Please be aware that all parts has to be included. Table of contents, page title, references, etc, plus the research.
I will attach Part one of the analysis that is already done.
The purpose of Analysis 2 is to evaluate Spinks argument in its own terms , i.e. we analyse the support or evidence she provides for her claims. We will focus on how she supports the two claims above in her own article.
* * *
In Analysis 2, you use the same claims you used in Analysis 1.
Over the last two weeks, our in-class discussion focused on evaluating these two major claims:
1. Spinks claims that you achieve better results from coaching if you come to the coaching having had experience with a therapist or a degree of self-understanding or introspection.
2. Spinks claims that she did not know who was leading the coaching session, herself or her coach.
* * *
The major difference between Analyses 1 and 2 is that in Analysis 2 you do not look for sources outside the article. In other words, in Analysis 2 you focus only on the article, what Spinks herself writes.
The first step in Analysis 2 is to identify the paragraphs where Spinks discusses each finding.
In which paragraphs does Spinks develop the ideas for her two major claims
(1) having previous experience as ‘necessary’ for the success of coaching sessions and
(2) a relationship akin to friendship whereby the coach and the coachee take turns in leading the coaching session?
We simply need to identify the paragraph numbers.
* * *
Remember that a claim may be developed over the several paragraphs.
These paragraphs are usually beside each other, but sometimes writers scatter their support for a particular claim
The second step in Analysis 2 is to decide the type of support Spinks uses in the paragraphs you have identified.
* * *
How does Spinks develop her claims?
Let’s analyse one of the two claims, now that we have located the relevant paragraphs.
* * *
Does she use any of these common types of support:
i. Anecdotal evidence (personal experience, the writer’s or examples).
ii. Case studies (a more sustained study of personal experience).
iii. Description (details can grap the reader’s attention and clarify ideas).
iv. Observations (which can be reasonable and persuasive).
v. Logical argument (cause, effect, comparison, contracts, benefits, disadvantages etc.).
vi. ‘Facts” – evidence (statistics, figures, extended examples).
vii. Expert opinion – evidence (experts can both produce and interpret evidence; expert opinion is usually seen as the strongest type of support).
Your third step in Analysis 2 is to determine whether Spinks has provided sufficient evidence to support her claim.
The criteria for sufficiency of support or evidence four:
i. Does Spinks provide enough
Some claims, especially major claims, require that a writer provide enough support to persuade a reader who is in disagreement, is undecided, or is simply new to the topic.
ii. Does Spinks provide a variety or different types of evidence to support the claim?
Providing a range of evidence, from the list in step two above, is usually persuasive.
iii. Does Spinks provide support that is relevant to the claim?
Sometimes writers provide evidence that is not directly related to the claim argued. Sometimes writers provide evidence that is dated, too old to be relevant now.
iv. Where Spinks provides sources, are these sources reliable?
Think of instances where Spinks refers to people she interviews or quotes/paraphrases. What kind of expertise makes them persuasive?
* * *
Even though the criteria above are related to the sufficiency of evidence, remember, that they may all not apply to the claims you have decided to evaluate. In this case, only use the criteria, which may be just one criterion, that are relevant.
* * *
Finally, even where you conclude, for example, that Spinks does not provide sufficient evidence due to, for example, her use of only one expert or personal experience. Remember to ask yourself a fifth question:
v. Are Spinks observations reasonable?
If they are, you would need to qualify your evaluation. You can, for instance, say that Spinks provides insufficient evidence but her observations are reasonable.
Of course you explain why in your own personal opinionher support is insufficient and why you believe her observations are reasonable.