Chapter 28. DISAGREEMENT      Introduction   Basics   Advanced   Samples   Activities --- Basics of Disagreement --- Why?           Starting                                         Organizing                       Revising & Editing           --- Introduction This section explains the basics of writing and revising a disagreement--why a disagreement exists and how to start, organize, and edit it.  You may want to first see the "Introduction" before reading this page.  Be sure, before or after reading this "Basics" page, to see "Sample Papers" by students.  For more advanced information, go to "Advanced Methods."                  Why This Type of Paper?    The heart of a disagreement is a resistance to something someone else is saying.  Your resistance can take the form of believing the opposite or simply believing something a bit different.  An academic or professional disagreement--that is, a formal disagreement--should never be an emotional fight or a "loud" or unpleasant argument.  To the contrary, a formal disagreement should be--and sound--fair, logical, and balanced, showing respect for the opposing person.   In addition, really, this chapter could be titled "Writing a Disagreement and an Occasional Agreement" or, as it might be expressed in scholarly circles, "Writing a (Dis)Agreement."  This is because in the standard formal disagreement, it often is possible to also agree with an author or person.  In such a case, your paper would have some points of disagreement and some of agreement.  However, usually college instructors do not want "agreement" papers: papers in which there is complete agreement.  There are two good--and connected--reasons for this: one is that little intellectual growth is accomplished when people simply agree with someone else; the second is that when people respond to an argument by writing agreements, they tend to do a very poor job of providing new supporting details--new reasons and supports for why the argument is good.  As a result, many instructors will not let you agree in any way at all, even briefly, in a formal response.  Others may allow you to agree to one point (or perhaps two out of four), but only if you contribute substantial new thought and detail even when you agree completely.  Often in a disagreement paper, it is quite acceptable to use the introduction or conclusion to briefly mention a few points with which you agree.  However, before you write any long section of agreement, be sure to ask your instructor what he or she wants. Formal disagreement has many uses in college and the professional world. In academic courses, it is useful for learning to argue with or against an author and her points of view or themes. Disagreement especially is very useful in developing your skills for research writing, abstract reasoning, and debate. It also helps you learn to bring your own experiences into academic debate in a useful manner. In general, disagreements are important for intelligent academic thinking. The ability to read or listen to other points of view, consider what you have read or heard, and then accept or reject parts of it logically, based on your own experiences or research, is perhaps one of the most important abilities you will learn in college. When you write a disagreement, you are learning to create a fair, reasoned, and careful discussion to show, first, what an author says and then, second, to either support or criticize him or her through your own experience or by researching the experiences of others. This process of reading/listening, then critiquing in a fair manner, is the heart of making free, intelligent decisions in both the classroom and the world. In addition, a more immediate use for the skill of writing a disagreement is the ability to write good research papers.  In writing from research, you often must not only present facts, but also disagree with an author or analyze what he or she says.  This ability to summon information and reach a conclusion different from that of one or more research sources is fundamental to being able to think academically.    In the world of work, disagreement also is an important skill.  Though disagreements are not always common in some professions, in others you may be called upon to write a position paper or predictive paper stating what the opposition will say or do, you may be asked to develop both the pros and the cons for a project or the hiring of a person, or you may need to assess your own strengths and weaknesses accurately as well as those of others.  All of these skills require good oppositional thinking (and good dialogical or dialectic "resolution" thinking to help you resolve the oppositions--see the chapter called "Writing a Dialogic Paper").  Writing disagreements also helps you learn to agree or disagree, formally or informally, with those in your workplace in a fair, balanced, reasoned, and cautious manner, using examples to prove your own point of view. --- Return to top.              How Will You Start?    The major section of WritingforCollege.org called "Starting" offers a number of useful ways to start thinking, speaking, and writing about a subject. The advice here, which follows, is for this chapter's type of paper in particular.  Starting by Reading Generally your very first focus should be on the text of the reading (or on the other subject) with which you will disagree.  To start, you may find your paper easier to write if you find a text that you understand easily and thoroughly.  You should be able to understand the text well enough not only in content, but also in structure, such that you can easily see its individual points.  You also must be able to treat it very objectively, without finding it upsetting.   This major section of WritingforCollege.org has, within it, five chapters discussing how to respond to texts in five specific ways.  Because you always must start with a text, all five chapters of these chapters have these three paragraphs in common.  To see more about how to start with a text, please go to the brief summary and resource page "How to Start Your Paper by Reading."  If you are not starting with a text but rather a subject, much of the same advice still applies.  In other words, be sure that you know your subject well.  Writing Your Disagreement Once you've carefully read your text, start writing.  You can start by freewriting, by organizing/outlining, by collecting and/or expanding upon your critical-reading notes you've already made, or simply by writing your point-by-point disagreements.  You also can write about your feelings in disagreement with what you read, or even about images that occurred to you as you read the text.  Whichever method you choose, you probably will want to get as much of your thinking on paper as you can at the beginning. The tone with which you begin should be whatever tone works for you in the beginning in order to get your thoughts on the page.  In other words, if you must have or develop a strong feeling--such as indignation, anger, hurt, surprise, etc.--to disagree for your first draft, then do so.  However, sooner or later--in the first or a later draft--the final tone you should achieve is one of calm, reasoned, fair, balanced reason.  You must, in other words, in tone and word choice, imply that you are being very logical.  You may, if you wish, have an added overtone of strength or forceful decisiveness, as long as the tone clearly suggests you are being as fair, calm, and logical as possible.  You also may have added overtones of slight sadness at how the opposite side is wrong, positive feelings of how good it would be for affected people if they accepted your viewpoint, care and concern, or other like tones. When you focus on organizing--at whatever stage you do so--you'll need to be sure in the very first sentence of each section that your readers understand that you are disagreeing with the author: do not start each section simply by quoting or explaining the author, or it may sound like you are merely summarizing, analyzing, or supporting the author, rather than disagreeing with him or her.  Also be sure--as you build your paper--that you have plenty of quotations from the author so that the reader can see exactly how the author develops his/her thinking.  If you are assigned to do so, you may need quotations from other sources, as well, primarily to help support the points you are making.  Because you, yourself, are not a professional expert, you are depending--in a research paper--on quotations and paraphrases from the professional experts.  --- Return to top.           What Are Some Organizing Methods?    When organizing a disagreement, you may want to consider three practical matters.  Be aware of (1) the typical visual/textual design, (2) the central key to organizing this type of paper, and (3) dangers to avoid.  General principles of organization are described in detail in the "Organizing" chapter.  Specific details for this type of paper are below.   The "Introduction" has already shown you the following organization for a ___ ____________________ _________________________:     The Visual Plan or Map Unique Title       THE READING, YOUR DISAGREEMENT, and introductory details       Body Section 1: first disagreement and supporting details Body Section 2: second disagreement and supporting details Body Section 3: third disagreement and supporting details (Optional Body Section 4: fourth disagreement and supporting details)       THE READING, YOUR DISAGREEMENT, and concluding details     Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al.   Here is a more detailed view of this structure.  This view is a visual and textual plan of how an evaluation generally looks when it is finished.             `         Your Own Unique Title--Not the Title of the Essay You Read*       Introduction**           Type/purpose of paper.  Source info: Author's Name, "Essay"/Title, & author's main argument. Your overall disagreement/agreement.  Introductory quotation/details.  [1 par.]       (Optional: Summary)***           Summary of the text (optional).  Restate author's last name 1-2 times per paragraph; summarize the text accurately, completely, and briefly.  (See "Writing a Summary.")  This should be your shortest body section.  [1+ par.] First Unique Subtitle           (a) "First, the author is wrong when he/she says...," (b) discussion using quotations/paraphrases from your reading's text using (c) details supporting your opinions (such as quotations/paraphrases from other sources, your or others' personal experiences, facts, figures, etc.), and (d) a brief, concluding sentence or paragraph summarizing the entire topic section.  [2+ par.]    Second Unique Subtitle           "Second, she is wrong when...," discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]  Third Unique Subtitle           "Third, she is wrong when...," discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion.  [2+ par.]  (Optional Fourth-Fifth Unique Subtitle)           "Fourth, she is wrong when...," discussion with quotes, supporting details, & conclusion, etc.  [2+ par.]        Conclusion            Source (author and/or title).  Author's argument and your overall (dis)agreement.  (Final thoughts.)  Final quotation/details.  [1 par.]       Works Cited/Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al. Create an alphabetized bibliography on a separate page, according to the requirements of your discipline/instructor.  Formats vary among differing disciplines.  (See the chapter in Section G. "Quoting/Paraphrasing" for more detail.)                    Two Keys to Building a Disagreement The first key to the overall organization of a disagreement relates to your personal point of view.  You need to have three or four main points of disagreement (one of which might be an agreement, if your instructor will accept it), and there are two main ways to do so  To start either way, you may need to list the three or four main points of disagreement clearly and simply.  These points will determine your body sections.  You will have one main body section--one topic section--per disagreement.  How should you list or write them?  Choose either one of these two main two ways: TWO WAYS TO START ORGANIZING A--AUTHOR'S POINTS 1. Author's first point with which you disagree 2. Author's second point with which you disagree 3. Author's third point with which you disagree (4. Author's fourth point with which you disagree)                     B--YOUR DISAGREEMENT 1. Your first main disagreement with the author 2. Your second main disagreement with the author 3. Your third main disagreement with the author (4. Your fourth main disagreement with the author) Both of these ways are quite acceptable starting methods, and you should use whichever one seems best for the way you like to think, for the particular essay or book you are reading, and for your comfort in figuring out what you want to say.  However, by the time you write a second or third draft, it is of equal importance to consider the second important key to organizing: audience. The second key to the overall organization of a disagreement is your audience's point of view.  You must make it clear at the very beginning of each major body section that you are disagreeing.  Otherwise, your audience may think that you are going to agree with the author, to analyze, or to evaluate.  The way to establish that you are disagreeing  is simply to state it.  You can do so once you are ready to write a second or third draft, or you can start each body section this way in your first draft--if doing so makes the first draft easier to write.  Here are several sample sentences, each of which is a standard type of first sentence for your first major topic section: EXAMPLES OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF A TOPIC SECTION First, Smith is wrong when she says, "______" (161).               Second, Smith incorrectly says, "______" (161).                       Another way in which Smith is wrong is her _____.                     Yet another reasonable belief about this subject is _____, but Smith states the opposite.  She argues that _____. The important point in all of these sample beginnings is your clear statement that the author is wrong.  Once again, unless you start each section this way, your audience may not understand that you are disagreeing with the author: as a result, your readers may have to reread your beginning once they understand that you are opposing the author's point of view.  (If you are agreeing in one topic section with the author, then simply state this at the beginning of the section.) You also need to include several quotations from the author in each body section (more if your paper is supposed to be long).  This is important because your audience needs to hear what the author is saying from the author's own words.  In this way, your own disagreements will become clearer to your audience.  Throughout your paper, you should alternate between what the author says and what your own disagreement is (and why).  There are three basic ways to alternate between the author's ideas and yours: THREE WAYS TO ALTERNATE BETWEEN YOURSELF & AUTHOR Discuss your own disagreement at length.  Then explain the author's point of view and why, point by point, he or she is wrong.   Discuss the author's point of view first.  Then explain why she is wrong.   Use a less-common method, which is to mix the two methods above, sub-point by sub-point.  How you create your own development may depend quite a bit on how you first write your rough drafts and/or how you feel most comfortable in writing your disagreements. Here are three examples.  Each one shows how to start a topic section with the same beginning topic sentence, but with a different kind of development afterward:  Example 1: Discussing Your Disagreement First                                             First, Smith is wrong to say, "Martians should be allowed to control the dark side of the moon" (16).  He is wrong because the moon is much closer to earth; therefore it makes sense that Earth control all of it.  In addition, the moon should be a demilitarized zone that is safe for all to use.        Smith believes that Martians are "peace-loving people" who would "never attack us," even though, as he says, "they simply feel less threatened if they have bombs in their cities" (18).  He also argues that Martians appear to be much more aggressive than they really are.  Here is a closer examination of these issues, point by point....       Example 2: Discussing the Author's Viewpoint First      First, Smith is wrong to say, "Martians should be allowed to control the dark side of the moon" (16).  Smith believes that Martians are "peace-loving people" who would "never attack us," even though, as he says, "they simply feel less threatened if they have bombs in their cities" (18).  He also argues that Martians appear to be much more aggressive than they really are.         Let's examine these issues point by point.  First, The moon is much closer to earth; therefore it makes sense that Earth control all of it.  In addition, Martians may want to place military installations on the moon, but the moon should be a demilitarized zone that is safe for all to use.  Third,....              Example 3: Mixing Explanation and Disagreement, Point by Point      First, Smith is wrong to say, "Martians should be allowed to control the dark side of the moon" (16).  However, the moon is much closer to earth; therefore it makes sense that Earth control all of it.  Smith believes that Martians are "peace-loving people" who would "never attack us," even though, as he says, "they simply feel less threatened if they have bombs in their cities" (18).   However, the moon should remain a demilitarized zone that is safe for all to use.  He also argues that Martians appear to be much more aggressive than they really are.  However,....   In all three examples, blue represents the topic sentence and red represents the disagreements.  Notice that in the first example, the red disagreement section comes first.  In the second example, it comes later, after an explanation of the author's beliefs.  And in the third example, it is mixed with explanation.  Also notice, however, that the topic sentence--in blue--always comes first, so that readers know the purpose of your topic section is to disagree.  (If you were to have a topic section in which you agreed, then you would indicate that by the beginning topic sentence, too: e.g., "Smith is right about one thing when he says, "_____.") If your instructor requires it, you may also need to add quotations from other sources.  Generally, the way to this is to choose sources that help support what you are saying, and add the quotations to the places where you are explaining why you disagree (or agree).  A lesser-used method, one usually reserved for longer research papers that must disagree, is to include one or more sources that help further explain the author's point of view, in addition to a greater number of sources helping to support your own point of view.  To see how to develop each paragraph individually, see the "Paragraphing" chapter in the "Revising and Editing" section.              Dangers to Avoid as You Organize One of the dangers in a disagreement is giving too little information in the introduction.  Your introduction must make clear to the reader the name of the author and title with which you are disagreeing, the author's main point, and your own overall disagreement.   The introduction should have, in most disagreements, several basic elements: Elements of an Introduction Author's Name If you are using an essay: "The Title of the Essay" by the Author (in quotation marks) AND Its Book or Web Source of the Essay (in italics) If you are using a book: The Book Title (and, if applicable, its Web Source) (in italics if its a title of a major website) the author's main argument (in a sentence) your main disagreement (in a sentence) a "Quotation from the author" (16) (with a page number at its end) your three or four disagreements/topics (if the instructor requests it) a few sentences of explanation of the author's and/or your ideas         Here are two examples.  One is short and to the point; the other is more developed.  However, both contain all the required elements, so the one you might use depends on your own style and/or the needed style of academic or professional writing you are using. Two Examples of an Introduction Introduction            According to Weldon Smith in "Treaties with Martians" in The Martians Are Here, "We should agree to everything the Martians want" (14).  On the one hand, Smith may be right in that Martians may bring us many new technologies and interesting new cultures.  However, he places too much trust in them. He is wrong to believe everything they say, to allow their military presence close to us, and to think that Martians are completely peace loving.                Introduction            Weldon Smith, the world's foremost expert on Martians, believes, "We should agree to everything the Martians want" (14).  It is Smith's belief, which he develops in "Treaties with Martians" in The Martians Are Here, that Martian ways are completely safe, even if they appear otherwise at first glance.  However, a closer analysis shows that Smith's argument is wrong for three reasons.  First, it is dangerous because we are unable to predict how Martians believe and act.  Second, we are walking a thin, dangerous line between safety and war when we let any alien race establish its militaristic presence close to our own Earth.  Third, if Martians appear fierce and uncompromising at first, perhaps it is because they truly are this way. Usually, in your conclusion, you restate the author's last name and/or the title of what you read, the author's main argument, and your overall disagreement, and you offer a final quotation--all in whatever order seems to work best.. Another danger in developing a disagreement is beginning each topic section with only a quotation from the author.  As explained above, this may confuse your audience into thinking you plan to do something other than disagree.  You certainly may have a quotation in your first sentence, but be sure to add "X is wrong when he says," or something similar, to indicate you disagree with this particular point. A third danger is to have too few quotations from the author.  Remember that as you explain your disagreement, you need to bring in a number of quotations from the author so that the audience can see the author's own exact words with which you disagree.  You certainly should write your first and/or second draft in whatever way best works for you, even if it has no quotations.  However, by your second or third draft, you need to have plenty of quotations.  Here, for example, are two different ways, one rough and one finished, to write a paragraph that might appear in the middle or end of a topic section: Examples of a Rough Paragraph and a Finished One STILL IN ROUGH-DRAFT FORM Another way in which the author is wrong about getting rid of city trees is that she suggests people don't need trees.  She argues that trees are not necessary to city life.  She also suggests that trees actually are a nuisance.  However, she ignores several important points....              FINISHED Another way in which the author is wrong about getting rid of city trees is that she suggests, "Trees are not required for life" (16).  She argues, "A city can function fully with few trees" (18).  She also suggests, "Actually, trees are messy and require expensive maintenance" (21).  However, she ignores several important points....   As the highlighting in bold shows, the finished example--on the left--has direct quotes from the author, whereas the earlier or rough draft--on the right--does not. -----             As you complete your later drafts, look carefully at the visual map above and the sample papers in this chapter.  Rearrange the order of your body sections and of your paragraphs as needed.  Consider your use of major organizing devices: for example, have you placed the correct key sentences in your introduction and conclusion, and have you developed a subtitle and topic sentence at the beginning of each major body section?               Asterisks *, **, and *** for the organizational plan or map above (advice given in most chapters): *In most academic disciplines, the title is typed simply: no quotation marks, underlining, or bold marking.  It is centered, and the font size and style are those used in the rest of the paper--normally a 12-point font in a style such as Times New Roman, Garamond, or CG Times.  In a professional situation, you may use academic style or whatever is commonly acceptable in your workplace. ** In some disciplines, the "Introduction" subtitle may be optional or even forbidden.  (Most social sciences and psychology papers, for example, should not have an "Introduction" subtitle.)  ***Some instructors--and some types of papers or disciplines--require a short summary (see) of a text  before you begin responding to it.  Ask your instructor.  Such a summary generally should have no quotations within it and should be fair and balanced (even if the text is not).          ***Some instructors may allow--or even, occasionally, prefer--your paper to be completely free of subtitles.  (Some literature, history, and philosophy instructors, for example, consider subtitles inappropriate.)  If you use no subtitles at all, consider using an extra space break at the beginning of each body section and/or an especially strong, clear topic sentence.  In addition, some instructors may prefer you to have a series of more than four body sections.  If so, pay attention especially to the paper's flow by using good transitions. For more about organizing body sections, topic sentences, and subtitles in general, please go to "Organizing College Papers."  For more about organizing paragraphs, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter. --- Return to top.       Are There Special Revising and Editing Needs? In revising a disagreement, the focus techniques with which you started in the "Introduction" to this chapter also can help you finish your paper:     FOUR FOCUSES FOR REVISING: Subject, Drafts, Style, & Authenticity [NOTE: SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY INDIVIDUALIZED, SO FIX/CHANGE AS NEEDED:] SUBJECT: Have you stayed on the subject throughout?  In a disagreement, this means being sure that everything ties together logically, not just in your own mind but in the minds of readers.  You also need to clearly explain each quotation to your readers (see "Quoting & Paraphrasing").   If you think your audience may have trouble grasping some parts of the author's ideas or your own, add a brief background or explanation to each of those parts.  Have you also considered what kind of problem the author of your text presents--that is, what the basic reason is for your disagreement?  You do not need to offer solutions, but if you do, have you supported them thoroughly? FIRST & SECOND DRAFTS: Have you used all of the needed steps to write and revise your drafts? Free-write: after you have added quotations, try reading your paper aloud to see if it is choppy or has missing ideas.  If either is the case, trying rewriting the choppy parts freely, without copying what you've already written, or freewriting new paragraphs to complete your missing ideas. (To help cure choppy sentences, see "Using Mixed-Length Sentences" in "Editing.")  For general freewriting, see "How to Start First Drafts.")   Gather details: do your details--quotations, paraphrases, facts, figures, and/or stories--fully support your disagreements?  You cannot disagree intelligently unless you have your own supports to help back up what you are saying.  Be short--brief--on generalities when disagreeing, and long on supporting details.    Write for your audience: is your audience an instructor, your professional coordinator, or your own peers?  Have you visualized your audience?  Have you read your paper aloud as if reading to this audience?  Have you tried reading your paper aloud to a friend or family member, pretending he or she is your audience?  Will each step of your analysis, idea by idea, sound logical, unbiased, and interesting to your audience?  At what points might your audience have trouble understanding what your viewpoint or theory means, or how it applies to your text?   Organize: have you kept your introduction, conclusion, and/or a beginning summary reasonably short, moving excess discussion in them to body sections?  Do you need to reorganize the body sections for the greatest degree of logic, clarity, and audience interest (placing more interesting information first and last)?  Does your analysis proceed in each topic section using the same pattern of application (i.e., is each topic section's presentation organized like the other topic sections, step by step)? Research: if you need to support your points with research, do you have a sufficient number of high-quality sources?  Have you fully integrated them with your paper by adding quotations and/or paraphrases from them?  If you are using non-print sources such as interviews, videos, or television, will they be considered appropriate and representative (well representing a viewpoint or theory) by your audience?  If you are using online sources, have you checked them carefully to verify their quality and accuracy (see "Evaluating Web Sites" in OnlineGrammar.org)? STYLE & TONE: Have you converted all parts of your writing to the appropriate style and tone?  This type of paper should use a formal academic or professional writing style, and you should remember to include phrases a few times on each page, especially at the beginning of each new topic section, that indicate you are applying a theory, viewpoint, or system--not your own personal ideas.  Your overall tone should be quite objective.  Your tone may be dry, warm, clinical and detached, or even somewhat critical.  However, it must be even throughout so that you clearly are being equally objective in every part of your paper, and so your audience believes this, too.  AUTHENTICITY: Have you written respectfully to your audience?  Have you made your paper appear more authentic by adding plenty of supporting details?  Have you tried to go to the heart of the matter you are discussing?  Have you brought interesting, vivid, and even unusual details into the paper's contents?  Have you been true to yourself and your own interests in the subject by trying to find the most interesting information to write about in each paragraph, something meaningful to you? If not, what do you need to do to remedy the problem?  Have you written respectfully to your audience?  Are your supporting details sufficient and accurate enough that your audience will believe in the authenticity of your contents?               Final Advice Given in Most Chapters For specific, line-by-line editing, your paper needs proper development of both your particular points that you are making and points or places in the text to which you are referring.  In other words, you need to explain not only yourself, but also your sources/readings.  Your sources/readings must be absolutely clear to your reader in a fair, balanced, logical way.  You must, therefore, not just use quotations and paraphrases.  You also explain them.  (See the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter for how to do this.)  Remember that the typical quotation should, in many disciplines, have a statement of a source--a name or title--at its beginning; and, after it, there should be a page number (if the source is printed).  The typical paraphrase should have a source--a name or title--either before or after it, along with a page number (if any) afterwards.  In addition, quotations, paraphrases, and stories should not just be tossed into your paper: rather, they should be introduced by having a statement before and/or after each of its connection to what you are saying.  In most papers, you should use the third-person pronoun: "he," "she," "it," and "they."  You should not use "you" unless you are giving directions, or writing a diary or personal reflection, or a less formal magazine or newsletter article or other specific advice (as in this chapter).  In most formal writing situations, instructors and supervisors also often dislike the use "I" at any time (unless you are referring to yourself in a story example).  However, some forms of academic and professional writing--especially if a specific instructor or supervisor allows it--are starting to allow the use of the "I" pronoun.  If in doubt, ask your instructor or supervisor. Paragraphing in most academic papers follows some relatively standard guidelines.  You are working with a lot of information when you write a formal paper.  For this reason, clear, consistent paragraphing becomes even more important.  Your paragraphs should help you logically divide your body sections into smaller sub-parts, ideas, or sub-ideas--just for the sake of clarity and ease of reading, if for no other reason.  Also, generally, for a short- to medium-length paper, you should have one paragraph each for your introduction, conclusion, and--if you have it--your summary.  You should, as a matter of habit, have at least two or three paragraphs per page in your final draft.  On the other hand, be careful not to have too many paragraphs per page.  If you have a lot of short, choppy paragraphs, combine them.  The goal, graphically speaking, is to provide your audience with a variety of paragraph lengths--an occasional short one for emphasis or change of pace added to a mix of varying medium and long paragraphs.  The goal in terms of content is to make your ideas flow so well that your audience can easily keep them clear and separate without ever even noticing your paragraphing (or, for that matter, any other mechanical aspect of your paper).  For more advice, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter.   Several other common, useful strategies of efficient, thorough editing are in the several chapters of the "Revising and Editing" section.  Some of these strategies also are summarized in the following very-brief web page:   Very Brief Review of How to Edit Your Final Draft Good luck with your writing of this type of paper.  For more advanced and/or interesting information on this type of paper, please see the "Advanced" section of the chapter. --- Return to top.

Related Sections/Chapters: