What is an Analytical Essay?
An analytical essay is one that spells out and discusses a particular subject in depth. The manner of this analysis is defined by the thesis, which is then broken down and each of its sections is examined in detail through the rest of the essay.
The aim of an analytical essay is to explain something, not to describe it. Thus, the essay cannot be a summarization and is instead an exploration of the subject. Unlike in an argumentative essay, the thesis here is looked at from all angles, including both its weaknesses and strengths, as the goal is to inform rather than persuade.
This kind of essay is often assigned to assess students’ understanding of the subject or their critical thinking skills.
Parts of an Analytical Essay
Like most other essays, analytical essays have three parts, each serving a specific function.
1. Introduction
The essay is begun by briefly sketching out the context and background information needed to understand the essay. Besides this, the introduction also narrows down the focus of the essay through the thesis statement.
Ideally, the introduction is short, confined to one paragraph. However, depending on the content that needs to be conveyed, it could extend beyond that.
Thesis statement: The thesis statement is the core of the essay and determines what specifically is being analyzed and how it is approached. It is arrived at only after extensive research, following which the writer makes a decision regarding the point of view they will be adopting when writing the essay. While the thesis statement can span over more than one sentence, it must be kept as concise as possible.
2. Body
The body is the section of the essay where the actual analysis is laid out. Though it is placed second in the final order of the essay, the matter contained within this section is determined during the earlier prepping stages of the writing process.
The body is divided into multiple paragraphs, with each one focusing on a single topic stated in the (often, opening) topic sentence. These topics are derived from the various elements of the thesis, which are separately examined in each paragraph, with logical reasoning that justifies the point being made. Factual evidence such as research studies and statistics may also be included.
3. Conclusion
The final section of the essay brings it to a close. The conclusion does not introduce any further points to the essay, but winds it up with a quick summary and succinct comment. It also recalls the thesis and declares its status after the analysis in the essay’s body.
Outline for Analytical Essays
- Introduction:
-
- A broader context to the essay and its subject is provided.
- The precise focus of the essay is defined in the thesis statement that usually rounds out the introduction.
- Body:
-
- The analysis and evidence is presented over multiple paragraphs.
- Each paragraph deals with one element of the thesis’ claim/argument/assumption.
- The number of paragraphs varies, depending on the number of points needed to properly analyze the subject according to the thesis. Often, a minimum of three paragraphs is expected.
- Each paragraph begins with the topic sentence, which concisely states the paragraph’s main point.
- The rest of the paragraph expands on the point. The logic that led to its assumption is laid out, and supporting evidence is cited.
- Conclusion:
-
- The analysis in the body and its relation to the thesis is summed up.
- No new points are introduced, but a comment on the implications of the analysis is included at the end.
Example of an Analytical Essay
This essay on Operation Anaconda is an example of an analytical essay.
- Introduction:
The writer begins by telling the reader about what Operation Anaconda is and where it took place.
“In the mountainous Shah-i-Khot region south of the city of Gardez in Eastern Afghanistan, Operation Anaconda took place early March 2002. Operation Anaconda, to this day, stands as the largest reported ground action in the Afghan war. This 17-day battle led to eight U.S. casualties and over 50 wounded. Operation Anaconda is viewed as a success due to coalition forces being able to kill and root out several hundred Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, which left U.S. and coalition forces in control of the Shah-i-Khot Valley. Originally intended to be a three-day battle with light resistance, a seven-day battle ensued with intense fighting and was finally stopped on 18 March after 17 long days.”
The paragraph winds down with the thesis statement.
“The classic “Hammer and Anvil” battle approach which was utilized struggled through a number of unforeseen issues: initial intelligence reports, U.S. command structure, Afghan Forces, and ground-air coordination of air strikes/support.”
- Body:
The thesis statement already includes several points that can individually be studied further. The first body paragraph deals with one of these points, announcing it in its topic sentence, as well as putting forth a claim regarding it.
“The intelligence reports of the Shah-i-Khot Valley were faulty not due lack of effort.”
The reasons for intelligence failure are then broached.
“Several assets were used in trying to gather intelligence: human reconnaissance, aerial reconnaissance, and communication intercepts were all widely used. Initial estimates of the enemy ranged from 100-1000 enemy fighters, but after arduous discussions and reports filed in, it was determined that a better estimate was 200-300 fighters with a larger civilian population numbering somewhere around 1000. This large civilian population complicated things by nullifying most attempts of heavy air strikes and support. The portrait for the upcoming battle communicated a weak, demoralized fighting force armed with light weapons. However, in actuality, the enemy was heavily armed and motivated, numbering close to 1000. Through the use of camouflage and knowledge of the terrain, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters were able to fool U.S. and coalition forces and lure them, in some sense, into the valley without having the element of surprise. In retrospect, we can now see that the majority of enemy fighters were already dug deep into the mountainous terrain and ridgelines with heavy machine guns, RPGs, and artillery in some cases. The four villages on the valley floor were primarily deserted with few enemy fighters and even fewer civilians. Because reconnaissance teams did not collect intelligence on the vast majority of these positions, this led to faulty intelligence reports channeling through the chain of command and thus leading to the initial problems confronting Operation Anaconda.”
The second paragraph tackles a second point.
“The command structure during Operation Anaconda was detached and brought about a number of problems for U.S. and coalition forces.”
The claimed disjoint in the command structure is then justified.
“Unity of Command, a revered principle of war, was violated and ultimately affected the battle in a negative light. U.S. operations were being conducted by CENTCOM, led by General Franks. It had two main subordinate commands: Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) and Coalition Forces Air Component Command (CFACC). Both of these commands were located in the Persian Gulf as well as the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), which coordinated with CFACC on whether and how to carry out airstrikes when SOF units on the ground requested them. While General Hagenbeck was given command and control authority of Operation Anaconda, CFACC and CAOC remained in control of air component forces. This break in unity of command caused much friction in the early stages of Operation Anaconda. For instance, air support had planned to bombard enemy positions for 55 minutes; however, miscommunication led to a short bombardment. The lack of air support triggered by bad communication frustrated Afghan and Special Forces alike and led to Afghan trucks being hit heavily by pre-registered mortar fire on known choke points by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. Unity of command is crucial in conducting a successful military operation: communication flows smoothly through a unified command, but unfortunately for a non-unified command, the reverse effect holds true.”
Two more issues faced by US troops are dealt with in two separate paragraphs. They are clearly stated in the topic sentences of each.
“Another principle of war that was violated several times was the element of surprise.”
“Mass is another critical principle of war that was undermined in Operation Anaconda.”
These sentences are followed by break-downs that cite on-ground facts serving as supporting evidence. Collectively, they provide an analysis of Operation Anaconda as a whole along the lines determined by the thesis: a look at the approach used in the situation and its faults.
- Conclusion:
The final paragraph briefly sums up the conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis and adds a last forward looking comment.
“Inaccurate intelligence reports led to the misinterpretation of the enemy. The lack of a clear, cohesive command structure caused breaks in communication, which directly correlated to the absence or violation of several principles of war: surprise, maneuver, and mass. The ground to air coordination of air strikes and support, as well as the U.S. command structure are two key fallacies that came to light during Operation Anaconda. Ultimately, these issues were resolved and the learning points of operations such as this better prepare our leaders for future operations.”
