How to Write an Essay. Research, Analysis, Thesis, Outline
Step 1: Essay Research
Step 2: Essay Analysis
Step 3: Brainstorming
Step 4: Essay Thesis
Step 5: Essay Outline
Step 6: Essay Introduction
Step 7: Essay Paragraphs
Step 8: Essay Conclusion
Step 9: MLA Style in Essay Writing
Step: 10: Language
Step 10: Essay Language (b)
Step 2: Analysis
When your topic has been researched, you are going to examine the disagreements of various authors. As compared to the favorite reading in the world of academics, authors should provide plenty of clues and subtle causes so as to convince other scholars about their thoughts. In order to comprehend the principles of disagreement, you need to get into the scholars’ ‘gladiator arena,’ and examine the argument and propose your own which will need discreet thinking.
Identify the argument
There are two main constituents of an argument. One is a claim, and the other is the reason for that claim. One cannot claim without a reason and vice versa to create an argument. If one is able to give reasons and exert power to claim from the given reasons, which is the only way it can be called an argument.
When any text of argument is examined, or if you invented an argument or your own, then first recognize your main claim and then find a reason for it too. The claim is disputed and it is also a questionable contention of an essay. The reasons are clarified and proven why the claim is right. This is very handy to sketch this reasoning:
CLAIM = ________________________________________
Reason 1: ____________________________
Reason 2: ____________________________
Reason 3: ____________________________
Assess the reasoning
When you have the argument sketched, appraise the reasoning. You need to ask the following questions to yourself in order to help you to recognize the flaws of sense:
(1) Can there be another possible way to interpret things? A choice of interpretation is another reason for the same claim. Investigating the interpretation or reasons for a claim is a remarkable way to disclose fragility in the author’s sense.
An example for this is: “John was late because he obviously doesn’t care about the class.” (A different interpretation for John’s being late he was involved in a car accident, and hence could not be on time for his class, not that he was not bothered about it.)
(2.) Was the given testimony enough? Proof attributes to sustain the claim given. This attribution could be in the shape of the truth, datum, dogmatic quotations, research, opinions, endurance, scrutiny, or other manners of getting evidence.
An example: “John was late because he has Alzheimer’s disease, and according to the American Medical Association, Alzheimer’s patients frequently forgot who and where they are”(Jones 65) ( proof has been given by the author in he shape of scrutiny for his or her inference.)
(3) What arrogations are the inferences based on? An arrogation is what one concedes to be a fact, though it may not be quite so. Every disagreement is based on some mutual presumptions. This agreed basis makes it easier for two people to converse before anything else, however, these presupposition, as established on unjustified thoughts, only produce a ‘centre area’ to set upon a hostile disagreement.
An example: “John was late because his previous class is on the far side of the campus.” (One presumes that it took some time to come from the opposite side of the campus to the class.) Had John walked with the similar speed that was given during the disagreement, the presumption would have been equally allotted. Nevertheless, it could also mean that John, in reality does walk very swiftly as presumed, and perhaps late for some other cause.)
(4) Has the author executed a reasonable deception? Deceptions are usually carried out due to the misdeeds of inferences. If you get to know about such deceptions, it will give you the advantage to actually see these more profusely in the books you read. In spite of the fact that there are a hundred such deceptions, the ones mentioned are the most widespread:
Faulty Cause and Effect
Fallacy of Authority