How to Analyse an Analysis
In the Information Age, we are exposed to several opinions on any given topic. Impactful analogies and powerful metaphors can change our thinking about a topic. Wouldn’t it be great if we have a framework to analyse opinions?
Origin
This eightfold path comes from Linda Elder and Richard Paul’s The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking. It shares intellectual ancestry with the Indian debating tradition of purva paksha — representing your opponent’s view faithfully before criticising it.
What it says
The framework forces reflection on eight dimensions of any argument:
- Purpose. What is the author trying to accomplish? Stated purposes often differ from actual ones.
- Key question. What is the central question the author is addressing? A poorly framed question predetermines the answer.
- Important information. What facts, experiences, and data does the author use to support conclusions? What is omitted?
- Main inferences. What are the most important conclusions drawn? Do they follow from the information provided?
- Key concepts. What are the most important ideas you must understand to follow the author’s reasoning? Are they clearly defined?
- Main assumptions. What is the author taking for granted that might be questioned? Assumptions are often unstated and are where reasoning logically begins.
- Implications. What consequences follow if we accept this reasoning? What consequences follow if we reject it?
- Point of view. From what position is the author looking at the subject? Every perspective reveals some things and conceals others.
Running through these eight elements prevents the fast brain from being swayed by rhetoric, analogy, or vehement agreement.
When it falls short
The framework is time-intensive. Applying it rigorously to every article you read is impractical. It works best as a deliberate exercise for high-stakes decisions — buying into a policy position, evaluating a research claim, or assessing a strategic recommendation.
It also assumes the author is making an argument at all. Much contemporary discourse is mood affiliation or identity signalling masquerading as analysis. In such cases, the framework correctly diagnoses that there is nothing to analyse — but that realisation itself is useful.