Despite our best efforts, sometimes the evidence we employ does not actually support the premises or claims we make immediately preceding it. Similarly, the way we analyze our evidence doesn’t always accurately engage with its meaning. These rhetorical disturbances are called evidentiary disconnects, moments where our use of or engagement with our evidence does not align with the reality of what the evidence demonstrates. Identifying and addressing these moments is important because they impact the extent to which our readers trust the evidence and analysis we include to make our argument. 

The causes of evidentiary disconnects are legion. They include, but are not limited to, using the wrong signal phrase to introduce evidence, failing to completely unpack an idea before moving on to another one, assuming that your audience understands the value your evidence has for your argument, or simply misunderstanding the evidence. Sometimes our own biases—or desire for the evidence to prove our claims—color our use of the evidence, leading us, however innocently, to manipulate its meaning.

This entry offers a strategy for checking the connection between our claims and the evidence we use to support them by looking for the elements of the “quote sandwich”—a three-part method where writers introduce a premise or claim, contextualize and integrate evidence supporting that claim into their text, and analyze the evidence to establish its significance in relation to their own claim—and revising to fill in any gaps.

Step 1: For each piece of evidence in your text, highlight the three components of the “quote sandwich” as follows: highlight the premise or claim the evidence is intended to support in green, the evidence (quote or paraphrase) in yellow, and your analysis of that evidence in blue.

Step 2: Reread each premise or claim and create a marginal note distilling it into a short phrase or single sentence that captures its purpose (the “so what?”). Your aim here is to identify what key point you want readers to understand and why that point is important to your argument.

Step 3: Copy and paste each piece of evidence into a new blank document. This is The Vacuum, a space where you can isolate the specific part of a text you want to work with from your larger project. Working in this document, reread each piece of evidence and write 2-3 sentences summarizing its meaning and purpose, focusing on accurately capturing the writer’s argument and its significance outside the context of your own project. In addition to your summary, make note of any context that might help readers better understand the evidence.

Step 4: Compare the marginal note for each premise or claim to the summary of the corresponding evidence that you wrote in Step 3. Does the evidence actually support that premise or claim? If so, great! Move to Step 5. If not, you may need to rethink your evidence.

Step 5: Reread your analysis of your evidence and compare it to the corresponding summary of that evidence you wrote in Step 3. Does your analysis accurately engage with the meaning of that evidence? Does it establish a clear “so what?” for the reader by explaining the significance of the evidence in relation to your broader argument? If so, great! If not, revise the analysis so that it (a) logically draws on the evidence in question and (b) explains the significance of that evidence in the context of your project.

Note: Even if you don’t put every single piece of evidence in your text through the process described above, stepping back to clarify the premise or claim you want to make, distill the meaning of your evidence, and review the logic of your analysis, and practicing this kind of relational thinking can help you prioritize the moments when you make claims that are especially crucial to your argument.

Example: 

The following excerpt comes from a student essay:

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society. As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

Step 1: Identify and Mark Each Quote Sandwich

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society.As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

Step 2: Distill Each Premise or Claim

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society.

Distillation: Barthian Myth making marks Standard English as elect at the expense of other forms of English.

Step 3: Summarize Each Piece of Evidence

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

Summary: When a member of the dominant class flippantly imitates BAVE, they weaken the power of BAVE to act as a space of resistance.

Context: “this speech” refers to Black American Vernacular English.

Step 4: Compare the Premise or Claim to the Evidence

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society.

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

Here, the premise—centered on the process of myth-making—seems adjacent to but disconnected from the central claim of the evidence, which is not about how Standard English invalidates BAVE but how the aping of BAVE by “white kids” diminishes the power of BAVE as a language of resistance.

Verdict: There is an evidentiary disconnect, so the writer needs to either (a) choose new evidence that accurately supports the stated claim or (b) rewrite the claim so that it connects to the evidence at hand.

Step 5: Compare the Evidence to the Analysis. Revise as Needed.

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

Summary: When a member of the dominant class flippantly imitates BAVE, they weaken the power of BAVE to act as a space of resistance.

Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

At first blush, the analysis appears to logically follow the claim made by the evidence. But upon further consideration, we see a leap in the writer’s logic. How do we move from the linguistic parroting of BAVE by “white kids” to processes of internalization in the Black Community? Further, the second sentence of the response doesn’t really address the claim in the quote but the claims made in the premise immediately preceding the it. 

Verdict: There is an evidentiary disconnect, so the writer needs to address the logical gap so that readers understand the connections between the premise or claim, the evidence, and the analysis.

Revised Quote Sandwich:

The primacy of Standard English as a marker of cultural capital in the public sphere often invalidates, stereotypes, and subjugates Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society. When the language of a marginalized social body breaks into the public sphere it can act as a form of dissent challenging the primacy of Standard English by showing society a new mode of expression. Though, moving into the public sphere comes with some risk. As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). For Hooks, Hip-Hop—though a vital form of Black expression—has the potential to invalidate the very language it celebrates. When “white kids” consume and treat the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit or something to be blithely echoed at a concert, they diminish the revolutionary potential of BAVE as a site of resistance that challenges the hegemony of Standard English in the public sphere.

For more exercises that help you assess the logic of your argument, see “Do Your Paragraphs and Sections Build Toward an Argument? The Uneven U as a Tool to Check,” “Do Your Topic Sentences and Paragraphs Align: Thinking Through the Vacuum,” “Fractured Logic and Unconnected Claims? Argument as a Matter of Hierarchy,” “Where’s This Section Going? Signposting to Connect Claims,” and “Does Each Topic Sentence State the Purpose of That Paragraph? Check Topic Sentences for Signaling.”