Sample Essay with Guidelines

The writer gives her essay an engaging title: The title of the essay helps to support the writer's position. Fighting the fear means refusing to arm commercial airline pilots. Note also that here the writer uses alliteration, or the repetition of a consonant sound (Fight the Fear) in order to make the title appeal to the ear.

The essay opens with a description of a problem, conflict, or challenge at hand: The introduction describes the problem or conflict that the policy is intended to resolve or address. Note how the author uses concrete details to create a sense of urgency when she describes the problem at hand.

The first paragraph introduces the topic, which is an issue of policy: Should commercial airline pilots be permitted to carry guns? After describing the problem at hand, the writer briefly introduces the topic under debate: Should commercial airline pilots carry guns? In order to introduce the issue, the writer explains how the proposal came about, or what impelled people to make the proposal. Also note that instead of simply saying, "People are afraid, so they made this proposal," the writer depicts, in sympathetic terms, the emotional state that likely led people to propose that pilots should carry guns.

The writer concedes the case for the opposition. Notice how the writer rephrases the topic so the case for the opposition is put in a negative light. Pilots with guns become "gun toting cowboys," and the proposal to arm pilots becomes "an idea," which the writer questions.

The writer presents a thesis that encompasses the reasons she will give in body paragraphs: When presenting her thesis, or claim, the writer also provides an overall reason to support it: She argues that the policy does not seem "prudent," or cautious. Note how this reason encompasses all of the points she will make in successive paragraphs. The overall reason also answers the question, "Why should one support the recommended course of action?" or more specifically, "Why should we avoid arming commercial airline pilots?" The overall reason is logically linked to the thesis because it directly answers the question, the answer being, "We should not support this policy because it is not prudent."

The first sentence of the second paragraph presents a reason that directly supports the thesis statement: The first sentence of the first body paragraph offers a reason in direct support of the writer's thesis. The reason is that there may be nightmarish consequences if pilots become armed. To generate a reason, the writer has brainstormed for some negative consequences of endorsing the opposition's view. One could also argue that positive consequences will result from taking a particular course of action. For example, if one were to argue that snowmobile use should be prohibited in National Parks, one could explain that a positive consequence would be to preserve the tranquility of these sanctuaries.

When giving concrete examples to support the reasons, the writer uses descriptive writing: In order to support this reason, the writer supplies scenarios that serve as examples of the negative things that could happen if pilots were armed. Note again how the writer uses word choice to help build her case: the pilot isn't simply a "pilot with a gun," but here a "pistol-packing pilot." The writer has chosen to name things in a descriptive manner that serves to question or critique the opposition's view.

The concluding sentence of this paragraph elaborates on the reason presented in the first sentence: The concluding sentence of this paragraph rephrases the thesis statement of the paragraph, but here with a slightly different spin on why the proposed policy isn't a good idea: The result of the proposed policy could at worst be nightmarish (first sentence of the paragraph), and at best unpredictable (last sentence of the paragraph).

The next paragraph suggests a better course of action and explains why this way of proceeding is preferable. For her second reason, which she elaborates upon in the third paragraph of the essay, the writer decides to suggest alternative measures to address the problem at hand. Note how the suggestions are concrete and specific, rather than vague and generalized. She concludes by "showing"-again using descriptive writing-why these measures are preferable to the one under consideration.

The next paragraph provides yet another reason to support a different course of action: The third paragraph in the body of this essay provides another reason that directly supports the claim. The logic is as follows: "We should not arm pilots because it is unnecessary." The body of this paragraph supports this assertion with an example, which is an event, described at length. Note how this example shows that the writer watches or reads the news. Watching or reading the news-being informed as a citizen-is an important ingredient for strong performance on this type of essay.

The writer supports her reason with a concrete example: The example provided is a case in point, an instance that demonstrates the assertion that passengers who are mentally prepared will resist.

The essay concludes by elaborating further on the reason presented in the second to last paragraph. In conclusion, the writer suggests yet another negative consequence for the policy she opposes. The conclusion repeats the point made in the introduction, but notice how the writer presents the point in a new way by asking a question. The question assumes agreement with her position, but not in a pushy way, and builds on the case she has presented throughout the essay. The conclusion also gives another reason why arming pilots is unnecessary, and in the final sentence presents yet another negative consequence for the proposed policy.

Many concluding strategies are possible for this type of essay. One could, for example.

• Present a scenario that portrays the positive consequences of endorsing one's view.

• Summarize the essay.

• Make an appeal to shared values ("We can all agree that."), and then reiterate why the recommended course of action is the best.

• Quote an expert or authority who agrees with one's view.