Conducting a thorough analysis means understanding the essential elements that make up a whole in an attempt to better, more deeply understand the whole. Therefore, this section of your paper must break the Unit 3 paper under your analysis down into its essential elements using the Elements of Thought we’ve been studying throughout our semester. Again, how you organize the required elements for this section is up to you; however, your Analysis must be coherent, logical, and fluid. Any paper that presents an Analysis that merely provides the information required to satisfy each bullet point listed below will receive little to no credit. Your Analysis section should pick up naturally where the Introduction & Summary ended and must include:

identification and explanation of the primary response to the Unit 2 article the author presented in the paper.
identification and contextual discussion of the primary evidence the author presents to justify the response — summarize the evidence cohesively and succinctly and then offer your understanding of that evidence and its impact on the argument. DO NOT string together quote after quote after quote and always properly cite all included evidence pulled from the paper.
identification and explanation of the point of view from which the author is presenting the response. Remember that point of view often requires identification of personal characteristics that dictate someone’s perspective. Identify only what you know and can safely assume about the Unit 3 paper’s author.
identification and explanation of how the author addresses opposing points of view, especially the point of view of the Unit 2 article author to which your classmate is responding.
identification and discussion of bias evident in the text as indicated by word choice, tone, connotation, cherry-picked evidence, emotional manipulation, etc.
identification and discussion of fallacies and / or mental manipulation evident in the text.

All evidence pulled specifically from the text under analysis must be properly cited using MLA in-text citations and proper representation on the paper’s Works Cited page.

The Analysis section should be at least one well-developed and cohesive paragraph long, possibly two.

EVALUATION

The Evaluation section is the heart of your paper, and the Analysis section should lead up to it logically. You must fairly and objectively evaluate the quality of the argument being presented in the article based on your previous analysis. You cannot evaluate what you have not analyzed, so your analysis and evaluation should work together logically and cohesively with your analysis leading toward a logical and objective evaluation.

Your Evaluation section should be organized according to your classmate’s Unit 3 paper’s strengths AND weaknesses and should cover all or most of the elements listed below. How you organize those required elements for this section is up to you; however, your Evaluation section must be coherent, logical, and fluid. Any paper that presents an Evaluation section that merely provides the information required to satisfy each bullet point listed below will receive little to no credit. Your Evaluation should include a thorough discussion of all of the following with adequate supporting evidence to support each of your assertions:

how clear, precise, fair, and logical you find the author’s argument / purpose.
how clear, relevant, precise, fair, and logical you find the Key Questions at the core of the argument.
how relevant, accurate, in-depth, precise, fair, significant, representative of breadth, and logical you find the evidence used to support the argument.
how clear, relevant, accurate, in-depth, precise, fair, significant, representative of breadth, and logical you find the Key Concepts at the core of the argument.
the degree to which you feel the assumptions the author has made are relevant, logical and fair.
the degree to which you feel the implications noted in your analysis are clear and relevant, fair and logical.
the degree to which you feel the author’s primary point of view is fair and logical given the overall argument presented, demonstrative of depth and breadth, and clear and relevant to the stated purpose and argumentative context. Be sure to include whether the author seemed sensitive to the points of views of others and to the complexity of the argument and its context.
the degree to which you feel the author’s own biases or political affiliations may have impacted the way he/she/they presented the opinion.