Writing Analytically 8th edition David

Rosenwasser
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/writing-analytically-8th-edition-david-rosenwasser-2/
/’ MIN D T A P
From C engage

F it your cours e work

into your hectic life.
Make the most of your time by ie arning
your way. Access the resources you ne ed to
succe ed wherever, whenever.

Study with digital flashcards, listen to audio

textbooks, and take quiz z es.

R eview your current course grade and compare

your progress with your pe ers.

G et the fre e MindT ap Mobile App and le arn

wherever you are.

Bre ak Limitations. Cre ate your

own potential, and be unstoppable
with MindT ap.

MINDTAP POWERED By YOU.

 EIGHTH EDITION

DAVID ROSENWASSER
Muhlenberg C ollege

JILL STEPHEN
Muhlenberg C ollege

Z /C E N G A G E
 This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. E ditorial review has de emed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall le arning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. F or
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, ple ase visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by IS B N#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.

Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the e Book version.
CENGAGE
Writing Analytically 8e
D avid Rosenwasser and Jill
Stephen
Product Manager: Laura Ross
C ontent D eveloper: Elinor Gregory
Product Assistant: Shelby
N athanson
Marketing Manager: Kina Lara
S enior C ontent Project Manager:
Aime e Bear
S enior Art Director: Marissa F alco
IP Analyst: Ann Hoffman
IP Project Manager: Betsy
H athaway
Manufacturing Planner: Betsy
Donaghey
Production Service: MPS Limited
C ompositor: MPS Limited
Text Designer: MPS Limited
Cover Designer: Marissa F alco
Cover Image: Jorg Greuel/
DigitalVision/G etty Images
Printed in the United States of America
© 2019, 2017, 2012 C engage Le arning, Inc.
Unless otherwise noted, all content is © C engage
ALL RIG HTS R E S E RV E D. No part of this work covered by
the copyright herein may be reproduced or distributed
in any form or by any me ans, except as permitted by
U.S. copyright law, without the prior written permission
of the copyright owner.
F ar product information and technology assistance,
contact us at C engage C ustomer & S ales Support,
1-800-354-9706.
F or permission to use material from this
text or product, submit all requests online at
www.cengage.com/permissions.
F urther permissions questions can be emailed to
permissionreque5t @ cengage.com.
Library of Congress C ontrol Number: 2017954666
Student E dition:
ISBN: 978-1-337-559464
Loose-le af Edition:
ISBN: 978-1-337-55947-8
C engage
20 Channel C enter Stre et
Boston, MA 02210
USA
C engage is a le ading provider of customiz ed le arning
solutions with employe es residing in ne arly 40 different
countries and sales in more than 125 countries around
the world. Find your local representative at:
w ww. ce n gage . co m ,
C engage products are represented in C anada by
Nelson Education, Ltd.
To le arn more about C engage platforms and services,
visit www.cengage.com .
Purchase any of our products at your local college
store or at our preferred online store
www.cengagebrain.com.
BRIE F C ONTENTS
Preface xuii

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

The F ive Analytical Moves

R e ading Analytically 8
Interpretation: Moving from O bservation to Implication 0
R esponding to T Y aditional Writing Assignments More Analytically

5 Thinking Like a Writer 116

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

R e asoning from E vidence to C laims 1 48
F inding and E volving a Thesis
8 C onversing with Sources:
Writing the R ese arched P aper L i3
9 F inding, E valuating, and C iting Sources

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

10 From P aragraphs to P apers: F orms and F ormats Across the C urriculum 266

Style: C hoosing Words, Shaping S entences 299

Nine B asic Writing Errors (B W E s) and How to F ix Them

A P P E N DIX 369

IN D E X 376
C ONTENTS
Preface xvii

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

CHAPTER 1 2
The F ive Analytical Moves 2
Writing as a Tool of Thought 2
Why F aculty W ant Analysis 3
Analysis Is a S e arch for Me aning 3
Analysis Does More than Bre ak a Subject into Its P arts 4
Distinguishing Analysis from Summary, E xpressive Writing, and Argument 5
Analysis and Summary 6
Analysis and E xpressive Writing 7
Analysis and Argument 7
C ounterproductive H abits of Mind 10
H abit: The Judgment R eflex 10
C ures for the Judgment R eflex 11
T R Y T HIS 1.1: E xperiment with Adjectives and Adverbs 11
H abit: N aturalizing O ur Assumptions (O verpersonalizing) 11
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Arguments vs. O pinions:
A Political Scientist Spe aks 12
H abit: G eneralizing 12
C ures for the Problem of G eneralizing 13
T R Y T HIS 1,2: Distinguishing Abstract from C oncrete Words 13
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: H abits of Mind
in Psychology: A Psychologist Spe aks 13
G et C omfortable with Uncertainty 14
H abit: The Slot-F iller Mentality (F ive-P aragraph F orm) 14
Le arn to Notice 15
The Five Analytical Moves 16
Move 1: Suspend Judgment 16
Move 2: D efine Significant P arts and How They Are R elated 16
N o t i c e & Focus (R a n k i n g ) 17
“Interesting,” “ R eve aling,” " Strange ” 18
T R Y T HIS 1.3: N o t i c e & F ocus F ieldwork 18
Noticing and Rhetorical Analysis 18
T R Y T HIS 1.4: Doing N o t i c e & Focus with a Room 19
Doing E xploratory Writing in the O bservation Stage: Fre ewriting 19

v
Move 3: Make the Implicit E xplicit. Push O bservations to
Implications by A s k i n g “ S c W h a t ? ’’ 21
A s k i n g “ S o W h a t ?" 23
A s k i n g “ S o W h a t ?” in a C hain 23
T R Y T HIS 1.5: Track the "So W h a t ?” Q uestion 24
T R Y T HIS 1.6: Inferring Implications from O bservations 25
Move 4: Look for P atterns of R epetition and C ontrast and for Anomalies (T h e M e t h o d ) 25
The Steps of T h e M e t h o d 26
Two E xamples of T h e M e t h o d G enerating Ide as 27
Doing T h e M e t h o d on a Poem 29
T R Y T HIS 1.7: Doing T h e M e t h o d on a Poem 31
Troubleshooting T h e M e t h o d 31
T R Y T HIS 1.8: Do T h e M e t h o d on a Visual Image 32
T R Y T HIS 1.9: Do T h e M e t h o d on a R e ading 32
Move 5: K e ep R eformulating Q uestions and E xplanations 32
Summing Up: Analyzing Whistler's Mother 33
Analysis and P ersonal Associations 35
B ecoming a D etective 36
Assignments: The Five Analytical Moves 36

CHAPTER 2 38
R e ading Analytically 38
B ecoming C onversant Inste ad of R e ading for the G ist 38
B eyond the B anking Model of E ducation 39
R ejecting the Transparent Theory of Language 39
S e ek to Understand the R e ading F airly on Its O wn T erms 40
How to Write a Critique 41
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: What Do W e Me an
by Critical R e ading? A Music Professor Spe aks 43
F ocus on Individual S entences 43
P oin t in g 44
Using Q uotation 44
Pa r aph r ase X 3 45
T R Y T HIS 2.1: E xperiment with P a r a p h r a s e x 3 47
T R Y T HIS 2.2: P araphrase and Implication 47
P a s s a g e -B a s e d F o c u s e d F r e e w r l t i n g 47
T R Y T HIS 2.3: Do P a s s a g e -B a s e d F o c u s e d F r e e w r i t i n g 52
T R Y T HIS 2.4: Writing and R e ading with O thers: A S equence of Activities 52
K e ep a C ommonplace Book 53
Situate the R e ading Rhetorically 53
F ind T h e P i t c h , T h e C o m p l a i n t , and T h e M o m e n t 54
T R Y T HIS 2.5: Locating T h e P i t c h a n d T h e C o mp l a i n t 56
F ocus on the Structure of Thinking in a R e ading 56
U n c o v e r i n g A s s u mp t i o n s 56
T R Y T HIS 2.6: U n c o v e r i n g A s s u mp t i o n s Implied by a Statement 57
T R Y T HIS 2.7: U n c o v e r i n g A s s u mp t i o n s : F ieldwork 58
T r a c k i n g B i n a r i e s in a R e ading 58
R e f o r m u l a t i n g Bi n a r i e s 60
T R Y T HIS 2.8: R e f o r m u l a t i n g B i n a r i e s : F ieldwork 62
T R Y T HIS 2.9: Practice T r a c k i n g R e f o r m u l a t e d B i n a r i e s in a R e ading 63
A p p l y a R e a d i n g as a L e n s 63
Assignments: R e ading Analytically 68

CHAPTER 3 70
Interpretation: Moving from O bservation to Implication 70
The Big Picture 70
Making Interpretations Plausible: Interpretive C ontexts 71
C ontext and the Making of Me aning 72
Specifying an Interpretive C ontext: A Brief E xample 73
Intention as an Interpretive C ontext 74
What Is and Isn ’ t "Me ant” to Be Analyz ed 76
Avoiding the E xtremes: N either " F ortune C ookie ” nor " Anything G oes” 77
The F ortune C ookie School of Interpretation 77
The Anything G oes School of Interpretation 77
Implications V ersus Hidden Me anings 78
F igurative Logic: R e asoning with Metaphors 79
T R Y T HIS 3.1: Uncovering the Logic of F igurative Language 81
T R Y T HIS 3.2: Analyzing the F igurative Language of Politics 81
S e e m s t o B e A b o u t X, B u t C o u l d A l s o B e (O r I s " R e a l l y ”) A b o u t Y 82
S e e m s T o B e A b o u t X . . An E xample 83
T R Y T HIS 3.3: Apply the F ormula S e e m s t o B e A b o u t X,
B u t C o u l d A l s o B e (O r I s “ R e a l l y ”) A b o u t Y 84
Making an Interpretation: The E xample of a N ew Yorker C over 84
D escription of a N ew Yorker C over, D ated O ctober 9, 2000 84
Using T h e M e t h o d to Identify P atterns of R epetition and C ontrast 86
Pushing O bservations to C onclusions: S electing an Interpretive C ontext 87
Arriving at an Interpretive C onclusion: Making C hoices 88
Making the Interpretation Plausible 89
Making Interpretations Plausible Across the C urriculum 89
Interpreting Statistical D ata 90
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM:
Interpreting the Numbers: A Psychology Professor Spe aks 92
A Brief G lossary of C ommon Logical F allacies 93
Assignments: Interpretation: Moving from O bservation to Implication 97

C ontents vil
 A.

CHAPTER 4 98
R esponding to Traditional Writing Assignments More An alytic ally 98
Interpreting Writing Assignments 98
F ind the Analytical Potential: Locate an Are a of Uncertainty 99
Six Rules of Thumb for R esponding to Assignments More Analytically 100
Rule 1: R educe Scope 100
Rule 2: Study the Wording of Topics for Unstated Q uestions 100
Rule 3: Suspect Your F irst R esponses 101
Rule 4: B egin with Q uestions, Not Answers 101
Rule 5: E xpect to B ecome Interested 101
Rule 6: Write All of the Time About What You Are Studying 102
Summary 103
Strategies for Making Summaries More Analytical 103
P ersonal R esponse: The R e action P aper 105
Strategies for Making P ersonal R esponses More Analytical 106
Agre e/Dis agre e 107
C omparison/C ontrast 108
Strategies for Making C omparison/C ontrast More Analytical,
Including D i f f e r e n c e w i t h i n S imi l a r i t y 109
D efinition 111
Strategies for Making D efinition More Analytical 112
Assignments: R esponding to Traditional Writing Assignments More Analytically 113

CHAPTERS 116
Thinking Like a Writer 116
Process and Product 116
A R eview of Some Strategies from Writing Analytically
for Making Writing H appen 117
Making Writing H appen 118
Fre ewriting R evisited 119
T R Y T HIS 5.1: Fre ewriting on a Single Word or Phrase 120
O bservation E xercises: The V alue of Close D escription 120
T R Y T HIS 5.2: Thre e D escriptive Fre ewrites 121
T R Y T HIS 5.3: H emingway ’ s F ive-F inger E xercise 121
Alternative Models of R evision: N ew Starts and the B ack Burner 122
C losing Your E yes as You Spe ak 123
When Class Members B ecome Audience: What Did You H e ar? 124
Writing on C omputers vs. Writing on P aper 124
O n K e eping a Writer’ s Notebook: Things to Try 126
C ollecting Possible Starting Points for Writing 126
C ollecting Words, Similes, and Metaphors: Not Just for Poets 128
“ Thre e Minutes”: An O ngoing, E ssay-Writing Prompt 130
T R Y T HIS 5.4: Thre e Minutes on Attention and Distraction 131
Writing from Life: The P ersonal E ssay 132
T R Y T HIS 5.5: Something You Know How to Do 133
T R Y T HIS 5.6: Writing the S elf 134
T R Y T HIS 5.7: R econstruct and R eflect 134
T R Y T HIS 5.8: A C hildhood E xperience that C hanged, Somehow,
Your View of the World 135
R e ading Like a Writer: T ext Marking and Listing 135
B eyond Critique: Alternative W ays for Writers to R espond to O ther Writers 136
Procedures for D escription-B ased, Small-Group P e er R eview 137
Procedures for O ne-on O ne P e er R eview: The Writing C enter Model 138
A Word on G oogle Docs and Interactive Blogging 140
Writing with O ther Writers 141
Writing Marathons: T aking Writing on the Road 141
Writers ’ Boot C amp 142
How to Assess Your O wn Writing: Some Rubrics for S elf-E valuation 143
Short List of Things That G o Wrong 144
Some Do ’ s and Don ’ ts of G ood Writing 144
Some Useful Mantras for Writers 146
Assignment: Thinking Like a Writer 146
Write a Literacy N arrative 146

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

CHAPTERS 148
R e asoning from E vidence to C laims 148
Linking E vidence and C laims 148
The F unctions of E vidence 149
“ B ecause I S ay So ”: Unsubstantiated C laims 149
Distinguishing E vidence from C laims 150
T R Y T HIS 6.1: Distinguishing E vidence from C laims 151
G iving E vidence a Point: Making D etails Spe ak 151
More than Just “the F acts”: What C ounts as E vidence? 153
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Q uestions of R elevance
and Methodology: A Political Science Professor Spe aks 154
The Rules of Argument 155
Syllogism and E nthymeme 156
Toulmin’ s Alternative Model of the Syllogism 157
Rogerian Argument and Practical R e asoning 159
D eduction and Induction: Two W ays of Linking E vidence and C laims 160
1 on 10 and 10 on 1 162
D o i n g 10 o n 1 162

C ontents ix
 Organizing P apers Using 1 on 10 164
A Potential Problem with 1 on 10: Mere D emonstration 164
D o i n g 10 1: S aying More About Less
on 164
A Potential Problem with 10 on 1: Not D emonstrating the
R epresentativeness of Your E xample 165
T R Y T HIS 6.2: D o i n g 10 o n 1 with N ewspaper Visuals 167
T R Y T HIS 6.3: D o i n g 10 o n 1 with a R e ading 167
10 on 1 and Disciplinary C onventions 168
Larger Organiz ational Schemes: Writing P apers B ased on 1 on 10 and 10 on 1 168
The Problem of F ive-P aragraph F orm: A R eductive V ersion of 1 on 10 168
R ehabilitating F ive-P aragraph F orm 171
O utline for a Viable V ersion of F ive-P aragraph F orm 171
P an, Track, and Zoom: “ Directing ” Your P aper 172
A T emplate for Organizing P apers Using 10 on 1 173
D o i n g 10 on 1 to F ind an Organizing C laim: A Student P aper 174
T R Y T HIS 6.4: Marking C laims, E vidence, and C omplications in a Draft 175
Assignments: R e asoning from E vidence to C laims 176

CHAPTER 7 178
F inding and E volving a Thesis 178
The Big Picture 179
What a G ood Thesis Is and Does 180
Potential Problems with Thesis-Driven Writing 182
Making a Thesis E volve 182
D eveloping a Thesis Is More than R epe ating an Ide a 182
The Thesis as C amera Lens: The R eciprocal R elationship
B etwe en Thesis and E vidence 183
Induction and D eduction: Two P aths a Thesis May T ake 184
Making a Thesis E volve: A Brief, Inductive E xample 185
Making a Thesis E volve: A Brief, D eductive E xample 186
The E volving Thesis as Hypothesis and C onclusion
in the N atural and Social Sciences 187
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: The Hypothesis
in the N atural and Social Sciences: Thre e Professors Spe ak 187
E volving a Working Thesis in an E xploratory Draft: The E xample of Las Meninas 188
From D etails to Ide as: Arriving at a Working Thesis in an E xploratory Draft 191
Six Steps for F inding and E volving a Thesis in an E xploratory Draft 192
Knowing When to Stop: How Much R evising Is E nough? 198
Practice Tracking Thesis Statements in F inished Drafts 199
Tracking the Thesis in a F inal Draft: The E xample of In Bruges 199
Introductions, C onclusions, and the Thesis 202
S etting Up the Thesis: Two T asks 202
Making the Thesis Matter: Providing an Interpretive C ontext 203
How Much of the Thesis B elongs in the Introduction? 204
 The C onclusion: R eturning the Thesis to the Larger C onversation 204
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: R ecognizing Your
Thesis: A History Professor Spe aks 205
How to Word Thesis Statements 205
Put X in T ension with Y 205
T R Y T HIS 7.1: Spotting the T ension in G ood Thesis Statements 206
Is It O kay to Phrase a Thesis as a Q uestion? 207
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: G etting B eyond
the All-Purpose Thesis: A D ance Professor Spe aks 207
R ecognizing and F ixing W e ak Thesis Statements 207
W e ak Thesis Type 1: The Thesis Makes No C laim 208
W e ak Thesis Type 2: The Thesis Is O bviously True or Is a Statement of F act 209
W e ak Thesis Type 3: The Thesis R estates C onventional Wisdom 209
W e ak Thesis Type 4: The Thesis B ases Its C laim on P ersonal C onviction 210
W e ak Thesis Type 5: The Thesis Makes an O verly Broad C laim 211
Assignment: F inding and E volving a Thesis 212

CHAPTER 8 213
C onversing with Sources: Writing the R ese arched P aper 213
The Big Picture 213
Using Sources Analytically 214
“ Source Anxiety ” and What to Do About It 215
The C onversation Analogy 216
C onversing with a Source: A Brief E xample 217
W ays to Use a Source as a Point of D eparture 218
Six Strategies for Analyzing Sources 219
Strategy 1: Make Your Sources Spe ak 219
Strategy 2: Attend C arefully to the Language of Your Sources by
Q uoting or P araphrasing 220
Strategy 3: Supply O ngoing Analysis of Sources (Don't W ait Until the E nd) 221
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM:
Bringing Sources Together: A Psychology Professor Spe aks 222
Strategy 4: Use Your Sources to Ask Q uestions, Not Just Provide Answers 222
Strategy 5: Put Your Sources Into C onversation with O ne Another 225
Strategy 6: F ind Your O wn Role in the C onversation 227
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM:
E ngaging Sources in the Sciences: A Biology Professor Spe aks 230
Using Sources Analytically: An E xample 230
Integrating Q uotations Into Your P aper 231
Preparing an Abstract 234
What Does Plagiarism Do to the C onversation? 235
Frequently Asked Q uestions (F A Q S) about Plagiarism 236
Assignments: C onversing with Sources: Writing the R ese arched P aper 238
C ontents xi
 A.

CHAPTER 9 242
F inding, E valuating, and C iting Sources 242
Thre e Rules of Thumb for G etting Started with R ese arch 242
Start with Scholarly Indexes, Abstracts, and Bibliographies 243
Specializ ed Dictionaries and E ncyclopedias 244
F inding Your Sources: Articles and Books 244
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: F inding
Q uality Sources: Two Professors Spe ak 245
F inding Q uality on the W eb 246
Understanding Domain N ames 246
Print C orollaries 247
W eb-Published G ems 247
Wikipedia, G oogle, and Blogs 248
Asking the Right Q uestions 249
Subscriber-O nly D atabases 250
T R Y T HIS 9.1: Tuning in to Your R ese arch E nvironment F our E xercises 251
E ight Tips for Locating and E valuating E lectronic Sources 251
Tip #1: B ackspacing 251
Tip #2: Using W H OIS 251
Tip #3: B eware of the ~ in a W eb Address 251
Tip #4: Phrase S e arching 252
Tip #5: Title S e arching 252
Tip #6: Wikipedia T alk T ab 252
Tip #7: F ull T ext from Library D atabases 252
Tip #8: Archives of O lder Published P eriodicals 252
F our Steps Toward Productive R ese arch Across the Disciplines 253
The F our Documentation Styles: Similarities and Differences 255
A P A Style, 6th E dition 257
C hicago Style, 16th E dition 258
C S E Style E mploying N ame-Y e ar (Author-D ate) System, 8th E dition 260
C S E Style E mploying C itation S equence System, Sth E dition 261
ML A Style, 8th E dition 262
G uidelines for F inding, E valuating, and C iting Sources 263

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

CHAPTER 10 266
From P aragraphs to P apers: F orms and F ormats Across the C urriculum 266
The Two F unctions of F ormats 266
Using F ormats H euristically: An E xample 267
The C ommon Structure of Most Academic Writing 268
Science F ormat C ompared with O ther Kinds of Writing 268
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Writing in the Sciences:
A Biochemistry Professor Spe aks 269
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: How to
Write — and R e ad— Scientific F ormats: Two Professors Spe ak 270
Thre e Organizing Strategies 271
C limactic Order: S aving the B est for Last 271
C omparison/C ontrast: Two F ormats 271
C oncessions and R efutations: G iving and T aking Away 272
T R Y T HIS 10.1: Locating C oncessions and R efutations 273
What Introductions Do: “ Why What I’ m S aying Matters” 273
How Much to Introduce Up Front: Typical Problems 274
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Avoiding Strong
C laims in the Introduction: An E conomics Professor Spe aks 276
Some G ood W ays to B egin a P aper 276
What C onclusions Do: The F inal “ so w h a t ?” 278
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: B eyond
R estatement: A Business and a Political Science Professor Spe ak 279
Solving Typical Problems in C onclusions 279
Introductions and C onclusions Across the C urriculum 281
Introductory P aragraphs in the Humanities 281
Using Procedural O penings: Introductions and C onclusions
in the Social Sciences 282
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Using Procedural
O penings: A Political Science Professor Spe aks 283
Putting an Issue or Q uestion in C ontext 283
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Providing an
Introductory C ontext: A Political Science Professor Spe aks 283
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Framing R ese arch
Q uestions and Hypotheses: A Political Science Professor Spe aks 284
Writing Introductions in the Sciences 284
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM:
Introductions in the Sciences: Thre e Professors Spe ak 284
Integration of C itations in a Literature R eview: A Brief E xample 286
Introductions in Scientific P apers: A Brief E xample 286
Writing C onclusions in the Sciences: The Discussion S ection 286
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM:
Writing C onclusions in the Sciences: Two Professors Spe ak 287
C onclusions in Scientific P apers: A Brief E xample 288
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Ethos and
Style in Scientific Writing: A Biochemistry Professor Spe aks 288
The Ide a of the P aragraph 288

C ontents xili
 How Long?: P aragraphs, R e aders, and Writers 289
Linking the S entences in P aragraphs: Minding the G aps 290
What a P aragraph Does: The P aragraph as Movement of Mind 291
T R Y T HIS 10.2: Label the F unction of the S entences in a P aragraph 292
T R Y T HIS 10.3: Identify the Structure of a P aragraph 294
The Shaping F orce of Transitions 295
T R Y T HIS 10.4: Tracking Transitions 297
Assignments: From P aragraphs to P apers: F orms and F ormats
Across the C urriculum 297

CHAPTER 11 299
Style: C hoosing Words, Shaping S entences 299
S e eing Style as Inseparable From Me aning 299
About Prescriptive Style Manuals: A Word of W arning 300
S entence Logic: S e eing How the P arts of a S entence Are R elated 301
F inding the Spine of a S entence: Subjects and Predicates 302
Kinds of V erbs: Transitive, Intransitive, and Linking 303
V erbals: V erb F orms th at F unction as O ther P arts of Spe ech 304
S entence C ombining: C oordination 305
S entence C ombining: Subordination 307
T R Y T HIS 11.1: Identify Clauses and C onjunctions 309
S e eing the Shape of S entences: Why C ommas Matter 310
T R Y T HIS 11.2: F ind and E xplain C ommas in a Piece of Writing 311
What Punctuation Marks S ay: A Q uick-Hit G uide 312
E mphasis and the Order of Clauses: The Importance of What C omes Last 313
T R Y T HIS 11.3: Order Clauses in a S entence for E mphasis 314
E mbedding Modifiers: R elative Clauses, Words, and Phrases 314
P eriodic and C umulative Styles: Two W ays of Locating C losure 316
The P eriodic S entence: D elay C losure to Achieve E mphasis 317
The C umulative S entence: Start F ast to Build Momentum 318
T R Y T HIS 11.4: Write P eriodic and C umulative S entences 319
Symmetry and S ense: B alance, Antithesis, and P arallelism 320
P arallel Structure: Put P arallel Information into P arallel F orm 320
T R Y T HIS 11.5: C orrect Errors in P arallelism 321
Two Powerful F orms of P arallelism: Antithesis and C hiasmus 321
" O fficial Style ” 322
F inding the Action in a S entence: " To B e ” Or Not " To B e ” 322
T R Y T HIS 11.6: F ind Active V erbs in Your S entences 324
Active and P assive Voice: E mphasizing the Doer or the Action 324
T R Y T HIS 11.7: Analyz e the E ffect of P assive Voice 325
T R Y T HIS 11.8: Write P assive and Active Voice S entences 325
E xpletives: B eginning with "It Is ” or " There Is ” 326
 C oncrete vs. E valuative Adjectives and Intensifiers:
What’ s B ad About " G ood” and “ B ad ” 326
C oncrete and Abstract Diction 327
Latinate Diction 328
E tymology: F inding a Word ’ s Physical History 329
T R Y T HIS 11.9: Tracing Word Histories 329
“ Right” and " Wrong” Words: Shades of Me aning 330
Tone 331
T R Y T HIS 11.10: Analyz e Tone-D e af Prose 332
T R Y T HIS 11.11: Analyz e E ffective Tone 332
The Politics of Language 332
Ethos, Audience, and Levels of Style 333
Transparent vs. O paque Styles: Knowing When to Be Visible 333
The P erson Q uestion: When and When Not to Use “I” 334
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: Using the F irst-P erson "I”:
Two Professors Spe ak 335
V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM: S entence Style in Science
Writing: A Biochemistry Professor Spe aks 335
F ormal vs. C olloquial Styles 336
The Problem of Inflated Diction 337
Jargon: When to Use Insider Language 337
Style Analysis: A Summary of Things to Look F or 338
Assignments: Style: C hoosing Words, Shaping S entences 339

CHAPTER 12 341
Nine B asic Writing Errors (B W E s) and How to F ix Them 341
The C oncept of B asic Writing Errors (B W E s) 341
Nine B asic Writing Errors 342
B W E 1: S entence Fragments 343
Noun C lause (No Predicate) as a Fragment 343
V erbal as a Fragment 343
Subordinate Clause as a Fragment 344
Using D ashes and C olons to C orrect Fragments 344
B W E 2: C omma Splices and F used (or Run-O n) S entences 345
C omma Splice 345
C omma Splice 345
C ures for the P erpetual C omma Splicer 346
F used (or Run-on) S entence 346
C omma Splices with C onjunctive Adverbs 347
B W E 3: Errors in Subject-V erb Agre ement 348
Agre ement Problem: Plural Subject, Singular V erb 348
Agre ement Problem: Singular Subject, Plural V erb 348

C ontents XV
 Agre ement Problem: “ E ach” Must T ake Singular V erb 349
A Note on Dialects and Standard Written E nglish 349
B W E 4: Shifts in S entence Structure (F aulty Predication) 350
F aulty Predication 350
F aulty Predication 350
B W E 5: Errors in Pronoun R eference 351
Pronoun-Antecedent Agre ement 351
Pronoun Error: Plural Pronoun with Singular Antecedent 351
G ender-N eutral “ They” and Pronoun Usage 351
Pronoun Error: Ambiguous R eference 352
Pronoun Error: Broad R eference 353
B W E 6: Misplaced Modifiers and D angling P articiples 354
Misplaced Modifier: Modifier Appe ars to Modify Wrong Word 354
Misplaced Modifier: Modifier Appe ars to Modify Wrong Word 354
D angling P articiple: Subject That P articiple Modifies Does
Not Appe ar in the S entence 354
B W E 7: Errors in Using Possessive Apostrophes 355
Apostrophe Error 355
Apostrophe Error 355
B W E 8: C omma Errors 356
C omma Error: C omma Missing After Introductory Phrase 356
C omma Error: C omma Missing After Introductory Phrase 356
C omma Error: Two C ommas N e eded Around P arenthetical E lement 356
A Note on R estrictive versus Nonrestrictive E lements 357
C omma Error: Two C ommas N e eded Around P arenthetical E lement 357
C omma Error: R estrictive E lements Should Not Be E nclosed Within C ommas 357
B W E 9: Spelling/Diction Errors That Interfere with Me aning 358
Spelling/Diction Error: "It’ s ” versus “Its" 358
Spelling/Diction Error: " Their” versus “ There ” versus “ They ’re ” 359
Spelling/Diction Error: “ Then” versus " Than” 359
Spelling/Diction Error: " E ffect” vs, " Affect” 359
C orrectness vs. Usage: Grammar Rules and Social C onvention 360
Usage: How Language C ustoms C hange 360
Usage: E xamples of Right and Wrong vs. E tiquette 361
When Usage B egins to C hange Grammar 362
Usage as C ultural Marker 363
T R Y T HIS 12.1: Discover the R ationale for Usage C hoices 364
G lossary of Grammatical T erms 364
Assignments: Nine B asic Writing Errors(B W E s) and How to F ix Them 368

APPENDIX 369
INDEX 376
PREFACE
N e arly thre e decades ago, we started writing the book th at would become Writ
ing Analytically, It is, as far as we know, still the only book-le ngth te xt available
focused on a n alytic al writing. Analysis is not th e only form of writing th at
students ne ed to le arn, but it is the one th e y will most ofte n be called on to do
in college and beyond. W e continu e to believe in the goal of h elping students
a dopt a n alytic al h a bits of mind, because we se e this as the best w a y to h elp
students become adults who are capable of sustained acts of refle ction in a
culture th at do e sn't sufficie ntly promote this goal.
O ur aim in this book has be en to evolve a common language for talking about
writing, one th at can move beyond th e specializ ed vocabularies of differe nt
academic disciplines. W e have worked to isolate and define the specific, writing
based cognitive skills th at effective writers have at th eir disposal, skills th at many
students lack or simply don ’ t recogniz e in th eir own thinking. These skills have
become "th e h e uristics" —the moves and strategies— at th e he art of the book.
Writing Analytically was something of an accident for us, one of those things
you think will be a short d etour in life th at turns out to be a m ain road. The
college at which we had just arrived was in the process of developing a Writing
Across th e C urriculum (W A C) progra m in which all fa culty, not just E nglish
d e p artm e nt fa culty, would be te a ching writing-inte nsiv e courses. Since we
were the only ones on campus with training in writing pedagogy, we were
asked to offer a w e e k-long s e min ar for fa culty on how to te ach writing.
D uring the e arly ye ars offering th e seminar, we asked fa culty to re ad the
usual essays about writing th at graduate stud e nts in E nglish, Rhetoric, and
C omposition norm ally re ad. W e asked our colle agues to fre e write about these
materials and to ke ep a j ourn al of th eir responses to the re ading and to seminar
discussion— and, if th e y were willing, to share these with us. And share th e y
did. T h eir responses were fille d with ins e curity and s elf-doubt (“ You w a nt me
to immerse mys elf in the w elter of confusion th at my students are experiencing
as th e y try to le arn?") and sometimes with anger (“ So you w a nt my students
to sit in a circle and share th eir fe elings about D N A? ”). Prompted by this kind
of hon e st talk across disciplin ary lines, we starte d out on our proje ct of study
ing wh at fa culty w a nte d from stud e nt writing, and wh at students might not
re a dily und ersta nd about the kinds of writing th e y were being asked to do in
th eir college courses— som ething th at our lives insid e an E nglish d e p artm e nt
might not have inspire d us to do.
The cle arest consensus we have found among college fa culty is, in fact, on
the kind of writing th e y say th e y w a nt from th eir students: not issue-based
argument, not personal refle ction (the “re a ction” paper), not passive summary,

xvii
but analysis, with its p atie nt and m ethodic al inquiry into th e me a ning of infor
m ation. H ere, in brief, is wh at we have le arned a bout wh at fa culty w a nt:

Analysis rath er th a n passive summ ary

Analysis before argument: und ersta nding in d e pth before ta king a stand

Altern ativ e s to agre e-disagre e & lik e-dislik e responses

Tolerance of unc ertainty
R espect for comple xity

A bility to apply theories from re ading, using th e m as lenses

A bility to use secondary sources in ways oth er th a n plugging th e m in as

“ answers.”
W e also discovered th at there was no common language out there for talk
ing about analysis with students and fa culty beyond th e simple d efinition of
dividing a subject into its parts. Books on writing tended to devote a ch a pter at
most to the subject, and sometimes as little as a couple of paragraphs in a ch a p
ter on rh etoric al modes. Brief guides on writing in p articular subject are as (for
example, writing about economics, writing about film) tended to do a b etter job
of e xplaining a n alytic al h a bits of mind. As us eful as th e y are, however, these
books don ’ t e asily h elp students recogniz e common methods and values, as
th e y move from course to course and d e p artm e nt to d e p artm e nt.
H ere, in brief, are some d efinitions of analysis th at we have derived from
our work with fa culty across th e curriculum:

Analysis se eks to discover wh at something me ans. A n a n alytic al argu

m e nt makes claims for how som ething might be best understood, and
in wh at context.

Analysis d elib erately delays e v alu ation and judgm e nt.

• Analysis begins in and values unc ertainty rath er th a n starting from

settled convictions.

An alytic al arguments are usually pluralistic; th e y tend to try on more

th a n one wa y of thinking about how something might be best understood.
But these d efinitions alone are not enough. W e thought, and still do, th at
th e key to improving stud e nts’ writing is h elping th e m to become more aware
of th eir own h a bits of mind. W e thought, and still do, th at this was a m atter of
attitud e , not just of skills and knowledge of rules about writing. W e believed,
and still do, th at process-oriented pedagogy ne ed not be implicitly Romantic
in th e ory and practice, but could inste a d—in ke eping with th e ide as of John
D ewey— be methodic al, consisting of te achable m e ntal a ctivitie s th at students
could consciously develop and practice, both individu ally and together.
G oing into its eighth e dition, Writing Analytically has be en through
m a ny changes, but it is still wh at we hoped it would be in th e beginning: a
process-oriented guide to a n alytic al writing th at can serve stud e nts’ ne eds at
differe nt stages in th eir college care ers and in differe nt disciplines. W e hope this
new e dition will continu e to provide a basis for conversation— betwe en fa culty
and students, betwe en students and students, and, especially, betwe en writ
ers and th eir own writing. Wh e n students and te achers can share the me ans
of ide a production, class discussion and writing become b etter connected, and
students can more e asily le arn to se e th at good ide as don ’ t just happen—th e y ’re
made.

N ew to This E dition
The biggest change in this e dition is a new ch a pter called “ T hinking
Like a Writer” (C hapter 5). The chapter's aim is to h elp writers become
more confid e nt about and more engaged with th eir own writing. After
a brief re view of the h e uristics in the book ’ s first four chapters, the
ch a pter offers a v ariety of writing prompts including description-based
observation exercises, ways of ke eping a Writer’ s Notebook, and e xp eri
m e nts with personal writing as a me ans of le arning to use writing as
a mode of inquiry. The emphasis throughout the ch a pter is on m a king
th e writing classroom a collaborative space. Toward th at end, the chap
ter suggests altern ativ e s to the usual ways of prompting re vision and of
working in groups with oth er writers.

W e have located th e book ’ s chapters in thre e units in ord er to b et

ter distinguish differe nt phases of th e writing process and differe nt
levels of concern. U nit O ne contains the book ’ s prim ary observation
h e uristics along with d efinition of the aims and methods of analysis.
Unit Two addresses issues rele v a nt to writing a n alytic al papers such
as finding and developing a thesis, finding and e v alu ating sources, and
putting sources into conversation in rese arch-based writing. U nit Thre e
explains forms and form ats across th e curriculum, basic writing errors
and how to fix th em, and ways of becoming more adept at se eing sen
tence shapes and und ersta nding the imp a ct of various style choices.

W e have relocated the “Interpretation” ch a pter (now C hapter 3) so th at it

comes imm e diately after and is b etter connected with the book ’ s opening
two chapters, “ The F ive A n alytic al Moves ” and “ R e ading A n alytic ally. ”
W e have re arranged the thesis ch a pter to b etter fore ground its prim ary
h e uristic—th e six steps for m a king a thesis evolve.

W e have e xte nsiv ely re writte n the ch a pter on rese arch-based writing
(“ C onversing with Sources”), adding new and more accessible examples
of effective stud e nt writing about sources.

The ch a pter on finding, evaluating, and citing sources (including

onlin e sources) has be en revised and updated by its author, a reference
libraria n.

Preface xix
 The table of conte nts more cle arly flags e ach chapter's h e uristics, “ Try
T his ” exercises, and “ Voices from Across th e C urriculum/’

There is now a two-page ch art of m a ny of th e book ’ s h e uristics located

inside th e back cover.
- W e have done wh at we could to corre ct infelicitie s of style and to make
th e book ’ s e xpla n ations more concise — while still respecting stud e nts’
ne ed for ration ale in support of our advice on how to become smarter,
more observant, and more ind e p e nd e nt think ers and writers.

How to Use This Book

F or a quick introduction to th e ide as and a ctivitie s th at the book offers, re ad
the “ O verview" paragraphs at the b e ginning of e ach chapter.
F or a compact guide to the book ’ s heuristics, se e th e two-page ch art inside
th e back cover. Writing Analytically is activity-based; it offers a v ariety of ways
to make writing h a pp e n in th e classroom and to help students function col
la borativ ely as le arning communitie s.
To sample th e kind of writing-to-le arn assignments th e book suggests,
browse th e “ Try T his" exercises dispersed throughout th e book's chapters.
These can be used to generate class discussion and as prompts for short writ
ing assignments to be done in class or as hom e work.
There is also an extensive Instructor's Ma nu al for Writing Analytically th at
is available to te achers of th e book. It contains a w e alth of m aterials on writing
pedagogy as w ell as d etaile d discussions of how to work with e ach ch a pter in
th e book. If you are te a ching th e book, conta ct your C engage re pre s e ntativ e to
get access to a copy.
Although we assume th at users of this book will most ofte n wish to pro
vide th eir own writing assignments and re adings, we have provid e d writing
assignments at the end of e ach ch a pter th at can be adapted to various kinds
of course conte nt and various levels of stud e nt re adiness for college writing.
(Writing Analytically with R e adings, 3rd e dition, contains a series of a n alytic al
re adings arranged into five th e m atic units.)
The following fe atures of Writing Analytically should elimin ate , in most
cases, th e ne ed for an a ddition al handbook:

A concise but thorough guide to finding, evaluating, and citing

sources— both print and digital (C hapter 9)

A ch a pter with exercises, a punctu ation guide, and a compact glossary

of gra mm atic al terms th at te aches students how to recogniz e, und er
stand, and corre ct nin e basic writing errors (C hapter 12)

A ch a pter on synta x and word choice th at te aches students how to dis

cern differe nt sentence shapes and und ersta nd th e m not in terms of a
single on e-siz e-fits-all set of rules but as a range of options with differ
e nt rh etoric al effects (C hapter 11)
 A ch a pter on conversing with sources in rese arch-based writing
(C hapter 8)

E xtended discussion of various org a niz ation al schemes and disciplin e

specific form ats across the curriculum (C hapters 6, 7, and 10).
Using U nit O ne: The A n alytic al Frame of Mind

Spend as much tim e as you can afford to spend on C hapter 1 (“ The F ive An alytic al
Moves ”) and C hapter 2 (“ R e ading A n alytic ally”), giving students th e necessary
practice to make these chapters' observation h e uristics h a bitu al before moving
on to the more p a p er-orie nte d focus of U nit Two. The rest of the book rests on
the assumption th at students have le arned to apply these heuristics inform ally
to e v erything th e y are asked to re ad and think about.
The prim ary goal of the h e uristics is to h a bitu ate students to being more
observant, less quick to move to judgm e nts, and more able to move from
observations to implic ations— which is not the same thing as selecting pieces
of evidence solely for the purpose of supporting some single claim. These goals
re quire h a nds-on practice. Students are asked to recogniz e th at observation is
not n atural, but le arned.
W h e n students are first le arning to do T h e M e t h o d (looking for p atterns
of re p etition and contrast), we ofte n ask th e m to produce th e lists and the
single a n alytic al paragraph th at the exercise calls for as a re gular hom e work
assignment. In this way, th e y get repe ated, low-stakes practice in thinking and
writing a n alytic ally before being asked to pre s e nt the results of th eir thinking
in a more form al, th e sis-driv e n or disciplin ary form at-driv e n mode.
F or those instructors who ne ed to assign papers from an e arly point in the
semester, the writing prompts th at are p art of the h e uristics called T h e M e t h o d
and N o t i c e & F ocus in C hapter 1 can e asily generate a series of short papers.
The h e uristics in C hapter 2, form a sequence th at students can use with
re ading th at th e y are asked to prepare for class: C ommonplace Book, P o i n t i n g ,
P a r a p h r a s e X 3, P a s s a g e -B a s e d F o c u s e d F r e e w r i t i n g , F i n d i n g the Pi t c h a n d t h e C o mp l a i n t ,
U n c o v e r i n g A s s u mp t i o n s , R e f o r m u l a t i n g Bi n a r i e s.
As these practices become h a bitu al, students become incre a singly com
forta ble doing th e work for themselves, rath er th a n e xp e cting te achers to
e xplain th e re adings and oth er course m aterials for th em. The ch a pter’ s h e u
ristics, lik e others in th e book, h elp students le arn to find th eir own starting
points for writing and discussion, which we think is an importa nt skill for th e m
to le arn as p art of le arning to write .
C hapter 3, “Interpretation,” follows from and furth er develops the move from
observation to implic ation stressed in C hapters 1 and 2. The chapter answers
two questions: W h at makes some interpretations better th a n others? and W h at
makes interpretation more th a n a m atter of opinion? The ch a pter’ s prim ary
concept is th at interpretation always takes place within some context th at a con
scientious writer takes care to specify along with his or h er re asons for choosing it.

Preface xxi
 C hapter 4, “ R esponding to Tra dition al Writing Assignments More A n alyti
c ally/’ shows students how to achieve gre ater a n alytic al d e pth on tra dition al
kinds of college writing topics, such as summary, comp arison/contra st, and
p erson al response. S e e, for example, th e h e uristic we c all D i f f e r e n c e wi t hin

S imi l a r i t y for sh arp e ning th e focus of comp aring and contra sting.
C hapter 5, “ T hinking Like a Writer” (new to this e dition) offers a v ariety of
writing assignments and exercises designed to encourage students to use the
writing process as a source of ide as and personal growth. The chapter contains
projects, such as ke eping a Writer’ s Notebook (not the same thing as a diary or
a journ al) and doing descriptive (observational) fre e writing. The assignment
at th e end of this chapter, “ Writing a Literacy N arrativ e ,” is one th at m a ny
writing courses start with. This chapter also contains rubrics for stud e nts’ self-
e v alu ation and offers two form ats for conducting sm all group pe er re vie w th at
rely on d e scription rath er th a n critiqu e .

Using U nit Two: Writing the A n alytic al P aper

E arly in a writing course, while students are le arning to use the h e uristics in
U nit O ne, you might have students re ad about and try in C hapter 6 (“ R e asoning
from E vidence to C laims ”) th e practice we call 10 on 1 (saying 10 things about
a single, re pre s e ntativ e example) as an altern ativ e to 1 on 10— atta ching the
same, usu ally ov erly general claim to a series of examples. The ch a pter offers
altern ativ e s to rigidly deductive form ats (such as fiv e-p ara gra ph form) th at
inhibit a n aly zing evidence in depth. The ch a pter e xplains the proble m with
mustering evidence only in ord er to prove th at “I am right.”
C hapter 7, “ F inding and D eveloping a Thesis,” confronts th e ide a th at a
thesis is an unch a nging (static) claim and shows students how to use com
plic ating evidence to make a th e sis evolve. The ch a pter emphasiz es the
importa nc e of qu alifying claims. This orie ntation tow ard th e sis-driv e n writing
is ch alle nging for students, and so we usu ally delay te a ching it until students
have le arned in U nit O ne how to use writing in ord er to arriv e at ide as. A good
wa y to e ase students into th e methods prescribed in this ch a pter (under “ Six
W ays of Making a Thesis E volve ”) is to have th e m tra ck the e volution of a thesis
in things th e y are re ading.
C hapter 8, “ C onversing with Sources/’ offers altern ativ e s to agre eing or
disagre eing with sources and to plugging th e m in as answers. It shows stu
dents how to do more th a n simply assemble sources in support of (or against)
some point of vie w. A good place to start is to ask th e m to choose a single
sentence from source A and a single sentence from source B and use these
to d etermin e wh at e ach a uthor would say to th e point of vie w implicit in
th e oth er’ s stateme nt.
C hapter 9, “ F inding, E valuating and C iting Sources, ” was writte n by a college
reference libraria n, K elly C annon. It takes stud e nts on a tour of th e rese arch
process, introducing th e m to us eful ind e x e s a nd bibliogra phie s, showing
th e m how to evaluate th e relativ e v alu e of both print and onlin e sources,
and e xplaining th e logic of standard citation methods. Students can use this
ch a pter just as th e y would use a h a ndbook in ord er to cite sources according
to the most re c e nt citation guidelines in MLA, A P, C hicago, and C S E Styles. The
ch a pter aims to make sense of th e incre a singly complex world of inform ation
in which stud e nts find themselves.

Using U nit Thre e: Matters of F orm

C hapter 10, “ From P aragraphs to P apers: F orms and F ormats Across th e C urric
ulum, ” helps students se e both th e logic and the h e uristic value of disciplin ary
formats such as IMR A D (the re port form at required in the n atural and social sci
ences). The ch a pter emphasiz es common d e nomin ators among th e methods
of org a niz ation prescribed in disciplin e s across th e curriculum. The ch a p
ter also offers pra ctic al h elp with introductions, conclusions, and paragraph
development.
C hapter 11, “ Style: C hoosing Words, Shaping S entences,” te aches students
how to look at sentences as the shapes th at thought takes. The ch a pter gives
students th e vocabulary th e y ne ed in order to analyz e sentences and begin to
think about wh at makes a sentence good. R ather th a n pre scribing one set of
style rules, th e ch a pter shows stud e nts how to think in terms of th e effects
of various stylistic choices. The ch a pter explains, for example, th at wh ate v er
comes at th e end of a sentence tends to get the most emphasis, which offers
a useful re vision guideline.
C hapter 12, “ Nine B asic Writing Errors (B W E s) and How to F ix Th em,” offers
students a s elf-h elp guide to finding and corre cting errors in gra mm ar and
punctu ation. The ch a pter offers proofre a ding advice based on Min a Shaugh
nessy ’ s concepts of hierarchy of error, p attern of error, and logic of error.

About the Authors

D avid Rosenwasser and Jill Stephen are professors of E nglish at Muhle nb erg
C ollege in Alle ntown, P ennsylvania. Th e y te ach writing, rh etoric, and litera
ture and have co-directed Muhle nb erg’ s Writing Across the C urriculum (W A C)
Program and Writing C enter for m a ny ye ars. D avid started te aching as a gra du
ate stud e nt at th e U niv ersity of Virginia and th e n at th e C ollege of Willia m
and Mary. Jill starte d te a ching as a graduate stud e nt at N ew Y ork U niv ersity
and th e n at H unter C ollege (C U N Y). They have offered seminars on writing and
writing instruction to fa culty and graduate students across th e country, and
th e y re gularly te ach a semester-long training course to undergraduates pre
p aring to serve as pe er tutors in th eir college ’ s Writing C enter and as Writing
Assistants embedded in first-y e ar seminars.

Ackno wled gmen ts

W e owe much to th e conversations about writing we have had over th e ye ars
with colle agues and to th eir ongoing support of us and our book. Without

Preface xxill
C hristine F arris ’ s e arly support, we might not have gotten through the long pro
cess of turning our ide as into a book. Without C hristin e ’ s a doption of the book
for the first-y e ar writing program she directed at India n a U niv ersity, Writing
Analytically might not have lasted beyond its first e dition. Thanks also to John
Schilb and T ed Le ahey at India n a and to the te achers across th e state of India n a
who use our book for th e du al cre dit writing course th e y offer in high schools.
C olle agues in th e Writing Program at The O hio State U niv ersity offered
us m a ny le arning opportunitie s during the ye ars our book has served th e uni
v ersity ’ s first-y e ar writing course. Thanks especially to Scott D e Witt, W e ndy
H esford, and E ddie and Lynn Singleton, whom we count as both colle agues
and frie nds.
In re c e nt ye ars, we have b e n efitte d from a nd gre atly enjoyed our col
la borations with Nore en Groover Lape and S arah K ersh at Dickinson C ollege,
where Nore en is Dire ctor of th e Writing Program and Writing C enter, and with
Janet C arl, Dire ctor of th e Writing Lab at G rinn ell C ollege, and h er colle ague in
th e E nglish D e p artme nt, Tim Arner. Th e y are inspire d and inspiring program
dire ctors and te achers.
W e th a nk the fa culty members at Dickinson, G rinn ell, K enyon (especially
Je anne Griggs, who brought us there to pre s e nt to th e C enter for Innov ativ e
P edagogy), R amapo (with special th a nks to Todd B arnes for inviting us to
spe ak at th e college), India n a U niv ersity, O hio State, and at our own college,
Muhlenberg, who have p articip ate d in our writing workshops over th e ye ars.
They asked th e questions we ne eded to he ar.
W e appreciate Jill G ladstein, who directs the Writing Associates Program
at Swarthmore C ollege, for h er frie ndship and support and for h er inv e ntion
and nurturing of th e Small Liberal Arts C olle g e-Writing Program A dministra
tors consortium (SLA C), wh ere we have had th e opportunity to le arn from
colle agues who dire ct writing programs at sm all lib eral arts colleges across
th e country.
W e owe special th a nks to pre s e nt and past members of the Writing Pro
gram C ommitte e at Muhlenberg C ollege, including C hris Borick, K eri C olabroy,
T ed C onner, Jessica C ooperman, A my C orbin, Will G yre, Brian Mello, P e arl
Rosenberg, Jord anna Sprayberry, and Lynda Y ankaskas. Thanks as w ell to Pro
vost K athle en H arring for her continu e d support of the Writing Program, and to
D e an Bruce Anderson for his generous support of tra v el grants for our tutors.
The cross-curricular dim e nsion of this book would be sadly impov erish e d
without the intere st and support of our fa culty colle agues who p articip ate in
th e writing cohort at our college, m a ny of whom are includ e d in the Voices
from Across th e C urriculum boxes in th e book. These colle agues (along with
those on th e Writing Program C ommitte e) have shared with us examples of
good stud e nt and professional writing in th eir fields, writing assignments from
th eir writing-inte nsiv e classes, examples of th eir own writing, and responses
to our qu e stion on wh at constitute s an a n alytic al question. These colle agues
includ e James Bloom, Susan C lemens-Bruder, K aren D e arborn, D aniel Doviak,
Laura E delman, Joseph E lliott, C huck French, Jack G ambino, B arri G old, Willia m
Gruen, Kimberley H eiman, D aniel Leisawitz, D awn Lonsinger, John Malsberger,
E ile en Mc E wan, Linda Mc G uire, Holmes Miller, M att Moore, Marcia Morgan,
Richard Niesenbaum, D ustin N ash, Jim P eck, Jefferson Pooley, T ad Robinson,
D anielle S anche z, Grant Scott, B eth Schachter, Jeremy T eissere, Ala n Tjeltv eit,
K evin T uttle , and Bruce Wightm a n. W e are also grateful to K atherine Kibblinger
G ottschalk of C ornell U niv ersity for p ermission to quote h er paper on the cor
respondence of E. B. White .
F or signific a nt contributions to our book we offer much th a nks to K elly
C annon, reference libraria n at Muhlenberg, for his ch a pter on finding, e v alu
ating, and citing sources; to K eri C olabroy, for h er contributions on writing in
the n atural sciences to our ch a pter on forms and form ats across the curricu
lum, and for h er ama zing distillation of our book ’ s h e uristics into a two-page
chart; to C hris Borick, for h elping us clarify our thinking on thesis e volution
in deductive writing and for writing an e ntertaining and inform ativ e guide to
politic al labels for our essay anthology, Writing Analytically with R e adings; to
S arah K ersh, for h er writing and drawing, forh er excellent work on the Instruc
tor's Ma nu al for Writing Analytically, and for h er rese arch on a n alytic al essays
for Writing Analytically with R e adings (along with Robert S a enz di Viteri); and to
the m a ny fa culty colle agues who have contribute d th eir thinking on writing
for th e Voices Across the C urriculum pieces in the book.
W e are grateful to our students, especially those who serve as pe er tutors
in Muhle nb erg’ s Writing C enter and in first-y e ar seminars and upp er-le v el
writing courses at th e college. W e appreciate th eir enthusiasm, th eir inte g
rity, and th eir d e dic ation to writers and writing, and we a dmire th e e xc elle nt
rese arch a numb er of th e m have done a nd pre s e nte d at th e Intern ation al
Writing C enter A ssociation ’ s a nnu al conferences. Special th a nks go to stu
dents and form er students who have re c e ntly contribute d th eir writing to our
book: E mily C asey, K ate O'Donoghue, James P atefield, P atrick C . Smith, Steven
Poirier, Anna W histon.
W e b e n efitte d much from th e guidance of m a ny people at C engage. F or
this e dition, we wish to th a nk Laura Ross, Leslie T aggart, Alison Duncan, Lynn
Huddon, Aime e B e ar, Mary Stone, and especially E linor Gregory. Thanks as
w ell to past e ditors who contribute d much to previous e ditions: K arl Y ambert,
Dickson Musslewhite, Margaret Leslie, Micha el Rosenberg, Aron K e esbury, John
Meyers, Mich ell Phifer, and K aren R. Smith.
W e c a nnot forg et our longtim e frie nds and inspiring colle agues from
whom we have le arned so much: Richard Louth, D e an W ard, K enny Marotta,
and E mily Stockton-Brown.
O ver th e p a st seven ye ars, we could not have managed without th e
intellig e nc e , resourcefulness, tact, and good humor of Bria n Borosky, who
served as Writing Assista nt in e ach of our first-y e ar seminars while he was an

Preface XXV
undergraduate, and who served for thre e ye ars after gra du ation as A ssista nt
Dire ctor of the Writing C enter, in which role he e ss e ntially co-dire cte d the
Muhle nb erg writing program with us— m e ntoring and ma n a ging our staff of
fifty pe er tutors, dire cting stud e nt rese arch, soliciting and dire cting the review
process for first-y e ar seminars, assigning tutors to fa culty members, arranging
stud e nts’ p articip ation at n ation al conferences, and more. W e wish him all the
best in graduate school and in wh ere v er th at and his m a ny talents le ad him.
W e wish to dedicate this e dition of th e book to the m e mory of our frie nd
and colle ague, Linda Bips, who, as Professor of Psychology and Writing Pro
gram Liaison for Stud e nt D evelopment, tirele ssly supported us and our tutors,
h elping th e m to shape th eir rese arch on tutoring practices and ke eping th e m
c alm in the face of the in e vita ble pressures of working closely with fa culty and
students on writing. Linda always kn e w th e right thing to say. W e will never
forg et h er m a ntra for working colla borativ ely with others: silence is th e sound
of people thinking.
Special th a nks to our fa milie s: E liz abeth Rosenwasser, a nd Lesley and
S arah Stephen.
W e would also lik e to th a nk th e colle agues who reviewed th e book; we are
grateful for th eir insights:

Jared Abraham, W e ath erford C ollege

Dia nn Ainsworth, W e ath erford C ollege
Todd B arnes, R amapo C ollege of N ew Jersey
D arla Branda, Stephens C ollege
Lisa Johnson, C asper C ollege
G ary Leising, Utica C ollege
Steven Plunkett, Brandeis U niv ersity
Erika Sutherland, Muhlenberg C ollege
G eoffrey Trumbo, Louisiana State U niv ersity
Afton Wilky, Louisiana State U niv ersity

O nline R esources
MindT ap® E nglish for Rosenwasser/Stephen, Writing Analytically, Sth E dition, is
th e digital le arning solution th at powers students from m e moriz ation to m a s
tery. It gives you complete control of your course —to provide engaging content,
and to challenge every individu al and build his or h er confidence. E mpower
students to accelerate th eir progress with MindT ap. MindT ap: Powered by You.
MindT ap gives you complete ownership of your conte nt and le arning experi
ence. C ustomiz e th e intera ctiv e assignments, emphasiz e th e most importa nt
topics, and add your own m aterial or notes in th e e Book.

Intera ctiv e a ctivitie s on gra mm ar and mechanics promote a pplic ation

to stud e nt writing.

A n e asy-to-use paper ma n a g eme nt system helps pre v e nt pla giarism

and allows for ele ctronic submission, grading, and pe er review.
 A vast database of scholarly sources with video tutorials and examples
supports every step of the rese arch process.

A colle ction of vetted, curated stud e nt writing samples in various

modes and docum e ntation styles to use as fle xible instruction al tools.
Professional tutoring guides students from rough drafts to polished
writing.

Visu al analytics tra ck stud e nt progress and engagement.

• S e amless inte gration into your campus le arning ma n a g eme nt system

ke eps all your course m aterials in one place.

A ddition al th e m atic re adings with questions for analysis.

Downloadable workshe ets for in-class a ctivitie s or homework.

MindT ap® E nglish comes equipped with the dia gnostic-guid e d JU S T IN TIM E
PLU S le arning module for found ation al concepts and embedded course sup
port. The module fe atures scaffolded video tutorials, instruction al te xt content,
and auto-graded a ctivitie s designed to address e ach stud e nt’ s specific ne eds
for practice and support to succe ed in college-level composition courses.
The R esources for T e aching fold er provides support m aterials to fa cilitate
an efficie nt course setup process focused around your instruction al goals: the
MindT ap Planning G uide offers an inv e ntoiy of MindT a p a ctivitie s correlated
to common pla nning objectives, so th at you can quickly d etermin e wh at you
ne ed. The Mind T ap Syllabus offers an example of how these a ctivitie s could be
incorporate d into a 16-we ek course schedule. The Instructor’ s Manual provides
suggestions for a ddition al a ctivitie s and assignments.

Preface X X Vii
UNIT 1
The Analytical Frame of Mind
 CHAPTER 1
The Five Analytical Moves

O verview In this ch a pter, we define analysis and e xplain why it is th e kind o f

writing you will most ofte n be asked to do in college and beyond. W e e xplain
th e characteristics th at college te achers look for in stud e nt writing and the
changes in orie ntation this kind of writing requires: th e a n alytic al fra m e of
mind. The ch a pter id e ntifie s the counterproductiv e h a bits of mind most lik ely
to block good writing and offers in th eir place th e book ’ s first set of strategies
for becoming a more observant and more confid e nt writer: N o t i c e & F ocus, fre e-
writing, A s k i n g “ S o W h a t ?,” and T h e M e t h o d . These strategies are embedded in
a discussion of wh at we c all th e F ive A n alytic al Moves.

Writing as a Tool of Thought

O f all th e skills you acquire as a writer and think er, analysis is lik ely to have
th e gre atest imp a ct on th e w a y you le arn. This is so because the more th at you
write a n alytic ally, th e more a ctiv ely and p atie ntly you will think. The patience
comes from recognizing th at ide as and und ersta nding are a product not just
of sudden flashes of insight but of specific m e ntal skills. T hinking is a process,
an a ctivity. Ide as don ’ t just happen; th e y are made.
This book will make you much more aware of your own acts of thinking
and will show you how to experiment more deliberately with ways of arriving at
ide as—for example, by s a mpling kinds of inform al and e xploratory writing
th at will enhance your a bility to le arn. As th e n e xt few chapters will show, the
analytical process consists of a fairly limite d set of basic moves. P eople who
think w ell have these moves at th eir disposal, wh eth er th e y are aware of using
th e m or not. Writing Analytically describes and gives names to these moves,
which are activities you can practice and use systematically in order to become
a more confident, more resourceful, and more independent think er and writer.
Le arning to write w ell me ans more th a n le arning to organiz e inform ation
in appropriate forms and to construct cle ar and correct sentences. Le arning
to write w ell me ans le arning ways of using writing in ord er to think well. This
me ans th at writing can make you smarter. But first, you have to le arn to fe el
comforta ble with th e a ctivity. Since so much writing instruction concentrates
on wh at writers do wrong, it is difficult for m a ny people to find the necessary
level of comfort and trust to make writing happen. C le arly, rules governing
matters of form are importa nt, and we will have much to say about these in
the third p art of this book, but rules governing such things as paper organiz a
tion and style don ’ t e asily translate into the a bility to get words onto the page
in the first place —th e stage of writing th at classical rh etoric called “inv e ntion."
In classical rh etoric, procedures and forms th at served as aids to discov
ery were called “ h e uristics.” The term comes from th e Gre ek word heuriskein,
which me ans "to find out” or “to discover. ” This book's a n alytic al methods,
such as the ones you will find in this ch a pter, are h e uristics. These offer
altern ativ e s to wh at might be called th e light bulb th e ory of inspiration,
wh erein ide as simply come to people, lik e a light bulb turning on in th eir
he ads. Writers do, of course, sometimes have ide as in this way — sudd e nly
and un e xp e cte dly and se emingly with little conscious effort. But, as we hope
to show, this is more ofte n the e xc e ption th a n th e rule.

Why F aculty W ant Analysis

F or over two decades, w e ’ ve co-directed a Writing Across the C urriculum pro
gram in which writing is ta ught by our colle agues from all the oth er disciplines.
They have helped us to se e why analysis is wh at th e y expect from stud e nt
writing. T h e y w a nt analysis because of th e attitud e s tow ard le arning th at
come along with it—th e w a y it te aches le arners to cultiv ate curiosity, to toler
ate unc ertainty, to respect comple xity, and to se ek to und ersta nd a subject
before th e y atte mpt to make arguments a bout it.
O verall, wh at fa culty w a nt is for stud e nts to le arn to do things with
course m aterial beyond merely re porting it on the one hand, and just re act
ing to it (often through lik e-dislik e , agre e-disagre e responses) on th e oth er
(se e F igure 1.1). This is th e issue th at Writing Analytically addresses: how to
locate a middle ground b etw e e n passive summ ary and personal response.
T h at middle ground is occupied by analysis.

H A VIN G ID E AS
(doing something with the material)

versus
R E LA TIN G -------------------------------------------------- R E P O RTIN G
(personal experience (information
matters, but . . .) matters, but . ..)

FIG U R E 1.1
What F aculty W ant from Student Writing

Analysis Is a S e arch for Me aning

To a n aly z e som ething is to ask wh at th at som ething me ans. It is to ask
how som ething does wh at it does or why it is as it is. A n alysis is a form of
d ete ctiv e work. It typic ally pursu e s som ething pu z zling, som ething you are

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 3

se eking to und ersta nd rath er th a n som ething you b elie v e you alre a dy have
th e answers to. A n alysis finds qu e stions wh ere th ere se emed not to be any,
and it makes conn e ctions th at might not have be en e vid e nt at first. A n aly
sis is, th e n, more th a n just a set of skills: it is a fra m e of mind, an attitud e
tow ard experience.
Analysis is the kind of thinking you ’ ll most ofte n be asked to do in col
lege, th e m ainsta y of serious thought. Y et it ’ s also among th e most common
of our m e ntal activities. The fa ct is th at most people alre ady analyz e all of the
tim e , but th e y ofte n don ’ t re aliz e th at this is wh at th e y ’re doing.
If, for example, you find yours elf b eing follow e d by a large dog, your first
response — oth er th a n bre a king into a cold swe at— will be to analyz e the situ
ation. W h at does being follow e d by a large dog me an for me, here, now? Does
it me an th e dog is vicious and about to attack? Does it me an th e dog is curi
ous and w a nts to play? Similarly, if you are losing at a game of tennis, have
just left a job intervie w, or are looking at a large p ainting of a wom a n with
thre e noses, you will begin to analyz e. How can I pla y differe ntly to incre ase
my chances of winning? Am I lik ely to get th e job, and why or why not? W hy
did the artist give th e wom a n thre e noses?

Analysis Does More than Bre ak a Subject into Its P arts

W h eth er you are analyzing an awkward social situ ation, an economic problem,
a p ainting, a substance in a ch e mistry lab, or your chances of succe eding in a
job intervie w, th e process of analysis is th e same:

Divide th e subject into its d efining parts, its m ain elements or

ingredients.

C onsider how these p arts are related, both to e ach oth er and to the
subject as a whole.

In th e case of the large dog, for example, you might notice th at h e ’ s dra g
ging a le ash, has a b all in his mouth, and is w e aring a bright red sc arf around
his neck. H aving brok e n your larg er subject into these d efining parts, you
would try to se e th e conn e ction among th e m and d etermin e wh at th e y me an,
wh at th e y allow you to decide about the n ature of the dog: possibly some
body ’ s lost pet, pla yful, prob a bly not hostile , unlik ely to bite me.
Analysis of th e p ainting of the wom a n with thre e noses, a subject more
lik e the kind you might be asked to write a bout in a college course, would
proce ed in th e same way. Y our end re sult—ide as a bout th e n ature of the
p ainting— would be determined, as with the dog, not only by noticing its v ari
ous parts, but by your fa miliarity with th e subject. If you kn e w little about
p ainting, scrutiny of its p arts would not tell you, for instance, th at it is an
example of th e mov e m e nt called "cubism. ” You would, however, still be able
to dra w some a n alytic al conclusions—ide as about the m e a ning and n ature of
th e subject. You might conclude, for example, th at the artist is intere ste d in
perspective or in th e wa y we se e, as opposed to being intere ste d in re alistic
d e pictions of th e world.
O ne common d e nomin ator of all effe ctiv e a n alytic al writing is th at it
pays close atte ntion to d etail. W e analyz e because our global responses,
say, to a play or a spe ech or a social proble m are too general. If you try, for
example, to comm e nt on an e ntire footb all game, you'll find yours elf saying
things lik e “ gre at game,” which is a generic response, som ething you could
say about almost a nything. This "on e-siz e-fits-all” comm e nt doesn ’ t tell us
v ery much except th at you probably lik e d th e game.
In ord er to say more, you would necessarily become more a n alytic al—
shifting your atte ntion to th e signific a nc e of some importa nt piece of the
game as a whole — such as “ th e y won because th e offe nsiv e lin e was giv
ing th e qu arterb a ck all day to find his receivers” or “ th e y lost because th e y
couldn ’ t defend against th e safety blitz .” This move from g e n eraliz ation to
analysis, from th e larg er subject to its key components, is a ch ara cteristic of
the wa y we think. In order to und ersta nd a subject, we ne ed to discover wh at
it is “ made of,” th e p articulars th at contribute most strongly to th e character
of th e whole.
If all analysis did was take subjects apart, le a ving th e m brok e n and scat
tered, th e a ctivity would not be worth v ery much. The stud e nt who presents
a draft to his or h er professor with th e encouraging words, “ G o ahe ad, rip it
a p art,” reve als a dis a bling misconc e ption about analysis—th at, lik e diss e ct
ing a frog in a biology lab, analysis takes th e life out of its subjects.
An alysis me ans more th a n bre a king a subje ct into its parts. Wh e n you
analyz e a subject, you ask not just " W h at is it made of?” but also " H ow do
these parts h elp me to und ersta nd the m e a ning of the subject as a whole? ”
A good analysis se eks to locate th e life of its subject, th e aims and ide as th at
energiz e it.

Distinguishing Analysis from Summary, E xpressive

Writing, and Argument
How does analysis differ from oth er kinds of thinking and writing? A common
wa y of answering this qu e stion is to think of communic ation as h a ving thre e
possible centers of emphasis: th e writer, th e subject, and th e audience.
C ommunication, of course, involves all thre e of these components, but some
kinds of writing concentrate more on one th a n on the oth ers (se e F igure 1.2).
A utobiogra phic al writing, for example, such as diaries or m e moirs or stories
a bout p erson al experience, centers on th e writer and his or h er desire for
s elf-e xpre ssion. Argum e nt, in which th e writer takes a sta nd on an issue,
a dvoc ating or arguing for or against a policy or attitud e , is re ader-centered;
its goal is to bring about a change in its re aders’ actions and beliefs. A n alytic al
writing is more concerned with arriving at an und ersta nding of a subject th a n
it is with eith er self-expression or changing re aders’ views.

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 5

 writer-centered
(expressive writing)

FIG U R E 1.2
The C ommunication Triangle

These thre e categories of writing are not mutu ally exclusive. F or e x a m

ple, expressive (writer-c e ntere d) writing is also a n alytic al in its atte mpts to
define and e xplain a writer’ s fe elings, re actions, and experiences. Analysis
is a form of s elf-e xpre ssion because it in e vita bly refle cts th e ways a
writ er’ s experiences have ta ught him or h er to think a bout th e world.
Similarly, analysis is a close cousin of argum e nt in its emphasis on logic and
th e dispassionate scrutiny of ide as (“ W h at do I think about wh at I think? ’’).
But as we sh all se e, analysis and argume nt are not the same.

A n alysis a nd S umm ary

O ne of th e most common kinds of writing you ’ ll be asked to do in college, in
a ddition to analysis, is summ ary. Summ ary differs from analysis, because
th e aim of summ ary is to re count in reduced form someone else ’ s ide as. But
summ ary and analysis are also cle arly related and usu ally operate together.
Summary is importa nt to analysis, because you can ’ t analyz e a subject without
la ying out its signific a nt parts for your re ader. Similarly, analysis is importa nt
to summ ary, because summ arizing is more th a n just shorte ning someone
else ’ s writing. To write an accurate summary, ask a n alytic al questions such as:

W hich of the ide as in th e re a ding are most significant? Why?

How do these ide as fit together? W h at do the key passages in the

re ading me an?

Like an analysis, an effe ctiv e summ ary do e sn't assume th at th e subject

m atter can spe ak for its elf: th e writer ne eds to play an active role. A good
summ ary provides perspective on the subject as a whole by e xplaining, as an
analysis does, th e m e a ning and function of e ach of th at subje ct ’ s parts. So,
summary, lik e analysis, is a tool of und ersta nding and not just a m e ch a ni
cal task. But a summ ary stops short of analysis because summ ary typic ally
makes much sm aller interpretiv e le aps.
Laying out the data is key to any kind of analysis, not simply because it
ke eps the analysis accurate but also because, crucially, it is in the act of care
fully describing a subject th at analytical writers often have their best ide as. The
writer who can offer a careful d e scription of a subje ct ’ s key fe atures is lik ely
to arriv e at conclusions about possible me anings th at others would share.
H ere are two guidelines to be dra wn from this discussion of analysis and
summary:

1. D escribe with care. The words you choose to summariz e your data will
contain the germs of your ide as about wh at the subject me ans.

2. In moving from summ ary to analysis, scrutiniz e your language, asking

" W hy did I choose this word?” and " W h at ide as are implicit in th e la n
guage I have chosen?”

A n alysis a nd E xpre ssiv e Writing

At th eir e xtreme s, analysis and expressive writing differ signific a ntly in
m ethod and aim. The extreme version of expressive writing focuses on the
self, with oth er subjects serving only to evoke gre ater s elf-und ersta nding. The
extreme version of a n alytic al writing banishes the “I” and, although its insights
may derive from personal experience, it foregrounds th e writer’ s re asoning,
not his or h er experiences.
In practice, though, th e best versions of analysis and expressive writing
can overlap a lot. Although most analytical writing done in the academic disci
plin e s is about a subject oth er th a n the self, all writing is, in a sense, personal,
because there is an ‘ T doing th e thinking and selecting th e details to consider.
Virtu ally all forms of d e scription are implicitly a n alytic al. W h e n you
choose wh at you take to be th e thre e most telling details about your subject,
you have selected signific a nt parts and used th e m as a me ans of g etting at
wh at you take to be the character of the whole. This is wh at analysis does: it
goes after an und ersta nding of wh at som ething me ans, its nature, by z eroing
in on th e function of signific a nt detail.

A n alysis a nd Argum e nt
Analysis and argum e nt proce ed in the same way. They offer evidence, make
claims about it, and supply re asons th at e xplain and justify th e claims. In oth er
words, in both analysis and argument you respond to the questions " W h at have
you got to go on? ” (evidence) and “ How did you get th ere ?” (the principle s and
re asons th at caused you to conclude wh at you did about th e evidence).
Although analysis and argum e nt proce ed in e ss e ntially the same way,
th e y differ in the kinds of questions th e y try to answer. Argum e nt, at its most
dispassionate, asks, “ W h at can be said with truth about x or y? ” In common
practice, though, th e kinds of questions th at argume nt more ofte n answers
are more committe d and dire ctiv e, such as “ W hich is better, x or y? ”; " How
can we best achieve x or y? ”; and “ W hy should we stop doing x or y? ”
Analysis, by contra st, asks, " W h at does x or y me an?” In analysis, the
evidence (your data) is som ething you wish to und ersta nd, and th e claims
are assertions about wh at th at evidence me ans. The claim th at an analysis

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 7

makes is usu ally a te ntativ e answer to a u?hat, how, or why question; it se eks
to e xplain why people w atch professional wre stling, or wh at a rising numb er
of sexual h ara ssm e nt cases might me an, or how c ertain fe atures of gov ern
m e nt h e alth care policy are designed to allay th e fe ars of the middle class.
The claim th at an argum e nt makes, however, is ofte n an answer to a
should question. F or example, re aders should or shouldn't vote for bans on
smoking in public buildings, or th e y should or shouldn ’ t believe th at gays
can function effe ctiv ely in th e military. The writer of an analysis is more
concerned with discov ering how e ach of these comple x subjects might be
d efin e d and e xplain e d th a n with convincing re aders to approve or dis a p
prove of th e m.

A n alysis v ersus D e b ate-Style Argum e nt M a ny of you m a y have be en

introduc e d to writing arguments through th e debate mod el— arguing for or
against a given position, with th e aim of d efe ating an im a gin e d oppon e nt
and convincing your audience of th e rightness of your position. The agre e/
disagre e mode of writing and thinking th at you ofte n se e in e ditorials, he ar
on ra dio or tele vision( and even pra ctic e som etim e s in school m a y inclin e
you to focus all your energy on th e bottom lin e — aggressively a dv a ncing a
claim for or against some vie w— without first engaging in th e e xploratory
interpretation of evidence th at is so necessary to arriving at thoughtful argu
ments. But as th e American C ollege Dictionary says, "to argue implie s re asoning
or trying to und ersta nd; it does not necessarily imply opposition.” It is this
more e xploratory, te ntativ e , and dispassionate mode of argume nt th at this
book encourages you to practice. It sounds more civil, more op e n-mind e d,
and more educated— and it usu ally is.
A dh ering to the more re strictiv e , debate-style d efinition of argum e nt can
cre ate problems for c areful a n alytic al writers:

1. By re quiring writers to be opposition al, it inclin e s th e m to discount or

dismiss problems on th e side or position th e y have chosen; th e y cling to
th e same static position rath er th a n te sting it as a wa y of allowing it to
evolve.

2. It inclin e s writers tow ard eith er/or thinking rath er th a n encouraging

th e m to formulate more qu alifie d (carefully limite d, a cknowle dg
ing exceptions, etc.) positions th at inte grate a pp are ntly opposing
vie wpoints.

3. It overvalues convincing someone else at th e expense of developing

understanding.

If you approach an argum e nt with the prim ary goals of convincing others
th at you are right and d efe ating your opponents, you may neglect the more
importa nt goal of arriving at a fair and accurate assessment of your subject.
In fact, you will be able to argue much more effe ctiv ely from evidence if you
first take the tim e to re ally consider wh at th at evidence me ans and, thereby,
to find v alid positions to argue a bout it.

E thos a nd A n alysis Analysis, as we have be en arguing( is intere ste d in how

we come to know things, how we make me aning. This focus privileges not
just conclusions about a subject, but also sh aring with re aders the thought
process th at led to those conclusions. R ather th a n telling oth er people wh at
to think, th e best a n alytic al writers encourage re aders to think colla bora
tiv ely with th em. This is tru e of th e best writers in the civic forum as w ell as
in colleges and univ ersitie s.
It follows th at th e character of the spe aker (ethos) in an analysis will serve
to cre ate a more colla borativ e and collegial relationship with re aders th a n
might be th e case in oth er kinds of writing.
C lassical rh etoric thought of th e imp a ct th at writers/sp e a k ers h a d on
audiences in terms of thre e categories: logos, pathos, and ethos. The word logos
(from Gre ek) refers to th e logical compon e nt of a piece of writing or spe ak
ing. P athos refers to th e e motion al compon e nt in writing—th e ways th at it
appe als to fe elings in an audience. E thos may be fa miliar to you as a term
because of its relation to th e word “ ethics.” In classical rh etoric, ethos is the
character of th e spe aker, which is importa nt in d etermining an audience ’ s
acceptance or reje ction of his or h er arguments.
Much of this book is conc ern e d with th e logos of academic writing,
with ways of d eriving and arguing ide as in colleges, univ ersitie s, and th e
world of educated discourse. E thos m atters too. The thinking you do is dif
ficult to separate from th e sense th e audience has of th e p erson doing the
thinking. In fact, th e persona e (versions of ourselves) we assume wh e n we
write have a form ativ e imp a ct on wh at we think and say. E thos is not just
a mask we assume in ord er to appe al to a p articular audience. The stylistic
and thinking moves pre scrib e d by th e ethos of p articular groups b e com e (
with pra ctic e , p art of who we are and thus of how we think and intera ct
with others.
E v e ntu ally, college writers ne ed to le arn how to a dopt differe nt s elf
re pre s e ntations for differe nt academic disciplin e s. So th e acceptable ethos
of a ch e mistry lab re port differs in signific a nt ways from th e one you might
a dopt in a politic al science or E nglish paper. N evertheless, in most academic
disciplines, ethos is characteriz ed by th e following traits:

non a dv ers arial tone — not looking for a fight

colla borativ e and collegial—tre ats re aders as colle agues worthy of

respect who share your intere st

c arefully qu alifie d— not m a king overstated claims

relativ e imp erson ality in s elf-pre s e ntation—ke eps focus prim arily on
th e subject, not the writer.

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 9

C ounterproductive H abits of Mind
An alysis, we have be en suggesting, is a fra m e of mind, a set of h a bits for
observing and m a king sense of th e world. There is also, it is fair to say, an a nti-
a n alytic al frame of mind with its own set of habits. These habits shut down
p erc e ption and arrest pote ntial ide as at the cliche stage. H a ving ide as depends
on noticing things in a subject th at we wish to b etter und ersta nd rath er th a n
glossing things over with a quick and too-e asy und ersta nding.
The nin ete e nth-c e ntury poet, E mily Dickinson, wrote th at “ P erception of
an object/C osts precise the obje ct’ s loss.” Wh e n we le ap pre m aturely to our
perceptions about a thing, we place a filter betwe en ourselves and the “ object,”
shrinking the a mount and kinds of inform ation th at can get through to our
minds and our senses. The point of the Dickinson poem is a paradox—th at the
ide as we arrive at deprive us of m aterial with which to have more ide as. W e
have to be c areful about le aping to conclusions, because if we are not careful,
this move will le ad to a form of m e ntal blindn e ss—loss of th e object.
H ere, then, are the four h a bits th at most interfere with analysis— along
with e xpla n ations of why th e y are a problem, and some suggestions for how
to unle arn them.

T H E P R O BL E M

le aps to

d ata --------- > evaluative claims (like/dislike; agre e/disagre e)

le aps to

data (words, images, other d etail)--------- > broad generaliz ation

H a bit: T h e Judgm e nt R efle x

In its most primitiv e form— most a utom atic and le a st thoughtful—judging
is lik e an on/off switch. W h e n the switch gets thrown in one dire ction or the
other, the re sulting judgm e nt pre d etermin e s and over-directs any subsequent
thinking we might do. R ather th a n thinking about wh at X is or how X operates,
we lock ourselves pre m aturely into proving th at we were right to think th at X
should be banned or supported.
The psychologist C arl Rogers has writte n at le ngth on this problem of the
judgm e nt reflex. H e claims th at our h a bitu al te nd e ncy as hum a ns— virtu ally
a progra mm e d response —is to evaluate e v erything and do so v ery quickly.
W h e n people le ap to judgm e nt, th e y usu ally la nd in th e m e ntal p ath
ways th e y ’ ve grown accustomed to tra v eling, guided by fa mily or frie nds
or popular opinion. The fa ct th at you lik e d or didn ’ t lik e a movie prob a bly
says more a bout you— your tastes, intere sts, biases, and experiences—th a n
it does a bout th e movie. W h at makes a movie boring: th at it do e sn ’ t have
enough car chases? th at its plot resembles h alf th e plots on cable channels?
th at th e le a ding ma n was miscast, or th e dialogue was too longwind e d? At
the v ery le ast, in such cases, you ’ d ne ed to share with re aders your criteria for
judgm e nt— your re asons and your standards of e v alu ation.
This is not to say th at all judging should be avoided— only delayed. A
writer ne eds to take into account how his or h er judgm e nt has be en affected
by th e details of a situ ation (context) and to acknowledge how thinking about
these details has led to re stricting (qu alifying) th e range of th e judgm e nt: X
is sometimes tru e in these p articular circumstances. Z is prob a bly th e right
thing to do but only wh e n A and B occur.
As a general rule, try to figure out wh at your subject me ans before d e cid
ing how you fe el a bout it. If you can bre a k the judgm e nt refle x and press
yours elf to analyz e before judging a subject, you will ofte n be surpris e d at
how much your initial responses change.

C ures for th e Judgm e nt R efle x

B ecome conscious of th e lik e/dislik e switch in your thinking, and try to
avoid it altogether.

N eith er agre e nor disagre e with a noth er person ’ s position until you
can repe at th at position in a w a y th e oth er person would accept as fair
and accurate. C arl Rogers recommends this strategy to negotiators in
industry and government.

Try elimin ating the word “ should ” from your vocabulary for a while .
Judgments ofte n take th e form of should statements.

Try elimin ating e v alu ativ e adjectives—those th at offer judgm e nts with
no data.

“ Jagged” is a descriptive, concrete adjective. It offers som ething we can

experience. “ B e a utiful” is an e v alu ativ e adjective. It offers only judgm e nt.
Sometimes th e concrete-abstract divid e is complicated. C onsider for example
the word “ gre en,” a literal color with figurativ e associations (envious, inno
cent, ecological, etc.).

T R Y T HIS 1.1: E xp erim e nt with Adjectives and Adverbs

Write a p ara gra ph of d e scription on a nything th at comes to mind without
using evaluative adjectives or adverbs. Altern ativ ely, analyz e and categoriz e
the adjectives and adverbs in a piece of your own recent writing, a book review,
or an e ditorial.

H a bit: N aturalizing O ur A ssumptions ( O v erp erson alizing)

The word “ n aturaliz e ” in this conte xt me ans we are representing— and se eing—
our own assumptions as n atural, as simply th e w a y things are and ought to be.
“Individu alism is good.” E ven on a life bo at where colla boration is necessary

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 11

to survive? “ P eople are e ntitle d to th eir own opinions.” E ven if those opinions
b elittle oth ers and express h atre d and aim to provoke violence? Writers who
n aturaliz e th eir own assumptions— a v ersion of the judgm e nt refle x—te nd to
make personal experiences and prejudices an unquestioned standard of value.
It is surprisingly difficult to bre ak the h a bit of tre ating our points of vie w
as s elf-e vid e ntly tru e — not just for us, but for everyone. The overpersonal-
iz er assumes th at because he or she experienced or believes X, everyone else
does, too. But wh at is “ common sense ” for one person, and so not even in
ne ed of e xplaining, can be quite uncommon and not so obviously sensible to
someone else. More ofte n th a n not, “ common sense ” is a phrase th at re ally
me ans “ wh at se ems obvious to me and th erefore should be obvious to you.”

V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM

Argum e nts vs. O pinions: A P olitic al Scientist Spe aks

Writers ne ed to be aware of the distinction betwe en an argument, which seeks support
from evidence, and mere opinions and assertions. P eople too often assume that in
politics one opinion is as good as another. (Tocqueville thought this was a peculiarly
democratic dise ase.) From this perspective, any position a person might take on
controversial issues is simply his or heropinion to be accepted or rejected by another
person's beliefs/prejudices. The key task, therefore, is not so much the substitution of
knowledge for opinions, but substituting well-constructed arguments for unexamined
opinions. An argument presupposes a willingness to engage with others. To the extent
that a writer operates on the assumption that everything is in the end an opinion, they
have no re ason to construct arguments; they are locked into an opinion.

— JA C K G AMBIN O, PR O F E SS O R O F P OLITIC AL S CIE N C E

H a bit: G e n eralizing
“ W h at it all boils down to is . . “ W h at this adds up to is . . “ The gist of h er
spe ech w a s . . W e generaliz e from our experience because this is one w a y of
arriving at ide as. The proble m with generalizing as a h a bit of mind is th at it
removes the mind— usu ally much too quickly—from th e data th at produced
th e g e n eraliz ation in th e first place.
Most of us tend to remember our global impressions and re actions. The din
ner was dull. The house was be autiful. The music was exciting. But we forget the
specific, concrete causes of these impressions (if we ever fully noticed them).
As a result, we deprive ourselves of material to think with —the data th at might
allow us to reconsider our initial impressions or to share th e m with others.
The proble m comes wh e n g e n eraliz ations omit supporting d etails.
C onsider for a mom e nt wh at you are re ally a sking others to do wh e n you
offer th e m a g e n eraliz ation such as “ The proposed changes in immigra
tion policy are a dis a ster.” Unless th e re cipie nt of this obs erv ation asks a
qu e stion— such as “ W hy do you think so? ”—he or she is b eing re quire d to
take your word for it: the changes are a disaster because you say so.
 W h at happens inste a d if you offer a few details th at cause you to think
as you do? C le arly, you are on riskier ground. Y our liste n er might think th at
the details you cite le ad to differe nt conclusions and a differe nt re a ding of
the data, but at le ast conversation has become possible.

C ures for th e Proble m of G e n eralizing

The simple st a ntidote to the proble m of generalizing is to train yours elf
to be more conscious of wh ere your generaliz ations come from. Press
yourself to trace your general impressions back to the particulars that caused
them. D eciding to become more aware of your own responses to the
world and th eir causes counteracts th e in e vita ble numbing th at takes
place as h a bit takes control of our d aily lives.

H ere ’ s a noth er strategy for bringing your thinking down from high le v
els of generality. T hink of the words you use as steps on an abstraction
ladder, and consciously climb down the la dd er from abstract general
iz ation to concrete detail.

“ M a mm al,” for example, is high er on the a bstra ction la dd er th a n “ cow.”

A concrete word appe als to th e senses. Abstra ct words are not available to our
senses of touch, sight, he aring, taste, and smell. “ P e aceke eping forc e ” is an
abstract phrase; it conjures up a concept. “ Submarine ” is concrete. W e know
wh at people are talking about wh e n th e y say there is a pla n to send subm a
rines to a trouble d are a. W e c a n't be so sure wh at is up wh e n people start
talking about pe aceke eping forces. G eorge Orwell offers an eloqu e nt atta ck
along these lin e s in his famous essay, “ Politics and th e E nglish Language,”
which is discussed in C hapter 11.

T R Y T HIS 1.2: Distinguishing Abstra ct from C oncrete Words

Make a list of th e first te n words th at come to mind and th e n arrange th e m
from most concrete to most abstract. Then repe at th e exercise by choosing key
words from a page of som ething you have writte n recently.

V OIC E S F R O M A C R O S S T H E C U R RIC ULUM

H abits of Mind in Psychology: A Psychologist Spe aks

Psychologists who study the way we process information have established important links
betwe en the way we think and the way we fe el. Some psychologists, such as A aron Beck,
have identified common "errors in thinking"that parallel the habits of mind discussed in
this chapter. Beck and others have shown that falling prey to these counterproductive
habits of mind is associated with a variety of negative outcomes. For instance, a tendency
to engage in either/or thinking, overgeneraliz ation, and personaliz ation has be en linked
to higher levels of anger, anxiety, and depression. F ailure to attend to these errors in
thinking chokes off reflection and analysis. As a result, the person becomes more likely to
"re act" rather than think, which may prolong and exacerbate the negative emotions.

—MARK S CIUTT O, PR O F E SS O R O F PSY C H OLO G Y

C HAPT E R 1 The Five Analytical Moves 13

G et C omforta ble with U nc ertainty
Most of us le arn e arly in life to pretend th at we understand things even wh e n we
don ’ t. R ather th a n ask questions and risk looking foolish, we nod our he ads. Soon,
we even come to believe th at we understand things when re ally we don ’ t, or not
ne arly as well as we think we do. This understandable but problematic huma n trait
me ans th at to become better thinkers, most of us have to cultivate a more positive
attitud e toward not knowing. Prepare to be surprised at how difficult this can be.
Start by trying to accept th at unc ertainty— even its more e xtre m e v er
sion, confusion—is a productiv e state of mind, a pre condition to h a ving
ide as. The po et John K e ats coined a memorable phrase for this wille d toler
ance of unc ertainty. H e called it negative capability.

I had not had a dispute but a disquisition with Di Ike, on various subjects; several things
dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of
Achievement especially in Literature & which Shakespe are possessed so enormously—I
me an Negative C apability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties.
Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable re aching after fact & re ason.

— LE TT E R T O G E O R G E ANDTH OMAS K E ATS, D E C EMB E R 1817

The key phrases here are “ capable of being in unc ertaintie s” and “ with
out any irrita ble re a ching.” K e ats is not s a ying th at facts and re ason are
unnecessary and th erefore can be safely ignored. But he does praise th e kind
of person who can re m ain calm (rather th a n becoming irrita ble) in a state of
unc ertainty. H e is e ndorsing a wa y of being th at can stay open to possibili
ties long er th a n most of us are comforta ble with. N egative c a p a bility is an
essential h a bit of mind for productiv e a n alytic al thinking.
A ctiv ely se arch out possible alternative interpretations. Look for ambigu
ity. T ell yours elf th at you don ’ t understand, even if you think th at you do. Y ou ’ ll
know th at you are surmounting the fe ar of unc ertainty wh e n the me a ning of
your evidence starts to se em less rath er th a n more cle ar to you, and perhaps
even strange. You will begin to se e details th at you h a dn ’ t se en before and a
range of competing me anings where you had thought there was only one.

H a bit: T h e Slot- F ill er M e ntality ( F iv e-P ara gra ph F orm)

C an a form at qu alify as a counterproductiv e h a bit of mind? Y es, if you consider
how m a ny high school students have n aturaliz e d fiv e-p ara gra ph form as the
structure for org a nizing th e writing th e y do in school.
The shift from high school to college writing is not just a differe nc e in
degre e but a difference in kind. The changes it requires in matters of form and
style are in e vita bly also changes in thinking. The prim ary change in thinking
for m a ny students demands saying good-bye to fiv e-p ara gra ph form.
O f course, it can be a nxiety-producing to bid fare w ell to this one-siz e-
fits-all writing form at and replace it with a set of differe nt forms for differe nt
situ ations. But it is essential to let go of this s e curity blanket.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 During this period of six months no less
than five hundred and sixty-five deaths are
recorded under the head of morbi vanie. In
other words, those men died without having
received sufficient medical attention for the
determination of even the name of the
disease causing death.
During the month of August fifty-three
cases and fifty-three deaths are recorded as
due to marasmus. Surely this large number
of deaths must have been due to some other
morbid state than slow wasting. If they were
due to improper and insufficient food, they
should have been classed accordingly, and if
to diarrhea or dysentary or scurvy, the
classification in like manner should have
been explicit.
We observe a progressive increase of the
rate of mortality, from 3.11 per cent. in March
to 9.09 per cent. of mean strength, sick and
well, in August. The ratio of mortality
continued to increase during September, for
notwithstanding the removal of one-half the
entire number of prisoners during the early
portion of the month, one thousand seven
hundred and sixty-seven (1,767) deaths are
registered from September 1 to 21, and the
largest number of deaths upon any one day
occurred during this month, on the 16th, viz:
one hundred and nineteen.
The entire number of Federal prisoners
confined at Andersonville was about forty
thousand six hundred and eleven; and
during the period of near seven months, from
February 24 to September 21, nine thousand
four hundred and seventy-nine (9,479)
deaths were recorded; that is, during this
period near one-fourth, or more, exactly one
in 4.2, or 23.3 per cent. terminated fatally.
This increase of mortality was due in great
measure to the accumulation of the sources
of disease, as the increase of excrements
and filth of all kinds, and the concentration of
noxious effluvia, and also to the progressive
effects of salt diet, crowding, and the hot
climate.

CONCLUSIONS.
1st. The great mortality among the Federal
prisoners confined in the military prison at
Andersonville was not referable to climatic
causes, or to the nature of the soil and
waters.
 2d. The chief causes of death were scurvy
and its results and bowel affections—chronic
and acute diarrhea and dysentery. The
bowel affections appear to have been due to
the diet, and the habits of the patients, the
depressed, dejected state of the nervous
system and moral and intellectual powers,
and to the effluvia arising from the
decomposing animal and vegetable filth. The
effects of salt meat, and the unvarying diet
of corn-meal, with but few vegetables, and
imperfect supplies of vinegar and sirup, were
manifested in the great prevalence of scurvy.
This disease, without doubt, was also
influenced to an important extent in its origin
and course by the foul animal emanations.
3d. From the sameness of the food and
form, the action of the poisonous gasses in
the densely crowded and filthy stockade and
hospital, the blood was altered in its
constitution, even before the manifestation
of actual disease. In both the well and the
sick the red corpuscles were diminished; and
in all diseases uncomplicated with
inflammation, the fibrous element was
deficient. In cases of ulceration of the
mucous membrane of the intestinal canal,
the fibrous element of the blood was
increased; while in simple diarrhea,
uncomplicated with ulceration, it was either
diminished or else remained stationary.
Heart clots were very common, if not
universally present in cases of ulceration of
the intestinal mucous membrane, while in
the uncomplicated cases of diarrhea and
scurvy, the blood was fluid and did not
coagulate readily, and the heart clots and
fibrous concretions were almost universally
absent. From the watery condition of the
blood, there resulted various serous
effusions into the pericardium, ventricles of
the brain, and into the abdomen. In almost
all the cases which I examined after death,
even the most emaciated, there were more
or less serous effusions into the abdominal
cavity. In case of hospital gangrene of the
extremities, and in case of gangrene of the
intestines, heart clots and fibrous coagula
were universally present. The presence of
these clots in the cases of hospital
gangrene, while they were absent in the
cases in which there were no inflammatory
symptoms, sustains the conclusion that
hospital gangrene is a species of
inflammation, imperfect and irregular though
it may be in its progress, in which the fibrous
element and coagulation of the blood are
increased, even in those who are suffering
from such a condition of the blood, and from
such diseases as are naturally accompanied
with a disease in the fibrous constituent.
4th. The fact that hospital gangrene
appeared in the stockade first, and
originated spontaneously without any
previous contagion, and occurred
sporadically all over the stockade and prison
hospital, was proof positive that this disease
will arise whenever the conditions of
crowding, filth, foul air, and bad diet are
present. The exhalations of the hospital and
stockade appeared to exert their effects to a
considerable distance outside of these
localities. The origin of hospital gangrene
among the prisoners appeared clearly to
depend in great measure to the state of the
general system induced by diet, and various
external noxious influences. The rapidity of
the appearance and action of the gangrene
depended upon the powers and state of the
constitution, as well as upon the intensity of
the poison in the atmosphere, or upon the
direct application of poisonous matter to the
wounded surface. This was further illustrated
by the important fact that hospital gangrene,
or a disease resembling it in all essential
respects, attacked the intestinal canal of
patients laboring under ulceration of the
bowels, although there were no local
manifestations of gangrene upon the surface
of the body. This mode of termination in case
of dysentery was quite common in the foul
atmosphere of the Confederate States
Military Hospital, in the depressed, depraved
condition of the system of these Federal
prisoners.
5th. A scorbutic condition of the system
appeared to favor the origin of foul ulcers,
which frequently took on true hospital
gangrene. Scurvy and hospital gangrene
frequently existed in the same individual. In
such cases vegetable diet, with vegetable
acids would remove the scorbutic condition
without curing the hospital gangrene. From
the results of the existing war for the
establishment of the independence of the
Confederate States, as well as from the
published observations of Dr. Trotter, Sir
Gilbert Blane, and others of the English navy
and army, it is evident that the scorbutic
condition of the system, especially in
crowded ships and camps, is most favorable
to the origin and spread of foul ulcers and
hospital gangrene. As in the present case of
Andersonville, so also in past times when
medical hygiene was almost entirely
neglected, those two diseases were almost
universally associated in crowded ships. In
many cases it was very difficult to decide at
first whether the ulcer was a simple result of
scurvy or the action of the prison or hospital
gangene, for there was great similarity in the
appearance of the ulcers in the two
diseases. So commonly have those two
diseases been confined to their origin and
action, that the description of scorbutic
ulsers, by many authors, evidently includes
also many of the prominent characteristics of
hospital gangrene. This will be rendered
evident by an examination of the
observations of Dr. Lind and Sir Gilbert
Blane upon scorbutic ulcers.
6th. Gangrenous spots followed by rapid
destruction of the tissue appeared in some
cases where there has been no known
wound. Without such well established facts,
it might be assumed that the disease was
propagated from one patient to another. In
such a filthy and crowded hospital as that of
the Confederate States Military Prison at
Andersonville, it was impossible to isolate
the wounded from the sources of actual
contact with gangrenous matter. The flies
swarmed over the wounds and over filth of
every kind, the filthy, imperfectly washed and
scanty supplies of rags, and the limited
supply of washing utensils, the same wash-
bowl serving for scores of patients were
sources of such constant circulation of the
gangrenous matter that the disease might
rapidly spread from a single gangrenous
wound. The fact already stated, that a form
of moist gangrene, resembling hospital
gangrene, was quite common in this foul
atmosphere, in cases of dysentery, both with
and without the existance of the entire
service, not only demonstrates the
dependence of the disease upon the state of
the constitution, but proves in the clearest
manner that neither the contact of the
poisonous matter of gangrene, nor the direst
action of the poisonous atmosphere upon
the ulcerated surface are necessary to the
development of the disease.
7th. In this foul atmosphere amputation did
not arrest hospital gangrene; the disease
almost universally returned. Almost every
amputation was followed finally by death,
either from the effects of gangrene or from
the prevailing diarrhea and dysentery. Nitric
acid and escharoties generally in this
crowded atmosphere, loaded with noxious
effluvia, exerted only temporary effects; after
their application to the diseased surfaces,
the gangrene would frequently returned with
redoubled energy; and even after the
gangrene had been completely removed by
local and constitutional treatment, it would
frequently return and destroy the patient. As
far as my observation extended, very few of
the cases of amputation for gangrene
recovered. The progress of these cases was
frequently very deceptive. I have observed
after death the most extensive
disorganization of the stump, when during
life there was but little swelling of the part,
and the patient was apparently doing well. I
endeavored to impress upon the medical
officers the view that on this disease
treatment was almost useless, without an
abundance of pure, fresh air, nutricious food,
and tonics and stimulants. Such changes,
however, as would allow of the isolation of
the cases of hospital gangrene appeared to
be out of the power of the medical officers.
8th. The gangrenous mass was without
true puss, and consisted chiefly of broken-
down, disorganized structures. The reaction
of the gangrenous matter in certain stages
was alkaline.
9th. The best, and in truth the only means
of protecting large armies and navies, as
well as prisoners, from the ravages of
hospital gangrene, is to furnish liberal
supplies of well-cured meat, together with
fresh beef and vegetables, and to enforce a
rigid system of hygene.
10th. Finally, this gigantic mass of human
misery calls loudly for relief, not only for the
sake of suffering humanity, but also on
account of our own brave soldiers now
captive in the hands of the Federal
Government. Strict justice to the gallant men
of the Confederate armies, who have been
or who may be, so unfortunate as to be
compelled to surrender in battle, demands
that the Confederate Government should
adopt that course which will best secure their
health and comfort in captivity; or at least
leave their enemies without a shadow of an
excuse for any violation of the rules of
civilized warfare in the treatment of
prisoners.”

(END OF WITNESS’S TESTIMONY.)

 S U M M A RY

The variation—from month to month—of the

proportion of deaths to the whole number of living is
singular and interesting. It supports the theory I have
advanced above, as the following facts taken from
the official report, will show:
In April one in every sixteen died.
In May one in every twenty-six died.
In June one in every twenty-two died.
In July one in every eighteen died.
In August one in eleven died.
In September one in every three died.
In October one in every two died.
In November one in every three died.
Does the reader fully understand that in
September one-third of those in the pen died, that in
October one-half of the remainder perished, and in
November one-third of those who still survived, died?
Let him pause for a moment and read this over
carefully again, because its startling magnitude will
hardly dawn upon him at first reading. It is true that
the fearful disproportionate mortality of those months
was largely due to the fact that it was mostly the sick
that remained behind, but even this diminishes but
little the frightfulness of the showing. Did anyone
ever hear of an epidemic so fatal that one-third of
those attacked by it in one month died; one-half of
the remnant the next month, and one-third of the
feeble remainder the next month? If he did his
reading has been much more extensive than mine.
 T H E WA R ’ S D E A D .

The total number of deceased Union

soldiers during and in consequence of the
war, is 316,233. Of these, only 175,764 have
been identified, and the rest will probably
remain for ever unknown. Of the grand total,
36,868 are known to have been prisoners of
war who died in captivity. There are seventy-
two National Cemeteries for the dead of the
Union armies, besides which there are 320
local and Post cemeteries. The largest of the
Government grounds are: Arlington, Va., the
former homestead of General Robert E. Lee,
15,547 graves; Fredericksburg, Va., 15,300
graves; Salisbury, N. C., 12,112 graves;
Beaufort, S. C., 10,000 graves;
Andersonville, Ga., 13,706 graves; Marietta,
Ga., 10,000 graves; New Orleans, La.,
12,230 graves; Vicksburg, Miss., 17,012
graves; Chattanooga, Tenn., 12,964 graves;
Nashville, Tenn., 16,529 graves; Memphis,
Tenn., 13,958 graves; Jefferson Barracks,
near St. Louis, Mo., 8,601 graves. The
National Cemetery near Richmond, Va.
contains 6,276 graves, of which 5,450 are of
unknown dead, mostly prisoners of war. The
cemeteries are kept in good condition, and
are generally well sodded and planted with
ornamental trees.
 EX-PRISONERS AND
PENSIONERS.

The following is an Appeal to Congress in behalf of

the ex-prisoners of war, issued by Felix LaBaume,
President of the “National Ex-Prisoners of War
Association,” and I hope that the united efforts of
every one of the survivors will be concentrated with
an object in view which shall substantially benefit
those who performed a most valuable service in
putting down the rebellion, suffering horrors and
privations that cannot fully be described, and for
which privations and sufferings they have never been
recognized in the existing pension laws.

APPEAL TO CONGRESS.

It is a historical fact that in the early part of

1864, shortly after the battles of the
wilderness, certain high officials of the
Federal government decided that it was
more economical to stop the exchange of
prisoners of war entirely.
The policy of non-exchange was
understood to be based on the following
facts:
That a soldier counted for more in the
Confederate army then acting on the
defensive; that many of the Andersonville
prisoners were men whose term of service
had already expired, that all of them were
disabled by starvation and exposure, and
unfit for further service, while every
Confederate was able-bodied and “in for the
war” so that an exchange would have been a
gratuitous strengthening of the armies of the
Confederacy, which, at the same time, would
have prevented the prisoners held in the
South from falling into the hands of
Sherman.
August 14th, 1864, General Grant
telegraphed to General Butler: “It is hard on
our men held in Southern prisons, not to
exchange them, but it is humane to those left
in the ranks to fight our battles. If we now
commence a system of exchange which
liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to
fight on till the whole South is exterminated.
If we hold those captured, they count for
more than dead men.”
In accordance with General Grant’s
opinion General Butler then wrote a letter in
reply to General Ould’s proposals of
exchange.
In his famous Lowell speech, Butler said:
“In this letter these questions were argued
justly, as I think, not diplomatically, but
obtrusively and demonstratively, not for the
purpose of furthering an exchange of
prisoners, but for the purpose of preventing
and stopping the exchange, and furnishing a
ground on which we could stand.” The men
who languished at Andersonville and other
Confederate prisons, played, in their
sufferings and death, an active part in the
termination of the war.
This part was not so stirring as charging
on guns or meeting in the clash of infantry
lines. But as the victims of a policy, dictated
by the emergency of a desperate condition
of affairs, their enforced, long continued
hardships and sufferings made it possible for
the Union generals and their armies to
decide the deplorable struggle so much
sooner, and to terminate the existence of the
Confederacy by the surrender at Appomatox.
No soldier or seaman, in this or any other
country, ever made such personal sacrifices
or endured such hardships and privations as
those who fell into the hands of the
Confederates during the late war. The recital
of their sufferings would be scarcely believed
were they not corroborated by so large a
number of unimpeachable witnesses on both
sides.
Colonel C. T. Chandler’s C. S. A. report on
Andersonville, dated Aug. 5, 1864, in which
he said: “It is difficult to describe the horrors
of the prison, which is a disgrace to
civilization,” was endorsed by Col. R. H.
Chilton, Inspector General C. S. A., as
follows: “The condition of the prisoners at
Andersonville is a reproach to us as a
nation.”
The sixty thousand graves filled by the
poor victims of the several prisons, tells a
story that cannot be denied or
misunderstood. When we consider the
hardships and privations to which these men
were subjected, the wonder is not that so
many died, but that any survived. We submit,
it is hardly possible that any man who was
subjected to the hardships and inhuman
treatment of a Confederate prison for even
two or three months only, could come out
any other than permanently disabled.
Statistics show that of those who were
released, nearly five per cent. died before
reaching home. In a few instances there was
a roll kept of thirty to fifty of those men who,
when released, were able to travel home
alone, and it is now found that nearly three-
fourths of the number have since died.
The roll of the Andersonville Survivors
Association shows that during the year 1880,
the number of deaths averaged sixteen and
one-third per cent. of the total membership,
showing an increase of five per cent. over
the death rate of 1879.
But few of the most fortunate of these
survivors will live to see the age of fifty, and
probably within the next ten years the last of
them will have passed away.
Congress has from time to time enacted
laws most just and liberal (or that were