Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [141]
These more analytical approaches lie concealed in the writer’s introduction, but they never get discovered because the 5-paragraph form militates against sustained analytical thinking. Its division of the subject into parts, which is only one part of analysis, has become an end unto itself. The procrustean formula insists on a tripartite list in which each of the three parts is separate, equal, and above all, inert.
Here are two quick checks for whether a paper of yours has closed down your thinking through a scheme such as 5-paragraph form:
Look at the paragraph openings. If these read like a list, each beginning with an additive transition like “another” followed by a more or less exact repetition of your central point (“another example is …,” “yet another example is …”), you should suspect that you are not adequately developing your ideas.
Compare the wording in the last statement of the paper’s thesis (in the conclusion) with the first statement of it in the introduction. If the wording at these two locations is virtually the same, you will know that your thesis has not responded adequately to your evidence.
ANALYZING EVIDENCE IN DEPTH: “10 ON 1”
The practice called 10 on 1 focuses analysis on a representative example. In doing 10 on 1, you are taking one part of the whole, putting it under a microscope, and then generalizing about the whole on the basis of analyzing a single part.
The phrase 10 on 1 means 10 observations and implications about one representative piece of evidence (where 10 is an arbitrary number meaning “many”).
The phrase 1 on 10 means one general point attached to 10 pieces of evidence.
As a guideline, 10 on 1 will lead you to draw out as much meaning as possible from your best example—a case of narrowing the focus and then analyzing in depth (see Figure 10.2). Eventually, you will move from this key example to others that usefully extend and qualify your point, but first you need to let analysis of your representative example produce more thinking.
You can use 10 on 1 to accomplish various ends: (1) to locate the range of possible meanings your evidence suggests; (2) to make you less inclined to cling to your first claim; (3) to open the way for you to discover the complexity of your subject; and (4) to slow down the rush to generalization and thus help to ensure that when you arrive at a working thesis, it will be more specific and better able to account for your evidence.
FIGURE 10.2
Doing 10 on 1. The pattern of 10 on 1 (in which “10” stands arbitrarily for any number of points) successively develops a series of points about a single representative example. Its analysis of evidence is in depth.
Demonstrating the Representativeness of Your Example
Focusing on your single best example has the advantage of economy, cutting to the heart of the subject, but it runs the risk that the example you select might not in fact be representative. Thus, to be safe, you need to demonstrate its representativeness overtly. This means showing that your example is part of a larger pattern of similar evidence and not just an isolated instance. To establish that pattern, it is useful to do 1 on 10—locating 10 examples that share a trait—as a preliminary step and then select one of these for in-depth analysis.
In terms of logic, the problem of generalizing from too little and unrepresentative evidence is known as an unwarranted inductive leap. The writer leaps from one or two instances to a broad claim about an entire class or category. Just because you see an economics professor and a biology professor wearing corduroy jackets, for example, you would not want to leap to