Analysis

Carry out “critical analysis of the evidence presented in your summary of the evidence (section B in a Historical Investigation), with accurate referencing, and an awareness of the significance to the investigation of the sources evaluated in your evaluation of sources (section C in a HIstorical Investigation)” (IB Rubric). Generally speaking, consider the chronological facts from your summary of the evidence (section B) in a new order, which is not narrative but logical, reflecting the application of a rational sorting and reorganization of the issues.

Overview
Generally, analyze (break down) the big issue into manageable sub-issues, then treat each of these in turn, to come up with an overall answer to the original question you posed.
 * Specifically, this is the place to apply the “if-then” test or logical process that you defined in section A.
 * Focus on no more than three sub-issues that, together, allow you to develop your argument (your line of reasoning leading from some clear premises to a logical conclusion).

Key activities
Think of yourself as a detective, going through the evidence to determine where you come out on each sub-issue


 * Break down each sub-issue to bring out the essential conflicts and assumptions. A good way to do this is to organize this in terms of contending historiographical approaches. Where the issue is so narrow or recondite that historians have not treated it and differed over it, you may need to define the contending interpretations yourself.
 * Walk the reader through the points of disagreement among the sources and schools of interpretation that you have introduced, sorting out which sources and interpretations are more reliable and where.
 * Put each issue and its related points of evidence in CONTEXT, by providing a “web of additional information within which your question needs to be considered”. Instruct the reader on how specific evidence should be understood, given the time, place and circumstances.
 * Numerical information, for example economic data from other periods, often does not make any sense when communicated in the original amounts and units. Some guides to adjusting such data for the purpose of contextualization are:
 * [|"Putting Economic Data Into Context"]. By Bruce Bartlett, NYT, February 25, 2014.
 * [|MeasuringWorth.com]. A site dedicated to explaining the many issues involved in making value comparison over time, and to providing the most reliable historical time-series for adjusting historical data.

Developing your argument
Ensure each step of your analysis is adequately supported by specific evidence or rational argument, and clearly developed.


 * Use points of evidence from section B but don’t reiterate the points. Refer to a point, don’t repeat it.
 * Use terms like “reveals”, “exposes”, “gives credence to”, “conflicts with”, “”explains”.
 * If necessary, review "[|Logic and Argument]", an explanation of the key requirements of argumentation, published by Dartmouth University's English department.

Working with sources
As you consider contending accounts by various sources, outline the sources’ strengths and limitations to help you decide among them. In other words, don’t hesitate to apply source evaluation skills to resolve the issues that come up in this section. Source evaluation is not something that should only be carried out in section C!
 * Explicitly show your awareness of the significance to the investigation of the sources evaluated in section C. Try to apply the results of your evaluation of sources, in section C, to help resolve at least one issue of interpretation.
 * Use phrases like "...and this witness is particularly reliable because..." and "...although we need to bear in mind that there are limitations to this source because...". (ActiveHistory)
 * Provide corroboration for points that have been shown by your OPVL analysis to require it.

Testing your argument
After you think you have adequately dealt with an issue, consider other logical ways to deal with it than your own. Give these other explanations explicit and sympathetic consideration, assess them against your own interpretation, and discard the weaker. Revise your own approach in line with these findings.

**Review**
When you are done with the section, ensure the Analysis focuses on the question(s) posed in the Plan of the Investigation and carries out the process set out in the in the Plan. Revise the Plan if necessary to ensure this.

Footnoting
Footnote all your evidence in section D. Make sure the footnotes are correctly formatted in accordance with the Chicago citation system. Use BibMe.org for your List of Sources, but NOT for the footnotes, which require a different format,

Another Approach to Explaining Analysis and Argumentation
This is a previous attempt I made to explain how to think about and carry out the intellectual process of a historical investigation: [|Historical analysis and Argumentation].