Consider the analysis of each element to be a "round" of analysis. Therefore, the number of "rounds" ought to equal the number of sentences in the original argument. It is important to remember that there ought to be a single claim per argument, but there may be multiple of any of the other elements. Therefore, you should check if the author has offered more than one data sentence before moving on to the optional elements of an argument. Unfortunately, there is a higher risk of error during this "double-check" because there is no requirement for additional data for any given claim. Another complication that arises during this step is when a warrant is implicit rather than explicit. There are times when none of the sentences seem to fill the role of warrant for the claim and data. Additionally, if an author offers several different kinds of data to support a single claim, it is likely that there are several warrants that are also part of the argument.
For our argument, each round, and its results, would be as follows:
| Round | Element | Sentences | Result |
| 1 | Claim | a vs b = a vs = a vs c.i = a a vs c.ii = a a vs d = a | The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. |
| 2 | Data | b vs c.i = b vs = b b vs c.ii = b b vs d = b | The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. |
| 3 | Warrant | c.i vs c.ii = c.ii vs = c.ii vs d = c.ii | The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared…. But the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior. . |
| 4 | Additional data? | c.i. = No = No | No change |
| 5 | Additional data? | D = no | No change |