KEY ESSAY WRITING SKILLS
Making an argument (part 2)
a beginner’s guide to the analysis
This is part 2 of our 3-part series on making an argument. It will explain how to write the analysis section of a PEA paragraph, which is by far the most important section because of its core purpose: explaining reasoning. This guide will take you through what that means and how to do it.
Contents of this guide
Part 3 of the series will look at how you can develop your argument by adding more evidence and analysis.
Quick links for this skill
Listen to a fun AI podcast about how to do this skill - based on all 3 parts of the series (10 mins)
Other guides in the series:
Part 1 - How to write a PEA paragraph
Part 3 - How to develop your argument with more evidence and analysis
Recapping some key concepts from part 1 of the series
Before we get into the analysis itself, let’s recap a few key concepts, which were discussed in the first guide in this series: argument, inference and reasoning:
An analytical paragraph (PEA) is an argument, and the argument is set out in the paragraph point: if your point is that the writer presents a particular character as a cruel man, then this is your argument; if your point is that the writer suggests that family is incredibly important, then this is your argument (e.g. the thing you want to argue for).
Your argument needs to be something you have inferred from the text, making it an inference. It shouldn’t be something that is explicitly and clearly stated in the text.
An inference is a conclusion you have reached based on evidence and reasoning.
The more sophisticated your inference, the more reasoning you will need to explain how you reached that inference.
If you find any of that confusing, you should go back and read the first guide in this series which explains how to write a PEA paragraph. However, if you’re good with it all then we can proceed, bearing this key principle in mind:
The purpose of your analysis is to prove the argument set out in your point by explaining the reasoning behind your inference.
Showing your working – a metaphor for maths fans
One way to think about the analysis part of a PEA paragraph is with a maths metaphor. In your analysis you are showing your working, in exactly the same way you would do for a maths equation. In fact, you could think of the whole PEA paragraph as a kind of maths equation, except in English we put the parts in a different order (in maths it’s EAP, rather than PEA):
Equation (Evidence)
3x + 4 = 10
Showing your working
(Analysis)
If you complete the inverse operation by subtracting the 4, then you get 3x = 6. If you divide both sides of the equation by 3, then you get x = 2.
Solution
(Point)
x = 2
In essence a PEA paragraph is a lot like a maths solution, except in a different order:
POINT: The solution is x = 2
EVIDENCE: The equation is 3x + 4 = 10
ANALYSIS: This solution is true because, if you complete the inverse operation by subtracting the 4, then you get 3x = 6, and if you then divide both sides of the equation by 3, you get x = 2.
The analysis (showing your working) explains how you got from the evidence (the equation) to the point (the solution). Offering this information shows that not only do you know the solution to the equation, but that you also understand how to solve the equation.
This is very important in English: showing your understanding is central to the whole essay-writing process. After all, essays are the way we assess your ability to read and understand a text.
First worked example — a simple inference
To make this nice and clear, let’s look at a couple of examples which should clarify how this process works in practice. First, here’s a simple inference (a point) with some evidence:
Michael Morpurgo presents the Birdman as an outsider in his society. At the start of the extract, the narrator claims that the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight.”
With this point and evidence in place, we need to use the analysis to explain why the evidence proves the point. In other words, we need to explain the reasoning behind this inference.
Why does the fact the Birdman is only rarely seen outside in the daylight imply that he’s an outsider?
The reasoning for this inference is based on a fairly basic understanding of how human nature and human society work, and it works in two parts, which look like this:
If he’s only rarely seen outside in the daylight, then he must go outside at night instead; this is a strange lifestyle for a human being and different to most people, which makes him an outsider
If he just goes out at night and other people don’t, then he must spend a lot of his time alone, which makes him an outsider
You should be able to see that reasoning generally has a kind of if…then…which structure; we take something from the evidence (if) and draw a conclusion from it (then), before linking it to the point (which). This is how inference works. You don’t need to use this wording (if…then…which) in your analysis, but it’s a useful way to think about what’s going on in your mind when you make inferences.
This reasoning then becomes the following simple analysis:
The fact that the Birdman seems to live a nocturnal life implies that he does not live by the same rules or routines as ordinary people, living instead outside of society. Moreover, if he mostly goes out at night, he cannot spend much time with other people so he is probably a fairly solitary person, making him an outsider.
This is a straightforward inference. It could be proved very quickly using just an understanding of how human nature and human society work. It doesn’t need any more knowledge than that.
However, ideally your inferences will be more sophisticated than this, and so they will need more sophisticated reasoning. We’ll look at another example to see this in action.
Second worked example - a more complex inference
Now we’ll look at a slightly more complex point which requires a bit more reasoning. Here’s the point and evidence:
At the start of the play Solomon is presented as fiercely loyal to his dad. In Act 1 Scene 3, Solomon’s mum gets angry at his dad for being out drinking and Solomon is described in the stage directions as “defending his dad” while he claims that he “probably just went for one drink.”
To prove this point, the analysis is going to need to do a bit more work than in our previous example. We need to explain how we got from “he probably just went for one drink” to “fiercely loyal.” It’s a bigger jump than in the last example because the point is a bit more sophisticated. The connection is not as clear because there’s more reasoning involved, which is what makes it a more sophisticated inference. One aspect of the reasoning is this:
If Solomon is defending his dad against his mum (whom he also loves), then he must really care for him since he takes his side over hers, which makes him loyal
Like in the previous example, this reasoning is based on an understanding of human nature. It is based on an understanding of what dads and mums are like, and the kinds of relationships they have with their children. However, it’s not really enough to convincingly prove the point, which is that Solomon is fiercely loyal to his dad. This reasoning doesn’t cover the ‘fiercely’ part very well, so we need to bring something else into our analysis to make the link between the evidence and the point really clear.
The other important way we can explain our reasoning for an inference is by considering something that has happened earlier in the text. Often things that we know from earlier in the story can help to explain why we made an inference.
In this particular play, we learn earlier in the story that Solomon’s dad’s drinking has made him a very bad parent; he was even violent towards Solomon at one point earlier in the play. Bearing this in mind, we can apply the following additional reasoning:
If this harmful behaviour is not enough to make Solomon take his mum’s side in the argument, then he must really want to take his dad’s side, which makes him fiercely loyal.
Taken together, these two pieces of reasoning (the one based on an understanding of human nature/society and the one based on something from another place in the text) form this piece of analysis:
The fact that Solomon will defend his dad even when it’s his mum (who he also loves) accusing him suggests that Solomon must really care for his dad. Moreover, given that Solomon’s dad’s drinking binges have had a really negative effect on Solomon’s life, with all the mess in the house and even the violence towards him, the fact he still defends him here shows just how fiercely loyal he is; he just doesn’t seem able to side with anyone else, no matter what.
Taken together, those two pieces of reasoning are enough to explain why the evidence proves the point, fulfilling the purpose of the analysis.
Writing more advanced analysis
There are several other things that you can include in the analysis part of a PEA paragraph including analysis of a writer’s use of language, form and structure, some discussion of the big ideas that the writer is communicating through the text, and some discussion of the context of the text. Depending on what year you are in and how much you have been taught, you may be expected to do these things as well, and each of them is covered in a separate guide, linked to above.
However – and this is extremely important – all of these more advanced analysis components have exactly the same purpose as the one we’ve discussed here: they help you to explain why the evidence proves the point. They explain your reasoning.
That is always what you’re trying to do in your analysis. You are trying to prove your point. Successful analysis creates a convincing argument that proves the point.
Summing up – key things to remember when making an argument in your analysis
The purpose of your analysis is always to explain why the evidence proves the point
This means, above all, explaining the reasoning behind the inference in the point
Explaining your reasoning is like showing your working in maths
Reasoning generally relies on at least one of two things, which you may have to explain in your analysis:
first, an understanding of how human nature and human society works
second, an understanding of other things that have happened in the text
There are other, more complex things your reasoning might rely upon (e.g. the analysis of language, form and structure), and we have separate guides for these things, but when you’re doing them, you’re still trying to achieve the same objective: explaining why the evidence proves the point.