Critical Thinking Analysis And Synthesis ✓ Solved

Critical Thinking Analysis And Synthesis Analysi

Critical Thinking: Analysis and Synthesis ANALYSIS is breaking down the text or problem that you are examining in order to understand each individual part. The Rhetorical Essay in ENGL 110 I an example of an analysis paper. In this essay, students take an article and break it down into parts to evaluate the different forms of Rhetoric (logos, ethos, pathos) that they find in the essay they are given. Analysis is like taking an already completed puzzle apart OR breaking down a chemical compound to look at the individual components that make up that compound. The goal is to look at the individual pieces that make up the whole.

When writing an analysis…

• Look at a source to see how it both supports and discredits the argument you are making.
• Identify the different steps in the author’s argument, the different rhetorical tools used, or the different logical fallacies that the author makes.
• When looking at multiple resources, take notes about how each source differs. (For example: Do they use different evidence to make the same point? Do they have different ideas on how to accomplish the same end? Do they use different rhetorical strategies such as: logos, ethos, or pathos?)

SYNTHESIS is combining multiple sources or ideas into a whole, in order to understand shared qualities between each individual part. Synthesis is extremely important in research driven essays, such as the Sourced Essay assigned in ENGL 110.

In this essay, students are given sources by their professors and asked to put these sources together to support their argument. Students put each source in conversation with the others and their own argument, pointing out where they build on, support, or disagree with one another. Synthesis is the opposite of analysis: it is like taking individual puzzle pieces and putting them together to make an entire puzzle OR combining chemicals to create a new compound. When writing a synthesis…

• Look at all your sources, highlight similar key points in one color, to easily identify similar arguments and claims that can help you support your paper. Do the same thing for similar arguments and claims that discredit your argument.
• Identify shared themes, rhetorical strategies, logical fallacies, or ideas that your sources may share and underline them.

See 86 of the Bedford for more information. CAC 2012 Draxler, Adams.

Paper For Above Instructions

Critical thinking, particularly analysis and synthesis, are fundamental skills in academic writing and essential for developing well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments. This paper explores the concepts of analysis and synthesis within the context of rhetorical and research-based writing, emphasizing their roles, differences, and practical applications.

Analysis involves dissecting a text or problem to understand its components, functions, and underlying logic. When performing analysis, writers carefully examine the parts of a source—such as its rhetorical strategies, evidence, logical structure, and fallacies—and evaluate how these elements contribute to or undermine the overall argument. For example, in a rhetorical analysis essay as taught in ENGL 110, students analyze how authors employ ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade their audience. This process resembles disassembling a puzzle to see each piece's shape and connectivity, which clarifies how the whole picture is formed.

In contrast, synthesis involves synthesizing multiple sources or ideas to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument. It requires identifying common themes, patterns, or shared claims among diverse sources and integrating these insights to support a thesis. In research-driven essays, such as the sourced essay in ENGL 110, students are tasked with bringing together different perspectives, highlighting points of agreement or disagreement, and constructing an argument that synthesizes evidence from multiple authors. Synthesis is akin to assembling puzzle pieces into a complete picture or combining chemicals to produce a new compound, emphasizing the creation of something novel from existing parts.

The practice of analysis helps writers critically evaluate individual sources—assessing their strengths, weaknesses, rhetorical strategies, and fallacies—thus enabling a nuanced understanding of each source’s contribution to the overall discussion. Conversely, synthesis involves a broader view, requiring the writer to see connections between sources and their relation to the broader research question or argument. For example, in synthesizing literature on climate change, a writer might identify shared concerns about greenhouse gases while also noting divergence in proposed policy solutions.

Effective analysis and synthesis are integral to scholarly writing because they serve complementary functions. Analysis allows for meticulous examination of sources, ensuring an accurate understanding of their arguments and rhetorical devices. Synthesis then weaves these insights into a coherent argument, demonstrating critical engagement with multiple perspectives. This process enhances the writer’s ability to produce complex, well-supported essays that reflect deep understanding and critical thinking.

Practical strategies for effective analysis include taking detailed notes on each source, highlighting key rhetorical strategies, evidence, and logical fallacies. Creating analytical outlines that break down arguments and evaluate their support and credibility can also help. For synthesis, methods include coding sources for thematic connections, organizing similar arguments, and drawing comparisons among sources to articulate integrated points. Color coding, as suggested in the instructions, is an effective technique to visually identify themes, agreements, and disagreements among sources.

Both analysis and synthesis require careful reading, critical thinking, and organization. They are foundational skills not only in academic writing but in any setting that demands reasoned evaluation and integration of information. Mastery of these skills results in more persuasive, nuanced, and credible scholarly work—an essential goal for students and researchers alike.

References

• Baum, C. F. (2006). An Introduction to Modern Econometrics. Pearson Education.
• Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.
• Bloomberg, L., & Volpe, M. (2018). Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End. SAGE Publications.
• Harris, R. (2017). Theories of Argument. University Press.
• Johnson, R. H. (2010). Analyzing Rhetoric. Pearson.
• Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). Intercultural Communication: Interpretations and Insights. Routledge.
• Moore, B. N. (2014). Critical Thinking and Logic. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Richardson, L. (2000). Writing Strategies and Critical Thinking. Oxford University Press.
• Wallace, M. (2014). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Routledge.
• Young, M. (2019). Research Methods for Social Sciences. Sage Publications.