________________________________________
- 3: _____________________________________________________________________
For example, how is it that the whole thing does not come apart at the first gust of wind? How exactly do those rafters and that ridge stay up? What determines the number of rafters and the size of the spaces between the individual rafters? What is the ideal angle for the rafters? Why? Is the ideal angle based on structural stability or weather-related matters like rainfall or snowfall? In short, look at the gaps in your understanding to formulate a comprehensive response.
Now, in order to analyze more deeply and find more answers, go back to the first step and go through the whole process a second time. Keep your questions in mind, and look at what you can see, what you can infer, and what you can conclude. Take notes as you go.
- What can you add to the analysis upon a second run through?
- Step 1: ________________________________________________________________
- Step 2: ________________________________________________________________
- Step 3: ________________________________________________________________
- Step 4: ________________________________________________________________
- Step 5: ________________________________________________________________
Keep going through the steps until you are confident that you have a solid understanding of what a roof is, what a roof does, how it does that, and what it means for that roof to do that within the context in which you have analyzed it. You might need to run through the steps more than two times.
After working through the steps again a second, third, or fourth time, we can use our findings to explain how a roof structure is assembled and to make inferences. For example, the roof will likely need metal plates and screws to secure the structure. Also, it is likely that the angle of the rafters and the spaces between the ceiling joists, the gable wall studs, and the wall studs are of significant importance in creating a roof that can withstand wind, rain, and snow once the roof is covered with plywood and shingles or tiles.
Collaboration: Please share and discuss with a peer.
Analytical Context
When you analyzed the roof illustration in Practice 18.1, we suggested that you work through the steps in the process of analysis until you were confident that you had a solid understanding of what a roof is, what a roof does, and what it means for a roof to do that within the context of your analysis. The last part of the sentence—“within the context of your analysis”—is important. The result you seek in your analysis will determine the type of analysis you do. The context does not change the steps or the essence of the questions; however, it changes what elements you find and name to support the answer you are looking for. Think for a moment of the research process and the importance of your research question when you start to do your research; the same is true in the analysis process.
For example, when you go for a blood test, your doctor gives you a form to bring along on which she indicates what she would like the lab analyst to look at and which particular test to run. Those notes provide the context for the blood analysis. Likewise, when your instructor asks you to analyze a painting of an animal to determine what kind of animal it is, perhaps the quality of the painter’s brushstroke is of lesser importance than the form the brushstroke gives to the shape of that animal. Similarly, if you are trying to determine who the bad guy is in a movie, perhaps the way the soundtrack changes when a character appears provides a better indicator of the character’s intentions than his bright smile does.
The analysis of the rooftop in Practice 18.1 is deceptively easy because as an imagined and drawn illustration of a roof structure, it is already an analysis—a visual taking apart and (imaginary) putting back together of a roof. However, within the context of a chapter on analysis, the roof example works to illustrate the steps to take when analyzing, but it does not (or should not) make anyone think they can now confidently build a roof.
This brings us to another aspect of the analytical context: the analyst’s expertise in a particular field will strongly affect how effectively and comprehensively a particular object is analyzed. It should be obvious from the relatively shallow analysis we provided in Practice 18.1 that this analysis was not written by someone with a lot of expertise in, say, carpentry, framing, geometry, or engineering. Those areas of expertise would undoubtedly completely alter the ultimate understanding the analysis writer offers. Always be aware of the extent and limits of your knowledge when it comes to analyzing a text or object.
In the following two sections, we will focus on two different forms of analysis an instructor might ask you to produce in a university class. There are many more types of analysis, but these two types cover nearly all aspects you would be expected to do in a literary analysis, a historical analysis, or another textual analysis.
While all of these variations of analysis assignments require some process of analysis, each has a slightly different focus. While a rhetorical analysis will focus precisely on writing strategies employed (the how) in the article, a critical analysis is centred on the content (the what), while a literary or historical analysis could encompass one, the other, or both.
In any analysis essay, your discussion will centre on one primary source. Often, the instructor will provide you with a list of suggested texts, or you may first need to choose a topic that you can use to guide your search for an appropriate academic article to analyze.
As with any other essay, you may need to bring in supplemental secondary sources to support your ideas; perhaps those will be sources on the same topic or analyzing the same text. Secondary sources can be especially effective in helping you present opposing points of view or alternative observations. Even if your assignment calls for secondary sources, the primary text should remain in the forefront.
The rest of Chapter 18 will focus on the critical analysis, which focuses primarily on the ideas expressed (the content) in a text, and the rhetorical analysis, which focuses specifically on the language and textual strategies (the rhetoric) the author uses to express those ideas.
Critical Analysis Essay
A critical analysis essay (sometimes called a critique or a critical response) is a written work critically inspecting and evaluating a piece of writing, such as an essay, a book, an article, or a poem.
Analyzing a primary text involves a close examination of each of the individual parts of the text and how they work together. A critical analysis deconstructs the text and takes it apart point by point, concept by concept. It examines the main points of the text by examining individual points and identifying how they relate to one another.
When you see the word critique, the first thing you may think of is to criticize. However, a critical analysis does not need to look only at the negative aspects of a source or its failings; a critical analysis can also focus on the positive components—the text’s successes—or identify a mix of the positive and negative elements.
To begin to understand the role of the critical analysis essay, read the following short critical analysis essay, and identify the elements that make this a critique as opposed to an expository essay.
Practice 18.2
- A. Read the following critical analysis essay:
Critical Analysis of Perspectives on Terrorism by Harold J. Vetter and Gary R. Perlstein
Harold J. Vetter and Gary R. Perlstein’s work on terrorism and its future is an excellent basis for evaluating views and attitudes toward terrorism before the tragic events of 9/11. Written in 1991, the book Perspectives on Terrorism provides an objective (but more theoretical) view on what terrorism is, how it can be categorized, and to what ideology it can be linked. The book offers a multifaceted review of numerous factors that impact and influence the global development of terrorism. Those studying sociology or criminal justice might find ample information regarding the ideological roots and typology of terrorism as a phenomenon and as a specific type of violent ideology that has gradually turned into a dominant force of political change.
Vetter and Perlstein begin their work with the words “It has almost become pro forma for writers on terrorism to begin by pointing out how hard it is to define the term terrorism.” However, the authors do not waste their time trying to define what terrorism is; rather, they look at terrorism through the prism of its separate elements, and they objectively evaluate the concept of public acceptability of terrorism as a notion. They pose two critical questions: “Why surrogate the war?” and “Who sponsors terrorism?” In answer, Vetter and Perlstein evaluate terrorism as an unjustifiable method of violence for the sake of unachievable goals, tying the notion of terrorism to the notion of morality.
To define terrorism in its present form, it is not enough to determine the roots and the consequences of particular terrorist acts, nor is it enough to evaluate the roots and the social implications of particular behavioural characteristics beyond morality. On the contrary, it is essential to tie terrorism to the particular political conditions in which these terrorist acts take place. In other words, whether the specific political act is terrorist or nonterrorist depends on a thorough examination of the social factors beyond morality and law. In this context, even without an opportunity to find the most relevant definition of terrorism, the authors thoroughly analyze the most important factors and sociological perspectives of terrorism, including the notion of threat, violence, publicity, and fear.
Typology of terrorism is the integral component of our current understanding of what terrorism is, what form it may take, and how we can prepare ourselves to face the challenges of terrorist threats. Vetter and Perlstein state that “finding similarities and differences among objects and events is the first step toward determining their composition, functions, and causes.” Trying to evaluate the usefulness of various theoretical perspectives on terrorism, the authors offer a detailed review of psychological, sociological, and political elements that form several different typologies of terrorism. For example, Vetter and Perlstein refer to the psychiatrist Frederick Hacker, who classifies terrorists into crazies, criminals, and crusaders. Throughout the book, Vetter and Perlstein provide a detailed analysis of both the criminal and the crazy types of terrorists, paying special attention to who crusaders are and what role they play in the development and expansion of contemporary terrorist ideology. Vetter and Perlstein recognize that it is almost impossible to encounter an ideal type of terrorist, but the basic knowledge of terrorist typology may shed light on the motivation and psychological mechanisms that push criminals (and particularly crusaders) to commit acts of political violence.
Perspectives on Terrorism pays special attention to the politics of terrorism and the role that ideology plays in the development of terrorist attitudes in society. They write, “Violence or terrorism can be used both by those who seek to change or destroy the existing government or social order and those who seek to maintain the status quo.” In other words, the authors suggest that political ideology is integrally linked to the notion of terrorism. With ideology being the central element of political change, it necessarily impacts the quality of the political authority within the state; as a result, the image of terrorism is gradually transformed into a critical triangle with political authority, power, and violence at its points. Vetter and Perlstein use this triangle as the basis for analyzing the political assumptions that are usually made in terms of terrorism, as well as the extent to which political authority may make violence (and, as a result, terrorism) legally permissible. The long sociological theme of terrorism that is stretched from the very beginning to the very end of the book makes it particularly useful to those who seek the roots of terrorism in the distorted political ideology and blame the state as the source of and the reason for terrorist violence.
Work Cited
- Vetter, Harold J., and Gary R. Perlstein. Perspectives on Terrorism. Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1991.
- B. List three to five elements that make this a critique rather than an expository essay on terrorism.
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- C. Collaboration: Share and compare your answers with a peer.
As you saw in Practice 18.2, a critical analysis is different from an expository essay. An expository essay is centred on one primary topic, and the body of the essay discusses main points related to that topic. In contrast, an analytic essay focuses on one (sometimes more) primary source, and the body of the essay discusses the student’s main ideas about that source. Compare Figure 18.3 and Figure 18.4, which represent the differences between expository essays and analytical essays.
Notice, too, that for the expository essay, the student consults several secondary sources, and those sources provide the supporting points about the topic that the student includes in the essay. Thus, the secondary sources have an important role in the essay. In contrast, an analytic essay principally focuses on one primary source; however, the student may also want to include a small number of secondary sources that can be compared to the primary source’s ideas. However, the secondary sources are typically in the background, and any material from secondary sources must directly relate to the discussion of the primary source.
Finally, the two-pointed arrows indicate that a critical analysis is also different from an expository essay because it does not simply repeat information from the source the way an expository essay might; instead, it considers how the points within the source relate to one another. By doing this, the student might uncover both relationships and discrepancies among the points.
As you learned earlier in this chapter, any artifact can become the object of an analysis. Thus far, we have provided examples of an analysis of a roof and an analysis of a book about terrorism. As we move on, we will focus on the process of analyzing a scholarly article. The next few exercises will prepare you to write your own analysis. It’s much easier to write about an article if the topic/subject of the article interests you, so take a moment to think about the types of topics you are most interested in.
Practice 18.3
Take a few minutes to prewrite to find a topic that you find interesting. Start by thinking broadly. Are you more interested in sciences or humanities or business, for example? Then think about the courses you like best. Biology? English? Sociology? Indigenous studies? Engineering? Then think about some of the topics that often come up in those courses. Use the technique of brainstorming and/or idea mapping to generate some preliminary ideas. Then identify keywords or specific areas within that topic. Write the keywords below. Later, you will use those keywords to find an article to analyze.
- Keywords:
- ________________
- ________________
- ________________
The Purpose of Critical Analysis
In a post-secondary environment, your instructors will expect you to demonstrate critical thinking skills that go beyond simply taking in another person’s ideas and spitting out facts. They want you to show your ability to assess and analyze the information you use; they will also want to see that you have used sources to develop ideas of your own. Analysis demonstrates that you are able to connect ideas, arrive at your own conclusions, and develop new directions for discussion. You are also showing you have strong background knowledge on the topic in order to provide feedback on another person’s discussion of the issue.
Critical analysis appears in many forms in the academic world. It is present when you select appropriate sources for your support; you practice it when you choose what information from those sources to include as evidence; you demonstrate it when you break down your topic to develop discussion points.
Very importantly, you also use critical analysis or thinking when you synthesize, or blend, your ideas with those of experts. This means you go beyond a statement of facts and take a stance on a topic. In the case of a critical analysis, you state your view not only on an idea or issue but also on one core source of information on that topic: you insert your ideas into the text’s conversation.
The Elements of a Critical Analysis
Often, people go online to read reviews of services or products. They sometimes make personal choices based on those reviews, such as what movie to watch or which restaurant to visit. When you ask for a recommendation, the person you are asking will usually give you a brief summary of the experience, then break their opinion down into smaller aspects—good and bad. For example, imagine you want to visit a new restaurant, and you ask your friend to recommend a place. Here is a sample response:
There is an amazing Japanese restaurant called Mega Sushi at the corner of Main and 12th. The food, atmosphere, and service are great. The food is always excellent, and they have a lot of original creations or spins on traditional Japanese food, but it still tastes authentic. The ingredients are always incredibly fresh, and you never have to worry about ordering the sashimi. The decor is also very authentic and classic, and the entire place is exceptionally clean.
The service is generally very good—they even bring you a free sample roll while you wait for your food—but it can be a little slow during the dinner rush because it is such a popular place. Also, the prices are a little high—an average roll costs $15—but for the amazing food you get, it is totally worth it! I love this place!
When you break this example into sections, you’ll see the first sentence gives the reviewer’s general opinion of the restaurant. The second sentence summarizes the main components the reviewer will cover. From there, the review addresses smaller categories or points, such as food, decor, and service. Not all the points are positive: while the food and the atmosphere are good, the service has both positive and negative aspects. The prices are high, but people who eat there get good value for their money.
Providing a generalized description first, the reviewer introduces the topic to the audience. She then analyzed individual aspects or components of the experience with examples to help convince the audience of her perspective. Not everyone may have the same positive experience, of course. What if it was someone’s first time at this particular restaurant, and she arrived during the dinner rush feeling very hungry and had to wait a long time for a table? Not knowing how good the food is and that it is worth the wait, she may just leave, so her general impression of the restaurant would probably not be favourable. Whether the experience would be positive or negative would depend on an individual’s personal experience and situation.
Figure 18.3: Expository Essay
Illustration by Jessica Tang.
Figure 18.4: Analytical Essay
Illustration by Jessica Tang.
The same is true for any critique. No two people will have exactly the same response to a source because of who they are, the time they are reading it, and their prior experiences. When critiquing, you are responding to anything that sparks a response in you when you are reading a source. When reading the text, pay close attention to any time you have to reread a sentence or paragraph. Make note of this; at the time, you may not know why you have an issue with that section. Just realize that there was a point where you had to stop—make a notation of some sort on the paper. Once you have finished reading, go back and think about what the issue actually was. Maybe the vocabulary was difficult, maybe the author’s grammar was awkward and confusing, maybe the ideas did not make sense because of how they were organized, or maybe you completely disagreed with the idea the author presented.
Also note things you read that really spark your interest. Perhaps you have the same opinion as the author. Perhaps the vocabulary is academic but not overly challenging, so you didn’t need to use a dictionary. All of these responses are valid and are things you can write about in your critique.
Any critical analysis, no matter if it is of a book, an article, or a movie, needs to contain the following elements:
- A thesis: This is a brief overview of the primary source. What is the thing you are analyzing?
- Example: In the article, Smith effectively argues his case for the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada.
- A summary: Highlight the main points presented in the primary source. This part of the critical analysis would be the same as if you were writing a summary.
- Critique: Point out the elements of the content of the primary source that you (as the reader of the primary text and the writer of the critical analysis) react to.
You can decide on these points based on your reactions and personal preferences using the guiding questions for each of the forms below as suggestions.
Choosing a Source for a Critical Analysis
Most expository essays and research papers focus on a topic and require a number of secondary sources that provide supporting points or ideas, offering information about the topic. A critical analysis of the text, by contrast, typically focuses on one primary source of information. This is the key difference between a critical analysis essay and a research paper, and this distinction will have an impact on your choice of primary and secondary sources.
For a critical analysis essay, the primary source you base your critical response on needs to meet the criteria outlined in Table 18.1: Source Selection Criteria for a Critical Analysis. Table 18.1 provides the technical criteria to meet when choosing a source for a critical analysis.
Practice 18.4
Use the list of keywords you created in Practice 18.3 to conduct a search to find scholarly articles about your topic. (You might want to conduct your search through your library’s academic databases and/or Google Scholar.) Once you have found some articles, remember to take note of the titles and the places you found them. Scan the content of each article. Then choose an article that fits your topic best and meets the criteria in Table 18.1. This article will be the primary source for your critical analysis.
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay
It is always important to ensure that you understand the information presented in primary and secondary sources. However, because a critical analysis essay focuses almost entirely on your interpretation of a primary source, it is especially important that you have a solid grasp on the ideas presented in the text you’re analyzing.
The source for a critical analysis essay . . . | |
|---|---|
Should: | Should not: |
• Be on a topic interesting to you. It is better if it is something you react to strongly (positively or negatively) because it is easier to generate ideas of what to critique when you have an emotional response. However, be careful not to be overly invested in your opinion on the topic. | • Be on a topic on which you have no opinion or background information. |
• Be from an academic source, such as a scholarly journal. | • Be from a website because this makes it more difficult for citations and referencing (unless your instructor has made a particular article available to you). • Be from a newspaper (print or online) because these can be biased. |
• Contain language that is relatively straightforward—some challenging vocabulary would be all right because you can critique this. | • Have a lot of challenging vocabulary, forcing you to constantly refer to a dictionary—you may get bogged down in doing that and miss the main points the author is presenting. |
• Be five to ten pages in length, giving you enough content to choose a few points to discuss in depth. | • Be closer to three or as high as twenty pages—this will either provide too little content, and you will be stuck for ideas, or it will give you too much, and you will only cover the points superficially. |
Do not jump right into analyzing the primary source. Instead, follow the steps for active reading that were introduced in Chapter 2: Reading Strategies. Take time to survey, read closely, and mark up the text.
Then write a summary to confirm you understand the author’s thesis and main points. Do not leave out any important points. Remember that if your audience does not have a strong understanding of the overall content of the source, they may have difficulty following your critique.
Often, what we share verbally when summarizing a source highlights the main points of our impression of the material; we capture all the necessary points, but we do so concisely. In Practice 18.5, you will work with a partner to compose a succinct summary of your article.
Practice 18.5
- A. Using the article you chose in Practice 18.4, complete the following steps on your own. (Refer to Chapter 2: Reading Strategies as needed.)
- 1. Check to see if there is an abstract. If so, scan it.
- 2. Scan the introductory paragraph, the headings, the topic sentences, the graphics, and the concluding paragraph.
- 3. Read the article in its entirety. Read closely and mark up the text as you go.
- 4. Make note of any areas you struggled with or had a reaction to. (This step is important: you will need these notes for subsequent exercises later in this chapter.)
- 5. Write a restatement of the thesis and the main points.
- 6. Compose a short summary of the article in two to four sentences.
Then put your summary aside, and do not refer to it in Step B.
- B. Work with a peer, and complete the following steps.
- 1. In thirty to sixty seconds, verbally summarize your article for your partner. Your partner should take very brief notes on the verbal summary. Then switch roles and repeat.
- 2. Once you have both summarized verbally and taken notes for each other, show the summary paragraph you wrote in Part A to your partner. Have your partner read your summary paragraph and compare it to the notes they took from the verbal summary. Then switch roles and repeat.
- 3. Ask your partner to prepare feedback based on the following questions:
- • What were the differences between the verbal and written summaries?
- • Did the written summary contain anything unnecessary or miss anything important?
- • Which one was organized more logically?
- 4. Ask your partner to give you their feedback. Listen carefully and ask for clarification if necessary. Then switch roles and repeat.
- 5. Revise your summary to make it more complete and accurate. You will need this summary later when you turn it into the first paragraph of your critical analysis.
- 6. Come up with a working thesis statement for your critical analysis essay. What was your overall first impression of the article you read? You will likely revise this working thesis statement later, but for now, it will give you a basis to begin your analysis.
Later, you will choose one of two formulas to follow when composing your critical analysis. If you choose to use formula 1, you will need to include an independent summary paragraph, which you have now already completed and may only require a little fine tuning. If you choose formula 2, you will not include the summary as its own paragraph, but you will need to break it apart when you introduce the points you are going to discuss within the critical analysis.
The following sections will discuss the different critiquing forms and what you can look for when deciding what points you would like to discuss in your critical analysis.
Forms for Critical Analysis
Again, critically analyzing does not mean you are looking only for the negative points in a primary source; you can also discuss elements you like or agree with in the article. Also, you may generally get a positive impression from the source but have issues with some aspects for which you can provide constructive criticism—perhaps what the author could have done better, in your opinion, to make a stronger and more effective impact.
There are three critical analysis forms on which you can structure your analysis of a source. These are idea base, rhetoric base, and blended base. The critical elements you will be required to apply to each assignment will vary depending on your instructor’s directions, the purpose of the assignment, and the writer (you). In some cases, your instructor will want to see very little of your own voice in the paper, so you will want to avoid using personal reflection; on the other hand, some instructors will only want to see how your personal experiences connect to the content. You will need to confirm with your instructor what their preferences and expectations are.
If the writer intended to convince or persuade the reader to a particular point of view, you may ask if they used credible sources to support the ideas or if they used primarily newspapers and blogs. We have seen, and will do so again later, that the types of evidence can affect how convincing an argument is.
Furthermore, if the writer has only presented a limited discussion without much evidence, and the discussion is mostly opinion based, will the reader be convinced? Probably not. Conversely, if the author considered all points of view in the discussion and provided suitable, trustworthy evidence, the reader will more likely be convinced, and the writer will have successfully achieved the purpose.
When coming up with a thesis statement, start by considering all points of view. This will demonstrate to the reader of your analysis what your overall impression was when you examined the original source. If you look back at the sample critical analysis in Practice 18.2, you’ll see that the thesis is stated in the first sentence:
- Harold J. Vetter and Gary R. Perlstein’s work on terrorism and its future is an excellent basis for evaluating views and attitudes toward terrorism before the tragic events of 9/11.
This thesis statement emphasizes the authors’ purpose (bold) and the critique writer’s opinion of the work (underlined). From the exercise you completed earlier, you saw not everything in the critique was positive; however, this first sentence provides the overall impression the analysis writer has. Like in any other essay, the content in the rest of the essay will connect back to this thesis, explaining how the thesis supports or goes against the authors’ purpose.
Once you choose an article that meets the required criteria, scan the article and make note of some answers to the guiding questions below. You can then choose three to four of the questions/answers you feel you can support, and these will become your essay’s main points.
Idea Base
When discussing the ideas of a source, examine the topic presented. Explore how the author’s ideas mesh with your own and state whether you agree or disagree. You are essentially joining the discussion on that topic. You may find you agree with some parts of the discussion but not others, or you may completely agree or disagree, or you may think the author has great points but does not develop them adequately. Also, you may want to provide differing points of view from other sources to show you have not just accepted what the first author wrote; you have explored the topic further and will present a thorough discussion in your own critique.
Guiding Questions: Idea Base
- On which points do I agree or disagree with the author? And why? (Remember, you do not always have to only agree or disagree on all points.)
- What new ideas has the author introduced on the topic? How has the author contributed to the field?
- How narrow or broad is the author’s discussion? Did the author consider multiple points of view? Is there anything the author overlooked?
- What could the author have done differently to provide a stronger discussion?
- How do other experts approach a discussion on this topic?
Practice 18.6
Look back to Practice 18.5, where you made notations whenever you were struck by something remarkable within the article you’re analyzing. Decide which, if any, of your notes connect to the idea-related guiding questions above, and make brief notes of the relevant idea-related points in the space below.
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
If none of your notations matched the questions, read the questions (and the article) again and then try again to answer the questions. At this point, you may identify more than two questions; later, you will have the opportunity to assess which are your strongest points.
Rhetoric Base
In the section about rhetorical analysis, we will provide much more detail about rhetoric, but for the purposes of the critical analysis, here is a brief overview of what rhetoric can entail within a critical analysis.
Here, rhetoric refers to the author’s ways of using writing techniques. The term rhetorical refers to the way a source is constructed and organized and which writing techniques are used.
In the context of a critical analysis, a rhetorical consideration will almost always also evaluate how effectively an author has achieved the purpose or intended goals. If the writer intended to convince or persuade the reader, what writing strategies did they use to make the reader accept these intentions? The wording, the examples, and the imagery all can impact how the reader feels about the point the writer is making and how convincing that point is.
For example, if the writer only offered dispassionate facts without relatable anecdotes or only used one type of sentence structure and a monotone rhythm, will the reader be convinced? It seems unlikely. Conversely, if the author animates the writing with some humour and colourful examples alongside strong evidence, the reader is more likely to be swayed, and the writer will have effectively achieved their purpose.
Once you choose an article that meets the required criteria, scan the article and make note of some answers to the guiding questions below. You can then choose two or three of the questions/answers that will best support your analysis.
Guiding Questions: Rhetoric Base
- Focusing on the rhetorical elements when critiquing means you are looking at the construction elements of a source. Use the following questions as a reference point when you are going through your article to provide you with some focus and help you generate ideas for your paper (not all may be relevant to your article).
- What is the author’s purpose?
- For whom is the author writing? Who is the audience?
- What type of language does the author use? Technical? Straightforward? Too informal?
- How logical/reasonable is the argument?
- What kind of evidence does the author use to support the thesis? Is it reputable, relevant, and current—and is there enough?
- To what degree does the author engage or interest the reader in the topic?
- How much bias does the author reveal?
- Is there anything about the writing style you did or did not like?
- How are the ideas organized? How may that affect the reader?
A note of warning when using these questions: you should not use more than two of these in a short critique. If you include brief answers to all of the questions, you will not have space to develop your ideas or show you have really engaged with the content. By choosing just one or two to focus on, you will be able to really explain the impact and significance of what you have decided to discuss, showing that you have thoroughly considered the meaning and importance of your points and demonstrating excellent critical analysis skills.
Practice 18.7
In Practice 18.5, you read an article, and you were asked to make note of any content in the article that you had a strong reaction to—whether it struck you as remarkable or confusing. Now look back at those notations and decide which, if any, connect to the rhetoric-related guiding questions above, and make brief notes of the relevant rhetorical points in the space below.
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
If none of your notations matched the questions, read the questions (and the article) again. Then try again to answer the questions. At this point, you may identify more than two questions; later, you will have the opportunity to assess which are your strongest points.
Blended Base
In a blended form, an analysis can evolve however you want it to. You can take certain elements from each of the two previous forms: whichever questions are the easiest for you to discuss and are the most interesting. This shows how paying attention to your reactions when you initially read the source is helpful; once you have made note of where and what you reacted to, you can go back to each list of guiding questions and decide which best relates to each of your notations.
There are no guiding questions for the blended form because you mix and match some of the questions already provided in the earlier sections. In a blended critique, you demonstrate an extremely high level of critical thinking ability because you not only synthesize your ideas with potential external sources; you also connect personally to one source, external sources, and different forms or aspects of analyzing written works.
Practice 18.8
Look back at the points you came up with in Practices 18.5, 18.6, and 18.7. Now select the points—at least one from each category—that you think you can discuss the most thoroughly.
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
- __________________________________________________________________________________
Collaboration: Now collaborate with a peer. Share your points, and discuss how you would expand on them. Ask your partner to suggest any other ways they think you could expand on those points.
How to Structure a Blended Critical Analysis Essay
Once you have chosen a source and used the guiding questions to help generate points to discuss in your blended critique, you will need to decide how to best organize your ideas. There are two formulas you can apply as a framework when organizing your ideas. Remember that although the formulas below show each section as an individual paragraph, you may actually need to create more than one paragraph to fully develop your ideas.
Critical Analysis Essay: Outline Template 1
This is a straightforward way to organize an analysis, as there is not much overlap between the sections. You may want to choose this formula if you are feeling unsure about how to organize your ideas and prefer a guided structure.
- I. Introductory paragraph
- • Hook
- • Title of the text and name of the author
- • Optional: relevant background on the author and/or the text
- • Summary of content of the text (two or three sentences) that focuses only on points significant to your body paragraphs
- • Paraphrase of thesis of the text
- • Thesis statement
- II. First body paragraph: Idea base
- • Topic sentence: main point the essay will make about the article’s ideas
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: essay’s main point about the article’s ideas
- III. Second body paragraph: Rhetoric base
- • Topic sentence: main point the essay will make about the article’s rhetoric
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: essay’s main point about the article’s rhetoric
- IV. Concluding paragraph
- • Title of the text and the name of the author
- • Summary of the main points in your body paragraphs
- • Restatement of thesis statement
Critical Analysis Essay: Outline Template 2
This model allows you more freedom in how you organize your analysis. Template 2 differs from template 1 because the discussion points are not divided by critiquing points (ideas and rhetoric) but rather by topic. You use both critiquing forms to develop one topic point. This approach makes it a little more challenging to stay organized, so when you use this template, remember to keep referring to your outline and to thoroughly develop ideas by connecting one critiquing form to another.
- I. Introductory paragraph
- • Hook
- • Title of the text and name of the author
- • Optional: relevant background on the author and/or the text
- • Summary of content of the text (two or three sentences) that focuses only on points significant to your body paragraphs
- • Paraphrase of thesis of the text
- • Thesis statement that includes the main points of body paragraphs
- II. First body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: a main point about the text
- • Ideas and rhetoric related to this topic
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: essay’s main point about the article’s ideas and rhetoric
- III. Second body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: a second main point about the text
- • Ideas and rhetoric related to this topic
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: essay’s main point about the article’s ideas and rhetoric
- IV. Third body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: a third main point about the text
- • Ideas and rhetoric related to this topic
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: essay’s main point about the article’s ideas
- V. Concluding paragraph
- • Title of the text and the name of the author
- • Summary of the main points in body paragraphs
- • Restated thesis statement
Template 1 is useful in providing an easy-to-follow plan for organizing a critical analysis. Template 2 allows more flexibility in organization, and it promotes a greater complexity of thought development and synthesis of ideas, both of which your instructor will appreciate. However, because it’s easier for a writer to veer off topic with template 2, you must make sure you have a solid formal sentence outline before you begin the writing process, or your reader may struggle to follow the development of your argument. The key is to connect the ideas together.
Practice 18.9
Look at the templates and the points you came up with in Practice 18.6 and Practice 18.7. Narrow those points down—to three or four at most—to help you stay focused and develop those points (as opposed to just giving answers to many of the guiding questions without developing them). Compose an informal topic outline based on template 1 or template 2.
Practice 18.10
Now expand on the informal topic outline you created in Practice 18.9. In the introductory paragraph, insert the summary you composed in Practice 18.5. Remember to start integrating specific examples from the primary source. Make sure you note the page numbers for later when you need to add citations.
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
The second form of analysis you may be asked to write is a rhetorical analysis. A rhetorical analysis takes apart a primary text (an essay, a book, an article, a poem, etc.) and examines the author’s rhetorical strategies.
There are many definitions of rhetoric, some dating back more than two thousand years, but a basic definition is that rhetoric is the art of persuading through visual, oral, or written communication.
We study rhetoric to become better critical thinkers and writers. Rhetoric teaches us to dig deeply, to investigate carefully, and to appreciate how much we are influenced by what we see, hear, and read. Likewise, rhetoric teaches us to be better communicators who are highly aware of our power to influence a select audience.
Rhetorical analysis is the study of a text to determine how a communicator gets a message across to the intended audience. Remember, a text is anything that is constructed to convey a message, such as an essay, article, speech, book, restaurant menu, website, advertisement, novel, or poem. Sometimes a rhetorical analysis also evaluates how well the message is conveyed.
As you saw earlier in the chapter, the process of analysis breaks down a text into smaller elements in order to gain an intimate understanding of that text. In a critical analysis, you focus on breaking down the content; in a rhetorical analysis, you examine the writer’s use of language.
A rhetorical analysis always, in some way, examines the rhetoric: the way the writer seeks to convey the overall message to the reader. However, there are a variety of approaches to rhetorical analysis, and the approach students will be asked to take will depend on which course they are taking and which instructor they have. Here are two examples:
- 1. Sometimes, a rhetorical analysis assignment will ask for an assessment (evaluation) of the writer’s rhetoric, but others will ask students to avoid any kind of assessment.
- 2. Sometimes, a rhetorical analysis assignment asks students to discuss ethos, logos, and pathos (the classical Aristotelian appeals you learned about in Chapter 17: The Art of Persuasion), but others do not. Think of ethos, logos, and pathos as big umbrella terms under which there are many elements at work. Some rhetorical analyses, then, are written by examining three or four elements under just one of those umbrellas, without necessarily even mentioning the words ethos, logos, or pathos.
Much of the information in the section on critical analysis applies to rhetorical analysis, too, so be sure to read that section thoroughly first to provide a foundation. In this section, we’ll focus on the aspects that make a rhetorical analysis different from a critical analysis.
Like the critical analysis essay, the rhetorical analysis essay is based on one primary source, though secondary sources may be helpful to explain particular observations you have made in the source text. Below are some criteria to consider when you are required to write a rhetorical analysis.
The source for a rhetorical analysis essay . . . | |
|---|---|
Should: | Should not: |
• Be on a topic that is interesting to you. It is easier if you notice some rhetorical strategies right away because it will be easier to generate ideas of what to discuss when you have more of an immediate insight. | • Be about something you feel deeply about, since that is likely to push or pull you toward a more critical approach. • Be from a website because this makes it more difficult for citations and referencing (unless your instructor has made a particular article available to you). |
• Be from an academic source, such as a scholarly journal. | • Be from a newspaper (print or online) because these are often too simple to offer enough complexity for a thorough analysis. |
• Contain language that is relatively straightforward—some challenging vocabulary would be all right because that can be part of your analysis. | • Have a lot of challenging vocabulary, forcing you to constantly refer to a dictionary—you may get bogged down in doing that and miss the main strategies the author employs. |
• Be five to ten pages in length, giving you enough room to choose a few strategies to discuss in some depth. | • Be closer to three or as high as twenty pages—this will either provide too little content, and you will be stuck for strategies to discuss, or it will give you too much to work with, and you will only cover the strategies superficially. |
Consider this analogy: imagine you are taking a tour of Edmonton, and the tour guide said, “This is a house. It is built of wood and stucco. The basement has a concrete foundation.” Wouldn’t you wonder why on earth he chose this house and why he was telling you these things?
Now imagine that instead he said, “This house is historically significant for the Edmonton area. While most homes now have concrete basements, this was the first to have one. At the time, they believed that the cold would lead to cracks. This house proved otherwise, which revolutionized building in the city. The wood and stucco, so familiar to the area, were typical of the 1920s postwar building boom. Wood was plentiful and stucco cheap, allowing for affordable housing for war veterans. Thus, even though this house seems typical today, it is really the first of its kind.”
Note the difference! The second explanation is much better because it conveys the same essential information (stucco, cement, wood) but also draws on historical context to explain why those elements are significant. This, then, conveys why the house is important.
This analogy illustrates that it’s not enough to list the rhetorical strategies you identify in the text you’re analyzing. Instead, in a rhetorical analysis, you must demonstrate why those elements are important to the text as a whole and how they serve to impact the intended audience.
How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay
When you craft a rhetorical analysis, your job is to examine the rhetoric of a given text—the way the writer conveys the overall message of that text. Here we will build up your frame of reference for rhetorical analysis, with the help of some examples.
Before we get started on what you should be writing about in a rhetorical analysis essay, let’s identify three things that you should not be writing about:
- 1. Don’t focus on whether the reader is “engaged” or not. The focus should not be on a hypothetical reader’s experience with the text; instead, the focus should be on the text itself.
- 2. Don’t evaluate whether the writer’s opinions about the topic are correct or not. The subject/topic of the essay is not our concern; instead, our focus is the text itself.
- 3. Do not write about your own feelings and opinions about the writer’s topic. Again, the topic of the essay isn’t our concern, and this should be an objective analysis, not a personal response.
For example, let’s say you are writing a rhetorical analysis of the argumentative essay titled “Legalize Prostitution” by anthropologist Patty Kelly (source: LA Times, 13 Mar. 2008, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-13-oe-kelly13-story.html). (As you might guess from the title, the thesis of the essay is that prostitution should be decriminalized for the sake of the health and safety of sex workers.) Your essay should not focus on prostitution (the topic), nor should it focus on your own opinions on prostitution or on your opinions of Kelly’s article. Instead, your essay should focus on the text (the article itself), objectively identifying its rhetorical devices.
Follow these three steps to write an effective rhetorical analysis essay:
- Step 1: Using the close-reading strategies discussed in Chapter 2: Introduction to Academic Reading, read the article so that you truly understand it, can identify and restate the thesis, and can make an assumption about who the intended audience is.
- Step 2: Since it’s important to understand the rhetorical situation, look up the author and find out who they are and what they bring to the table. This information might be just for your benefit and not something you choose to include in your analysis, but if you do include biographical information in your essay, remember that you must cite the source for it.
Then look up where the article was published so you understand what typical publications for this venue look like and who the typical audience is. Between your thorough reading / critical thinking about the article and what you learn about the author, venue, and general audience, you will be in a good position to understand who within that group of typical readers would be drawn to this article in particular. Again, this information is primarily for you, but it might, under some circumstances, be information you choose to include in your analysis (accompanied by proper citations).
- Step 3: Once you have all the basic information, investigate how the writer gets the message across. Ask yourself, “What is striking or interesting about the essay? What makes this essay unlike the other essays I have read?”
Look for anything that really stands out—and is repeated. Identify several big things the writer does to get the message to the reader. These things might be ethos, pathos, and logos, but not necessarily. Use the following guiding questions to get you thinking about the text:
- • What is the author’s purpose?
- • For whom is the author writing? Who is the audience?
- • What type of language does the author use? Technical? Straightforward? Formal? Informal? Too informal?
- • How appropriate is the language, sentence structure, and complexity for the intended audience?
- • What is the genre, and how has it impacted the writing style?
- • How logical/reasonable is the argument?
- • What kind of evidence does the author use for support? Is it reputable, relevant, or current, and is there enough?
- • To what degree did the author engage or interest the reader in the topic?
- • Does the text present multiple points of view, or is bias evident?
- • How is the text organized? How does that affect the development of the thesis?
In Chapter 17: Rhetorical Devices, we provided a long list of rhetorical devices, and these will become the focus of a rhetorical analysis. When you reread the text you have chosen for your rhetorical analysis, ask the questions below.
- • Analogy: Are there any comparisons made that attempt to exemplify or clarify a relationship between two things?
- • Cause and effect: Is there an examination of past events or their outcomes? Is there an explanation of the “why” of something?
- • Comparison: Are there two or more related subjects, people, places, processes, events, and so on that are evaluated and analyzed?
- • Counterpoints: Does the writer acknowledge opposing points?
- • Definition: Are there important words that are defined or clarified?
- • Description: Do sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch play a role in the text? Is the description straightforward or flowery?
- • Diction: Why do you think the author chooses particular words? What are the connotations or implications?
- • Division and classification: Does the essay reduce the subject into more manageable parts or group various parts?
- • Exemplification: Are there examples—facts, statistics, personal experiences, interview quotations, and so on—that help develop ideas?
- • Flashback: Does the writer recall a brief memory of a past event or experience?
- • Hyperbole: Does the writer make seemingly outrageous claims? To what effect?
- • Imagery: Does the writer use language that calls upon the reader’s senses in an indirect way?
- • Irony: Do any of the writer’s terms or concepts seem to obviously clash?
- • Juxtaposition: Are objects or ideas placed side by side for emphasis or contrast?
- • Metaphor and simile: Does the essay make comparisons between unlike things to evoke or illustrate an idea?
- • Narration: Are there anecdotes, experiences, stories, process explanations, or directions?
- • Oxymoron: Are apparently contradictory terms used together?
- • Paradox: Does the writer reveal a truth that at first seems contradictory (e.g., “Red wine is both good and bad for us”)? Are there contradictions that contain some truth?
- • Parallelism: Does the writer seem to deliberately repeat particular grammatical constructions?
- • Parody: Does the writer seem to emulate a particular writing style for a humorous effect?
- • Personification: Are ideas or concepts presented in human-like form?
- • Repetition: Why, with the availability of so many words and phrases, does the writer use the same ones multiple times?
- • Sarcasm: Does the writer use irony to taunt someone?
- • Satire: Does the essayist point out the folly of someone or something?
- • Style, tone, and voice: What is the tone of the essay? What is the writer’s attitude toward the text? Does the writer make choices that reveal a position?
- • Symbolism: Does the writer refer to objects or actions that seem to have meanings beyond their literal meanings?
Of course, you cannot and should not aim to examine all the rhetorical devices used in a particular text. Choose a couple that stand out, and focus on them. Make sure that you fully understand what the device is and how the author uses it, and always provide an example as evidence.
How to Structure a Rhetorical Analysis Essay
The structure of a rhetorical analysis is based on the standard essay structure you learn in Chapter 12: Essay Essentials. Therefore, take a few minutes to review Chapter 12 before you proceed. Then carefully review the template below:
Rhetorical Analysis Essay Template
- I. Introductory paragraph
- • Hook
- • Title of the text and name of the author
- • Optional: relevant background on the author and/or the text
- • Summary of the content of the text (in just two or three sentences)
- • Paraphrase of the thesis of the text
- • Thesis statement and rhetorical devices analyzed
- II. First body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: the first rhetorical device analyzed
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: the effect of this rhetorical device
- III. Second body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: the second rhetorical device analyzed
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: the effect of this rhetorical device
- IV. Third body paragraph
- • Topic sentence: the third rhetorical device analyzed
- • Two to three supporting points
- • Explanations and examples for each point (quote from the text)
- • Closing sentence: the effect of this rhetorical device
- V. Concluding paragraph
- • Title of the text and name of the author
- • Summary of the main points in your body paragraphs
- • Restated thesis statement
Introductory Paragraph and Thesis
In a rhetorical analysis essay, the introductory paragraph will name the author, the title, and any background information you think is necessary, such as biographical information about the author or the name and typical audience of the publication in which the article was published. (If you include such background information, cite the source[s] where you found that information). The introduction should also include a brief synopsis (summary) of the text and then a restatement of the text’s thesis. The introductory paragraph should end with a thesis statement—your thesis statement. Together, the restatement of the article’s thesis and your own thesis might look something like this:
- In “Title of the Text,” [Author]’s thesis is that __________. She conveys this message through A, B, and C.
Here is a sample introductory paragraph:
This introductory paragraph introduces the author and text being analyzed, and it gives an indication of the author’s overall point of view, which is followed by a brief synopsis. The second-to-last sentences of the introductory paragraph restates Castle’s thesis. The last sentence presents the student’s thesis and tells the reader which rhetorical strategies will be examined.
Body Paragraphs
Body paragraphs in a rhetorical analysis are straightforward. The first body paragraph will be about one of the author’s primary writing techniques. In the example above, the first body paragraph will be about Castle’s use of humour. The second body paragraph will be about a second important technique (colourful language, in this case), and so on.
Begin with a simple topic sentence. For example, the first body paragraph could begin with this topic sentence:
- One of the most obvious of the author’s techniques is her use of humour.
The topic sentence of the second body paragraph could start with a transition:
- In addition to humour, Castle also uses colourful language.
The remainder of each body paragraph would be devoted to providing examples of the rhetorical device. If you were writing about Castle’s article, you could write that the author shares a funny story, and you would quote from parts of that story.
Within that same body paragraph, go on to offer a second example of humour and provide several examples, in context. As you go through this process, make sure to vary your language and sentence structure. At the end of all your examples, you might, if it hasn’t been clarified already, have a sentence or two explaining the ultimate effect of the rhetorical technique—but again, only if necessary.
As you write the body of the essay, remember that everything you include should be there to demonstrate how the writer uses a device to make the audience think, feel, or understand. Writing is about transmitting ideas to an audience, so make sure to keep the rhetorical triangle in mind (the relationship between the subject [topic], the writer, and the reader; see Figure 18.5).
Then, as you write each paragraph, remember to emphasize how the writer’s rhetorical choices impact readers.
Figure 18.5: The Rhetorical Triangle
Illustration by Jessica Tang.
The concluding paragraph should not repeat the points you have already made, but it should briefly summarize what you’ve written about the main writing techniques. It should also comment on the overall impact of the article. What does the article leave readers thinking about?
Analytical essays come in many more types than the two described here. However, all analytic essays are based on the same fundamental principle: the analyzer undertakes a process of observation, describing, naming, and inferring in order to (a) identify and describe the elements that make up the whole text and (b) explain how the parts work together to create that text.
Sometimes you will be asked to specifically pay attention to how a text is put together, which will call for rhetorical analysis. Other times, you will be asked to focus on what the text means, which will take the form of critical analysis.
It is usually the context in which the analysis takes place that will determine which specific elements are likely to take centre stage in the analysis. For example, in history class, you could analyze a historical event, or you could analyze a historical text. In nursing, you could be asked to analyze a description of best practices for dialysis, or you could be asked to analyze dialysis itself. In computing science, you might be asked to analyze a particular piece of software for its functionality or for its code. In a literature course, you might be asked to conduct a literary analysis of the structure, the narrative, the plot, the characters, the aesthetic, or other literary elements.
Regardless of the writing situation, this chapter provides a solid foundation in how to approach the work of analyzing and how to present the results of that analysis in essay form.
Key Takeaways
- • In the context of analysis, an object is any thing, text, or concept that you analyze.
- • The process of analyzing requires you to examine, to observe, to discern, to describe, to infer, and to rethink.
- • Analysis also requires looking at relationships, spaces, and gaps.
- • You can analyze the “what” (ideas, arguments, opinions) of an object, the “how” (rhetoric, structure, organization), or a combination of the two.
- • An analysis can evaluate the qualities of elements and judge them good or bad, but it does not always need to; make sure you know when evaluation is and is not required.
- • Every analysis occurs in a context, and the analytical context determines what you will be looking for and, hence, what you will find.
- • In analysis, consider the relationship between the writer, the reader, and the subject.
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.