So, a sentence or two might describe and reference the evidence, but this is not enough in itself. The next few sentences need to explain what this evidence contributes to the argument you are making. This may feel like duplication at first, or that you are explaining something that is obvious, but it is your responsibility to ensure that the relevance of the evidence is explained to the reader; you should not simply assume that the reader will be following the same logic as you, or will just work out the relevance of the quote or data you have described.
In my own first semester of college, I enrolled in a logic course that turned out to be a fortuitous complement to freshman composition. In hindsight, had I a few years later provided my own students with the same benefits of direct instruction in syllogisms, logical fallacies, and Venn diagrams, they might have found it easier to demonstrate critical thinking in their writing. Tragically, the "Thinking and Writing" course was widely known across campus as a weed-out class because many students struggled to construct and support sound arguments. The real culprit, though, may have been that too few of us instructors understood that although writing and thinking may be linked, students don't learn to think just by learning to write; rather, to learn to write, they need to learn to think.