|
Chapter 28. DISAGREEMENT
Introduction
Basics
Advanced
Samples
Activities
---
Basics of
Disagreement ---
---
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.
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.
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
|
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. |
