What is Summary and What is Analysis?

Beginning writers often have trouble distinguishing between summary and analysis. Remember that summary is a statement of what the writer has said. It is not an analysis or a criticism. Rather, you write the most important points using your own words.


Analysis is different. The idea of analysis is to break a written work into smaller pieces so that you can understand each piece. An analysis should answer questions such as

• Is this article important?
• Does the writer accomplish his or her purpose in writing it?
• Is the logic sound or are there logical errors?
• Are the facts accurate?
• Are the interpretations of those facts accurate as well?
• Does the writer use statistics or other forms of data? Are those statistics accurate?
• Is the writer correct about anything?
• Does the writer have a bias?
• Is the writer appealing to emotions in an unfair way?
• Is there new research or evidence that may have emerged since the article was written?

In the space below, I am going to discuss summary and analysis of Michael Crichton's article "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves."  The article is found in this blog two posts below.


                   


Summary:  Crichton states that scientists predicted massive famine because of overpopulation and that this prediction was wrong.


Analysis: What you claim depends on your point of view, but sample analysis comments are:

• Agreement: In fact, Crichton is correct; massive starvation did not occur. It would help to cite evidence for this type of argument.
• Partial agreement: While starvation did not occur in the large numbers predicted by many scientists, many millions did die of hunger and its complications. We are not generally aware of it because it happened in the developing world and was largely invisible to us.
• Different interpretation of the facts: massive starvation did not occur because people heeded the warnings and worked to prevent disaster by increasing food production and decreasing birth rates.

Summary: Crichton claims there is no evidence showing that cell phones are hazardous to health.


Analysis: Again, what you argue depends on your point of view, but here are a few samples:

• Only a few studies have shown links and most of those have been done by the same small group of researchers. Thus, we cannot eliminate the possibility of bias.
• A growing body of research done in China and Sweden indicates that cell phones may cause serious health effects.
• Studies have underestimated the potential harm of cell phones because these studies did not control for the use of cordless phones or wireless routers, which also expose people to microwave radiation.

Note the types of arguments being made: researcher bias and design flaws in the experiment.


Summary: Crichton states that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. Early estimates indicated temperature increases of up to 30 degrees. The estimate is now 4 degrees, a very small rise.


Analysis:

• The 4 degree figure is an average. In some places of the world, the average increase is higher; in other parts, it is lower. Therefore, a blanket average is misleading.
• Research conducted since 2004, when the article was written, have reinforced the conclusion that global warming is indeed a serious issue.

Summary: Predicted disasters almost never happen, so why worry?

• Often, people promoting scare stories have their own agenda--selling newspapers, for example. Therefore, one should always be skeptical of sensational stories.
• The fact that many predicted disasters never happened is no reason to ignore them. Some disasters--such as massive, world-wide starvation didn't happen because people worked to prevent them. Others, such as 911 happened in part because politicians ignored credible threats.