KEY ESSAY WRITING SKILLS
Explaining evidence
This guide will outline how to explain a piece of evidence in a PEA paragraph. This is the first possible component of the analysis section of a PEA paragraph, and it’s the first one you’ll need to learn how to do.
Contents of this guide
Quick links for this skill
Recapping some key concepts from the essay writing fundamentals series
Before we get into explaining evidence itself, let’s recap some key concepts from earlier guides on the website, which you need to understand for the rest of this particular guide to make sense:
1. Making an argument
The first concepts you need to understand were discussed in part 2 of the essay writing fundamentals: argument, inference and reasoning:
An analytical paragraph (PEA) is an argument, and the argument is set out in the paragraph point: if your point is that the writer presents a particular character as a cruel man, then this is your argument; if your point is that the writer suggests that family is incredibly important, then this is your argument (e.g. the thing you want to argue for).
Your argument needs to be something you have inferred from the text, making it an inference. It shouldn’t be something that is explicitly stated in the text.
An inference is a conclusion you have reached based on evidence and reasoning.
The more sophisticated your inference, the more reasoning you will need to explain how you reached that inference.
If you find any of that confusing, you should go back and read part 2 of the essay writing fundamentals series which explains how to write a PEA paragraph. Then return to this guide.
2. What it means to explain something
The other key concept you need to be familiar with is what it means to explain something. To explain is to make something clear by describing it in more detail. This is concept is fundamental for this skill, which is why it’s called “Explaining evidence”.
If you’re not sure what it means to explain something, you should read the “explain” section of the guide to the three key essay writing concepts (identify, explain and analyse) which is in part 3 of the essay writing fundamentals series. Then return to this guide.
Assuming you’re okay with these fundamentals, though, please read on with the rest of the guide.
Showing your working — a metaphor for maths fans
One way to think about the analysis part of a PEA paragraph is with a maths metaphor. In your analysis you are showing your working, in exactly the same way you would do for a maths equation. In fact, you could think of the whole PEA paragraph as a kind of maths equation, except in English we put the parts in a different order (in maths it’s EAP, rather than PEA):
Equation (Evidence)
3x + 4 = 10
Showing your working
(Analysis)
If you complete the inverse operation by subtracting the 4, then you get 3x = 6. If you divide both sides of the equation by 3, then you get x = 2.
Solution
(Point)
x = 2
In essence a PEA paragraph is a lot like a maths solution, except in a different order:
POINT: The solution is x = 2
EVIDENCE: The equation is 3x + 4 = 10
ANALYSIS: This solution is true because, if you complete the inverse operation by subtracting the 4, then you get 3x = 6, and if you then divide both sides of the equation by 3, you get x = 2.
The analysis (showing your working) explains how you got from the evidence (the equation) to the point (the solution). Offering this information shows that not only do you know the solution to the equation, but that you also understand how to solve the equation.
This is very important in English: showing your understanding is central to the whole essay-writing process. After all, essays are the way we assess your ability to read and understand a text.
First worked example — a simple inference
To make this nice and clear, let’s look at a couple of examples which should clarify how this process works in practice. First, here’s a simple inference (a point) with some evidence:
Michael Morpurgo presents the Birdman as an outsider in his society. At the start of the extract, the narrator claims that the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight.”
Here, we have identified some implied meaning in the point (i.e. that the Birdman is an outsider) and we have identified a quotation which shows this, which we have embedded and contextualised in the evidence part of the paragraph. All of this is explained in earlier guides on the website if you’re not sure what we mean by it.
Now we need to explain the evidence (i.e. make it clear by adding more detail). In general, this will mean explaining one or both of the following things:
What the evidence means [essential] — this is about making the evidence clear
How the evidence proves the point [common but not essential] — this is about explaining the reasoning behind the inference in the point (see the end of this guide for when this isn’t required)
1. Explaining what the evidence means
The first thing you need to do after each bit of evidence is explain what it means. You need to make its meaning clear by adding more detail. Some evidence will require more explanation than others, though generally you’ll only need 1-3 sentences for this part, depending on how complicated your evidence is. Our evidence is very simple, so not much explanation is required.
Explaining the basic meaning of the evidence — making it clear
Here, we see that the Birdman is essentially nocturnal. He does not live by the same rules or routines as ordinary people in society.
2. Explaining how the evidence proves the point
Once you’ve explained the basic meaning of the evidence, you need to link that meaning back to the point. How you do this will depend on the type of point you’ve got in your paragraph (see below) but for us the point is character-based and inference-based, so we need some reasoning: why does the fact the Birdman lives this nocturnal life imply that he’s an outsider?
The reasoning for this inference is based on a fairly basic understanding of how human nature and human society work, and it works like this:
If he just goes out at night and other people don’t, then he must spend a lot of his time alone, which makes him an outsider
Reasoning generally has a kind of if…then…which structure: we take something from the evidence (if) and draw a conclusion from it (then), before linking it to the point (which). This is how inference works. You don’t need to use this wording (if…then…which) in your explanation, but it’s a useful way to think about what’s going on in your mind when you make inferences. Your reasoning (if…then…which) can then be outlined to finish your explanation of the evidence. Here’s a very simple example:
Explaining how the evidence proves the point — explaining reasoning
Because he only goes out at night, he cannot spend much time with other people, so he is probably a fairly solitary person, making him an outsider.
If we combine these two parts together (explaining the meaning and explaining the reasoning), we can cut out a few words in the second part to avoid repetition (see below), and through this we can fully explain the evidence by making its meaning clear and explaining how it proves the point. If you look at the full example below you can see how this all works together. Then we’ll go through another example to help make it even clearer.
Full PEA paragraph, with an explanation of what the evidence means and how it proves the point
Michael Morpurgo presents the Birdman as an outsider in his society. At the start of the extract, the narrator claims that the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight.” Here, we see that the Birdman is essentially nocturnal. He does not live by the same rules or routines as ordinary people in normal society, only going out at night. Because of this, he cannot spend much time with other people, so he is probably a fairly solitary person, making him an outsider.
This is a straightforward piece of evidence and a straightforward inference, meaning it can be proved very quickly using just an understanding of how human nature and human society work. It doesn’t need much explanation or much general knowledge. However, ideally your inferences will be more sophisticated than this, and so they will need more sophisticated explanation. We’ll look at another example now to see this in action.
Second worked example — a slightly more complex inference
Now we’ll look at a slightly more complex point which requires a bit more explanation. Here’s the point and evidence:
At the start of the play Solomon is presented as fiercely loyal to his dad. In Act 1 Scene 3, Solomon’s mum gets angry at his dad for being out drinking and Solomon is described in the stage directions as “defending his dad” while he claims that he “probably just went for one drink.”
1. Explaining what the evidence means
The first thing we need to do is explain the evidence. What does it mean? We need to make this nice and clear before we get onto the reasoning behind the inference. This evidence is fairly simple in terms of its meaning, but we still need to summarise what it means:
Explaining the basic meaning of the evidence — making it clear
Solomon’s loyalties are made clear here: he stands up for his dad even in an argument with his mum. He takes his dad’s side, even though his dad has been drinking.
2. Explaining how the evidence proves the point
Now we need to finish the explanation by clearly proving the point that Solomon is “fiercely loyal” to his dad. We need to explain how we got from “he probably just went for one drink” to “fiercely loyal.” This is a bigger jump than in the first worked example because the point is a bit more sophisticated. The connection is not as clear because there’s more reasoning involved, which is what makes it a more sophisticated inference. One aspect of the reasoning behind the inference is this:
If Solomon is defending his dad against his mum (whom he also loves), then he must really care for him since he takes his side over hers, which makes him loyal
Like in the previous example, this reasoning is based on an understanding of human nature. It is based on an understanding of what dads and mums are like, and the kinds of relationships they have with their children. However, it’s not really enough to convincingly prove the point, which is that Solomon is “fiercely” loyal to his dad. This reasoning doesn’t cover the “fiercely” part very well, so we need to bring something else into our analysis to make the link between the evidence and the point really clear.
The other important way we can explain our reasoning for an inference is by considering something that has happened earlier in the text. Often things that we know from earlier in the story can help to explain why we made an inference. In this particular text, we learn earlier in the story that Solomon’s dad’s drinking has made him a very bad parent; he was even violent towards Solomon at one point earlier in the story. Bearing this in mind, we can apply the following additional reasoning:
If this harmful behaviour is not enough to make Solomon take his mum’s side in the argument, then he must really want to take his dad’s side, which makes him fiercely loyal.
Taken together, these two pieces of reasoning (the one based on an understanding of human nature/society and the one based on something from another place in the text) form this piece of reasoning:
Explaining how the evidence proves the point — explaining reasoning
The fact that Solomon will defend his dad even when it’s his mum (whom he also loves) accusing him suggests that Solomon must really care for his dad. Moreover, given that Solomon’s dad’s “drinking binges” have had a negative effect on Solomon’s life, with all the mess in the house and even the violence towards him, the fact he still defends him here shows just how fiercely loyal he is; he just doesn’t seem able to side with anyone else, no matter what.
If we combine the initial explanation of the evidence with these two pieces of extra reasoning, then we get a the following full explanation of the evidence:
Full PEA paragraph, with an explanation of what the evidence means and how it proves the point
At the start of the play Solomon is presented as fiercely loyal to his dad.In Act 1 Scene 3, Solomon’s mum gets angry at his dad for being out drinking and Solomon is described in the stage directions as “defending his dad” while he claims that he “probably just went for one drink. Solomon’s loyalties are made clear here: he stands up for his dad even in an argument with his mum. He takes his dad’s side, even though his dad has been drinking. The fact that Solomon will defend his dad even when it’s his mum (whom he also loves) accusing him suggests that Solomon must really care for his dad. Moreover, given that Solomon’s dad’s “drinking binges” have had a really negative effect on Solomon’s life, with all the mess in the house and even the violence towards him, the fact he still defends him here shows just how fiercely loyal he is; he just doesn’t seem able to side with anyone else, no matter what.
Including quotations in your explanation of the evidence — the good and the bad
Good practice
Something you may want to do when explaining your evidence is include short embedded quotations from the text to help support your reasoning. You can see an example of this above where “drinking binges” is a quotation from the text. This is a very good thing to do, and something the exam board like at GCSE. It’s most sophisticated if you include quotations from other parts (i.e. ones that weren’t in your evidence) as part of your explanation of the evidence, providing you don’t try to explain/analyse those quotations as well.
Bad practice
However, what you definitely shouldn’t do is just repeat the evidence at the start of the analysis through quotation. Students do this all the time, and it is infuriating! It wastes your time (writing it) and your reader’s time (reading it) and it sounds bad. Do NOT do this (using the first example from this guide):
How NOT to include quotations in your explanation of the evidence
Michael Morpurgo presents the Birdman as an outsider in his society. At the start of the extract, the narrator claims that the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight.” The fact the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight” suggests that he is nocturnal, which means that he can’t see many other people… etc.
This person just wastes time repeating the evidence at the start of the explanation. Please don’t do this. Do it like we did it in our example earlier in this guide, which we’ve reproduced below for convenience.
What it’s supposed to sound like
Michael Morpurgo presents the Birdman as an outsider in his society. At the start of the extract, the narrator claims that the Birdman “would be seen outside only rarely in the daylight.” Here, we see that the Birdman is essentially nocturnal. He does not live by the same rules or routines as ordinary people in normal society, only going out at night. Because of this… etc
Writing more advanced analysis — Year 8 onwards
Writing more advanced analysis: methods, ideas and context
There are several other things that you can include in the analysis part of a PEA paragraph including analysis of a writer’s use of language, form and structure, some discussion of the big ideas that the writer is communicating through the text, and some discussion of the context of the text. Depending on what year you’re in and how much you’ve been taught, you may be expected to do these things as well, and each of them is covered in a separate guide on the website, linked above.
However — and this is extremely important — all of these more advanced analysis components have exactly the same purpose as the one we’ve discussed here: they help you to explain why the evidence proves the point.
That is always what you’re trying to do in your analysis. You’re trying to prove your point. Successful analysis creates a convincing argument that proves the point.
When reasoning isn’t really required — ideas-based points
One final caveat to add to this guide relates to when you make ideas-based points. If you’re in Year 7 at SHSG then you don’t need to worry about this at all, so just ignore this part of the guide for now. However, if you’re older and you’re explaining evidence in ideas-based paragraphs, then this applies to you.
If your point is ideas-based then you just need to explain what the evidence means.
You will link the evidence back to the point when you explain the big ideas that are suggested by the evidence. You won’t need to explain the reasoning behind an inference in quite the same way because your point will be based on what you think the writer is saying about big ideas.
As such you will create a convincing argument through how well you are able to link your evidence to the ideas in your point. It’s the same basic principle, but it involves going outside the text. We discuss this in a lot more detail in our guide to writing about big ideas.
Summing up – key things to remember when explaining evidence
The purpose of your analysis is always to explain why the evidence proves the point
Explaining evidence is like showing your working in maths
To do this you generally need to do two things:
first, explain what the evidence means — always required
second, explain the reasoning behind your inference — generally required, but not always
Reasoning generally relies on at least one of two things, which you may have to explain in your analysis:
first, an understanding of how human nature and human society works
second, an understanding of other things that have happened in the text
There are other, more complex things your reasoning might rely upon (e.g. the analysis of language, form and structure), and we have separate guides for these things, but when you’re doing them, you’re still trying to achieve the same objective: explaining why the evidence proves the point.
If you have ideas-based paragraph points, you won’t need to explain the reasoning when you explain the evidence as your link to the point will come when you explain big ideas.