Does testing process include analysing & reducing the bugs?

A tester finds a bug. What is the next step? Does he need to analyse and reduce the bug case? or he can just report it and continue testing? The perception of the people differs in this case.

Some people argue that a tester's job is not finished with finding a bug. He needs to analyse the cause for the bug and he should reduce the bug and then he has to report with clear details. 

But some other argue that tester's job is only to find the bugs. Which one is best?

I shall add some points in the tester's point.I hope the testers wont accept to analyse the bug. I also feel the same. It may be difficult to accept by the developers and the management. I feel that, after finding a bug, a tester shall report the bug with the data which he/ she has. He can add a video explaining the bug.That is more than enough. Shortly he can go ahead with his testing, that is finding the bugs.

The thing is, a Tester should always feel that there is still more bugs are hidden and he needs to find then. Tester cannot spend his time to analyse a single bug, that can be done at any time. Even that can be done by a developer. 

          And we should accept a general truth. A tester needs to test "n" number of test cases to find a bug, he may face a bug at his 2nd test case or he may get it after testing 100 cases. And many factors decide this gap. Tester's concentration, knowledge, experience, logical thinking, quality of the code, the difficulty of the application etc..So probably he need to spend more and more time with the application to assure the quality.

So definitely the time which is spent to analyse the bugs, will reduce the Tester's concentration and continuity of testing. This will have direct impact on the quality of the software. So we can say that for a tester, "Finding more number of bugs" is highly important than "Analysing the bugs"