Essay Too Descriptive? How to Add Critical Analysis

Description gives information; analysis explains its significance

You need both. A reader cannot assess your argument without knowing what your source says. The problem is a paragraph that stops at reporting sources and leaves the reader to work out the conclusion.

Critical writing does not require disagreeing with every source. You can accept an argument while explaining its scope. Your unit’s task and marking rubric determine the balance; there is no universal percentage of description to remove.

Worked example: revise the reasoning, not just the wording

Invented practice scenario, not research evidence: a university library trials evening opening for two weeks. Its report says more students visited; a voluntary questionnaire says visitors liked the quiet space. The question is whether the university should extend evening hours permanently. No real study or citation is implied.

Draft: mostly descriptive

The library opened in the evening for two weeks. The report recorded more visits, and the questionnaire found that visitors liked the quiet space. Evening opening was popular.

This tells us what happened. It does not establish whether a permanent extension is justified.

Revision: a supported, limited judgement

The trial supports continuing evening access on a provisional basis, because increased visits suggest that students used the additional hours. However, a two-week observation cannot establish whether demand would persist across the semester. The voluntary questionnaire describes the views of responding visitors, so it cannot show how students who did not attend would use the service. A longer trial that records attendance and operating costs would provide a firmer basis for a permanent decision.

The revision makes four moves: a judgement, a reason grounded in the reported evidence, a limit on that evidence, and a next step tied to the decision. It does not invent a cost figure or claim that more visits improved grades. In your real essay, cite the actual evidence using the referencing style your course requires.

Turn a rubric descriptor into a visible revision

Suppose a practice rubric asks you to “evaluate evidence and justify conclusions”. This is an illustrative criterion, not a university marking scheme. Look for the work those verbs require:

1. Evaluate: identify a relevant strength or limitation. In the example, the brief trial limits what we know about sustained demand.
2. Justify: connect your recommendation to the evidence. Continued provisional access follows from observed use; permanent expansion needs more information.
3. Answer the task: check that your final sentence addresses the decision about opening hours, rather than making a general claim about libraries.

Highlight the sentence that performs each action. If you cannot find one, you have a specific revision task. Do not award yourself a mark from this example: use your own assessment criteria and seek clarification when a descriptor is unclear.

A five-minute check on your own paragraph

1. Write the assignment question above the paragraph.
2. Underline your claim and circle the evidence supporting it.
3. After the evidence, finish this thought in your own words: “This supports my claim because…”
4. Identify one relevant limit or alternative explanation. Explain its effect instead of adding a generic criticism.
5. Read your conclusion again. Is it stronger than the evidence allows?

If you have no evidence for a claim, return to your reading. If you have evidence but no explanation, add the missing connection. If the paragraph answers a different question, revise its focus before polishing grammar.