It is the backbone of every reasoned argument Analysis is simply a process of separation No claim is believable without analysis A lack of analysis renders a claim an assertion Anyone can do it, few people do A lack of analysis is typical of poor reasoning
Take your conclusion: that’s where all arguments startThink of an claim that supports (or disproves) your conclusion
To provide reasonable analysis you should answer two questions: Why is the claim true?Iteratively ask yourself ‘why?’. Why is what you’resaying true, use Reasoning, Evidence and Illustrationto show the progressions of your argument. Why is the claim relevant?Assuming your claim is true, why should we care?
Conclusion Why are the Series of Claimsclaims relevant? (C1, C2, C3…) Why are the claims true?
Conclusion: The Black Market for drugs is worse than their harms if legal C1: The Black Market hasDrug wars kill more people and use more harms (H1, H2, H3…) policing resources than would be otherwise if drugs were legal. eg. H1 = Drug wars. Drug wars occur because illegal supply of drugs has to come from a criminal gangs. Areas to supply to (territory) is valuable to various gangs, therefore gangs fight for it.
You’ll need a weight of arguments You’ll have to compare those arguments to competing counter arguments
Why?Argument: Prisoners have issues that affectthem too and should be consideredLike what?Prison overcrowding and abuse by wardens arekey issues that are understood almost solely byprisoners, and hence are not heard.SO WHAT?Democracies should accommodate all peoplewith a stake in that society.
This house would legalize all drugs Line: Because: Line: it would save Maintaining life is of the lives utmost priority Because:all other rights depend upon it Soln: Regulate drugs by ensuring purity of Claim 1: Drug takers supply (labelling, etc.) die from complications in consumption Analysis: Drugs are also sometimes spiked with lethal substance
Not True Worse than Alternative Not relevantExplain why your arguments are more important to theclaim.Or why yours outweigh the counter-arguments, even ifthey’re true.Or go negative, why are their arguments notimportant or insignificant or false?
Counter Argument:“Drugs should be banned because they’re addictive andstop people being able to make positive life choices”Possible Response:“That argument ignores the fact that if you’re not aliveyou can’t make any life choices, if they’re argument isover life choices, the argument falls to our side of theclaim. Legalising drugs saves lives and gives people achance to turn their lives around before they are cut short”
It’s nearly impossible to make an arguments that do nothave a response.So it’s important that you remember to explain everypart of your argument, so you can understand how it isbeing attacked, and respond appropriately.Substantial analysis makes it harder for the other side todispute your claim (given time constraints).Explain well enough and your arguments will prove ordisprove the claim, and you’ll (possibly) win.