A student writes a body paragraph where 70% of the text is a block quotation from a source, followed by one sentence: 'This shows my point is correct.' What is the fundamental problem with this paragraph?
AThe block quotation is too long and should be broken into shorter quotes
BThe student should have paraphrased instead of quoting
CThe paragraph lacks follow-up analysis — the student has presented evidence but not explained its significance or connected it to the argument
DThe signal phrase is missing, so the reader doesn't know who is being quoted
The deeper problem is the absence of analysis — the 'so what?' that connects evidence to the argument. 'This shows my point is correct' is circular, not analytical. Analysis explains *why* the evidence supports the claim, what it means in context, and how it advances the writer's specific argument. Without it, evidence sits inert on the page. The overuse of block quotations is also a symptom: heavy reliance on long quotes often signals that a writer hasn't processed the source enough to identify and analyze the key passages. Both problems stem from the same failure — treating evidence as a destination rather than a starting point.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A writer is analyzing a poem and wants to reference the poet's unusually evocative three-word phrase. Which integration technique is most appropriate, and why?
ASummarize — condensing the poem's main argument is always most efficient
BParaphrase — restating the phrase in your own words demonstrates comprehension
CQuote — when the source's exact language is the object of analysis, preserving it is essential
DSummarize or paraphrase depending on the writer's preference, since the choice is arbitrary
Quote when the source's exact language matters — and in literary analysis, it almost always does, because the specific words are the evidence. If you're analyzing an 'unusually evocative phrase,' the phrase itself must appear verbatim so the reader can see what you're analyzing. Paraphrasing would destroy the evidence. Summarizing would lose the specific language entirely. The choice among quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing is a *rhetorical* decision based on what matters: exact wording (quote), specific idea in your own framing (paraphrase), or overall argument/findings (summarize).
Question 3 True / False
Paraphrasing correctly means replacing key words with synonyms while keeping the original sentence structure intact.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This describes the most common form of inadequate paraphrase — sometimes called 'patchwriting' — which is typically treated as a form of plagiarism even when citations are present. Genuine paraphrase requires restructuring the sentence and expressing the idea in entirely your own language, which demonstrates that you have comprehended the source rather than just rearranged its surface features. The test of a real paraphrase: could you write it without looking at the original? If you need the original in front of you to 'change words,' you are not paraphrasing — you are copying with synonyms.
Question 4 True / False
Follow-up analysis after a piece of evidence is the most critical part of the evidence sandwich because it is where the writer's voice does its real argumentative work.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
The introduction (signal phrase) and the evidence itself are mostly transactional — they bring the source into the text. The follow-up analysis is where interpretation happens: the writer explains what the evidence means, why it supports the specific claim being made, and how it advances the argument. Without this analysis, evidence piles up as data without significance — the reader must guess the connection. With strong analysis, each piece of evidence becomes a deliberate argumentative move. This is also why evidence integration is inseparable from critical thinking: the analysis is the thinking, made visible on the page.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why is the choice between quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing a rhetorical and argumentative decision rather than a matter of personal preference or convenience?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Each technique makes a different argumentative claim about the source. Quoting says: the exact language matters — the phrasing itself is what I need the reader to see. Paraphrasing says: I have understood the idea well enough to express it in my own terms, and my framing serves the argument better than the original wording. Summarizing says: the overall claim or finding is what matters, not the specific language or detail. These are choices about what evidence to present and how — which means they shape the argument itself. A writer who quotes when paraphrase would give more control, or who summarizes when a close quote is needed, is making a weaker argument, not just a different stylistic choice.
The deeper principle is that integration IS analysis. Selecting a phrase to quote is already claiming it matters. Choosing to paraphrase rather than quote takes responsibility for the interpretation. Writing the follow-up analysis answers the reader's implicit 'so what?' Every decision about source material is an argumentative decision — there is no neutral, mechanical option.