The document provides tips for writing analytical paragraphs, including how to structure them. It recommends starting with a claim, then presenting relevant evidence, and drawing on concepts to show how the evidence supports the claim. It should also indicate how the paragraph contributes to the overall thesis. Bad structures to avoid are summarizing instead of analyzing, neglecting to present evidence, neglecting conceptual terminology, or cramming multiple claims into one paragraph. The document also discusses arranging paragraphs from simple to complex, cause to effect, least to most controversial, or with another underlying principle to build to a climactic conclusion.

1. Arrangement (+ a review of
analysis)

3. WRITING ANALYSES
One good way to organizing a paragraph of analysis (though not the only one):
• State your claim.
• Present the relevant evidence.
• Draw upon the concepts you’re using to show how the evidence supports your
claim.
• Indicate what the argument you’ve made in this paragraph contributes to your
thesis overall.
Some bad ways to organize a paragraph of analysis include:
• Summarizing rather analyzing.
• Neglecting to present the evidence, or at least not directly.
• Neglecting to use the conceptual terminology.
• Cramming multiple claims and/or pieces of evidence into a single paragraph.

4. Arrangement
Or, Death to the 5-Paragraph Essay!

5. Google Glass thesis #1
If the popularity of the epistolary novel and realist portraiture
were responsible for the evolution of the modern social order, then how
are contemporary cultural artifacts affecting who we are becoming
today? Consider Google Glass: the computer that you wear like a pair
of glasses. Google Glass captures everything you see, hear, and say,
projecting your thoughts and perceptions to the world, while also
sending to you what others are recording and allowing you to gather
still more information from the web. To wear Google Glass, then, is to
turn yourself into a global transmitter and receiver of information. As
such, this technology is teaching users a new way of being human: what
I will call “iHumanism.” Whereas, per Hunt, the Enlightenment notion
of “the human” understood selves to be fundamentally individualistic
and private, iHumans see the self as fundamentally social, i.e., a source
and destination for shared information, and mediating, i.e., a public
broadcasting and archiving service. On the one hand, iHumanism may
lead to positive, potentially revolutionary changes in the social order, as
artifacts such as Google Glass teach us to see ourselves not as isolated
individuals but as nodes in an open-ended, interconnected human web.
On the other hand, however, iHumanism threatens equally
revolutionary, but potentially very negative changes, too, potentially
trapping us in a world where no experience is truly our own, and the
twin “Big Brothers” of government and the market are always watching
us.

6. Google Glass thesis #1
If the popularity of the epistolary novel and realist portraiture
were responsible for the evolution of the modern social order, then how
are contemporary cultural artifacts affecting who we are becoming
today? Consider Google Glass: the computer that you wear like a pair
of glasses. Google Glass captures everything you see, hear, and say,
projecting your thoughts and perceptions to the world, while also
sending to you what others are recording and allowing you to gather
still more information from the web. To wear Google Glass, then, is to
turn yourself into a global transmitter and receiver of information. As
such, this technology is teaching users a new way of being human: what
I will call “iHumanism.” Whereas, per Hunt, the Enlightenment notion
of “the human” understood selves to be fundamentally individualistic
and private, iHumans see the self as fundamentally social, i.e., a source
and destination for shared information, and mediating, i.e., a public
broadcasting and archiving service. On the one hand, iHumanism may
lead to positive, potentially revolutionary changes in the social order, as
artifacts such as Google Glass teach us to see ourselves not as isolated
individuals but as nodes in an open-ended, interconnected human web.
On the other hand, however, iHumanism threatens equally
revolutionary, but potentially very negative changes, too, potentially
trapping us in a world where no experience is truly our own, and the
twin “Big Brothers” of government and the market are always watching
us.

8. MOST SPACE TO
THE MOST
ORIGINAL,
INTERESTING,
AND OR
CONTROVERSIAL
IDEAS
TRANSITIONAL
WORDS AND
PHRASES
DEVELOPS
THE THESIS
LOGICALLY
PROGRESSIVE
BUILDS TO A
CLIMAX
features of a strong
arrangement

10. A “climactic” sequence has an underlying organizing
principle. For example:
• Simple to complex
• Cause to effect
• Problem to solution
• Least controversial to most controversial
• Etc., etc.

11. Google Glass thesis #1
If the popularity of the epistolary novel and realist portraiture
were responsible for the evolution of the modern social order, then how
are contemporary cultural artifacts affecting who we are becoming
today? Consider Google Glass: the computer that you wear like a pair
of glasses. Google Glass captures everything you see, hear, and say,
projecting your thoughts and perceptions to the world, while also
sending to you what others are recording and allowing you to gather
still more information from the web. To wear Google Glass, then, is to
turn yourself into a global transmitter and receiver of information. As
such, this technology is teaching users a new way of being human: what
I will call “iHumanism.” Whereas, per Hunt, the Enlightenment notion
of “the human” understood selves to be fundamentally individualistic
and private, iHumans see the self as fundamentally social, i.e., a source
and destination for shared information, and mediating, i.e., a public
broadcasting and archiving service. On the one hand, iHumanism may
lead to positive, potentially revolutionary changes in the social order, as
artifacts such as Google Glass teach us to see ourselves not as isolated
individuals but as nodes in an open-ended, interconnected human web.
On the other hand, however, iHumanism threatens equally
revolutionary, but potentially very negative changes, too, potentially
trapping us in a world where no experience is truly our own, and the
twin “Big Brothers” of government and the market are always watching
us.