Questions: Evidence Selection and Integration in Literary Analysis

Question 1

A student writes: 'The author writes, "her hands trembled at the door," which shows she is nervous.' This passage is an example of:

• A. Strong analysis that explains how the specific language choice proves the claim
• B. Effective evidence integration using the CEE (Claim–Evidence–Explanation) structure
• C. Paraphrase masquerading as analysis — it restates what the quotation says rather than explaining what the specific language does
• D. A dropped quotation with no integration whatsoever

Answer: (C)

The sentence restates the quotation in slightly different terms ('trembled' → 'nervous') without explaining what the specific word 'trembled' does — why this word rather than another, what it implies about her emotional state, how it contributes to the argument. Analysis must explain the mechanism: how the specific language choice produces the claimed effect. Paraphrase only confirms the writer read the passage; it does not constitute literary argument.

Question 2

An analyst argues that a character's silence functions as a form of resistance. Which of the following quotations best supports this specific claim?

• A. A passage describing the character as generally quiet and withdrawn in social settings
• B. A passage where the character says nothing when directly confronted by the antagonist about their disobedience
• C. A passage where another character comments on how little the protagonist speaks
• D. A passage that establishes the character's introverted personality through their internal monologue

Answer: (B)

Evidence selection requires choosing passages that specifically support the argument being made, not merely passages related to the topic. The argument is that silence functions as resistance — meaning the silence must occur at moments of conflict where it can plausibly be read as defiance. Only option B places silence directly at a moment of confrontation where the character's non-response has clear oppositional weight. Options A, C, and D establish quietness as a trait but do not link it to resistance.

Question 3

In literary analysis, textual evidence proves your argument — a well-chosen quotation speaks for itself, and the reader can draw the necessary connections.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is the most pervasive misconception in literary writing. Evidence never proves itself. The reader should not be left to infer why a quotation is there or how it connects to the claim. The analysis sentence — which explains what specific language choices do and why they prove the specific claim — is where the argument actually lives. A quotation without analysis is a dropped quotation; it produces description, not argument.

Question 4

When a piece of evidence complicates your argument, the strongest analytical response is often to revise your claim rather than find different evidence.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Sophisticated literary analysis is built through engagement with evidence, not despite it. When evidence complicates a claim, ignoring or replacing it produces a weaker, less intellectually honest argument. Revising the claim to accommodate the complication — refining it to be more precise or more nuanced — produces stronger analysis. The relationship between evidence and claim is bidirectional: evidence does not just prove claims, it shapes them.

Question 5

What is the difference between paraphrase and analysis in literary writing, and why does the distinction matter for making an argument?

Model answer: Paraphrase restates what the quotation says in different words. Analysis explains what the quotation does — how specific language choices (word selection, imagery, syntax, tone) produce the effect being claimed. The distinction matters because literary argument requires explaining causation: this specific language choice creates this specific effect, which proves this specific claim. Paraphrase only confirms that the writer read the passage; analysis demonstrates that the writer understands how the writing works and why it constitutes evidence for the argument.

The test for whether you have written analysis rather than paraphrase: could a different passage prove the same point equally well? If yes, you haven't yet explained what is specifically evidential about this language. Analysis answers: what does this word, image, or construction do that another could not? When you can answer that, you have moved from paraphrase to argument.