The steps below are going to take you through a process of changing a 10-step analysis of an argument into two or more paragraphs.  The first paragraph that you write will mainly just present the original author's argument in the best possible light.   (In some cases this might take more than a single paragraph.)  Then the second (or next) paragraph(s) will be where you present your analysis of their argument.  Here's how we'll write these paragraphs:

1. Consider your audience.  (Where might your writing be published? What does your audience already know about your subject?  What preconceptions might they have?  How will your observations work with or against their expectations?  Why would they want to read about this topic?)

2. Using information primarily from steps 1 and 2 of your analysis try to present the argument you analyzed as clearly and faithfully as possible in paragraph form.  Be charitable to the author and try to present their position in the best possible light, characterizing their view in a way that they would accept.

3. Using information from steps 4, 5, and 10 of your analysis present your analysis of their position in paragraph form.  Are you mostly in agreement with their sound argument?  If so, explain why the points they make seem so compelling, perhaps offering additional support.  Did you instead find their argument to be unsound and hence disagree about at least one premise or assumption?  Mention here which premises and assumptions seemed doubtful to you and why.  Or perhaps you find yourself unable to agree or disagree with their conclusion because of a lack of some key information. If so, explain.

4. If you found in step 3 of your analysis that the author relies on an assumption you find uncontroversially true, then it could likely be included in your presentation of their position (first paragraph).  Make sure to note that you are including it as something assumed but not stated.  However, if they rely on a questionable assumption it would be best introduced and addressed in your subsequent analysis paragraphs.

5. Information from steps 6, 7, and 8 can be appropriate in different places depending on your findings.  If your author defines terms well, answers all your questions, and avoids trying to simply influence you with the connotations of the words or images they choose, you might praise them for this in the paragraph that presents their position.  However, if they fail at any of these, then criticizing them on these points would be appropriate in your subsequent analysis paragraphs.  Often this information detracts from your main points and would be best left out.

6. Finally, while the validity of their argument is crucial to its ultimate success, most people do not understand the precise philosophical use of the term 'valid' and talking about it with most audiences only makes you look like a nitpicking twit.  I would encourage you to use the terms 'sound' and 'unsound' correctly and avoid using the terms 'valid' and 'invalid' in most settings.  The exception to this could be when the argument you analyzed is hopelessly invalid and it is not clear what assumptions should be included to repair it.  In such a case, your primary complaint against the author might be that the argument is invalid and so it would be impossible to avoid discussing it.  In that case, continue to use the terms correctly and consider using colloquial expressions that amount to the same thing like, "the author's conclusion simply does not follow from his premises and so his argument fails."