See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263863946
Academic writing: the essay
Chapter · January 2012
CITATION
1
READS
46,313
1 author:
Baden Ian Eunson
Monash University (Australia)
9 PUBLICATIONS4 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Baden Ian Eunson on 14 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Academic writing: the essay
7
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 222 6/15/11 12:09 PM
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter you should be able to:
■■ List at least three criteria of excellence in critical thinking as
expressed in academic writing
■■ Explain the difference between fact and opinion, and explain why it is
necessary to use both in essay writing
■■ Identify sources of bias and imbalance in the presentation of an argument
■■ Explain structural and layout features of the essay form
■■ Explain the importance of thesis statements and topic sentences
■■ Identify several major faults in poor essay writing
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 223 6/15/11 12:09 PM
Communicating in the 21st Century 224
Essay writing
‘The essay is a form of refined torture. Discuss.’ You almost certainly will never encounter
such an essay topic, but you might think it. Don’t. The essay is simply a document that
adheres to certain rules, strategies and stylistic conventions, all of which can be learnt and
mastered.
Let’s get down to basics. Almost certainly, you want to write not merely satisfactory
essays but exceptional ones that score high marks. What is it, then, that your audience
or reader wants (given that in academic situations your work is likely to be read by just
one person — your lecturer or tutor)? What criteria will this reader apply when allocating
marks or grades?
What makes a good or bad essay?
Table 7.1 offers an insight into the criteria for success or failure in essay writing. If you
are scoring fours in your work, then you are more or less satisfying the criteria; if you are
scoring ones, twos or threes, then you are not satisfying the criteria.
Score Criteria
4 Consistently does all or almost all of the following:
■■ Accurately interprets evidence
■■ Identifies the salient arguments for and against
■■ Thoughtfully evaluates alternative points of view
■■ Draws justified conclusions based on clearly explained reasons
■■ Accurately and appropriately uses and/or cites source material
■■ Presents ideas in a coherent, clear and technically correct manner.
3 Does most or many of the following:
■■ Accurately interprets evidence
■■ Identifies relevant arguments pro and con
■■ Offers evaluations of alternative points of view
■■ Draws justified conclusions based on some evidence
■■ Accurately and appropriately uses and/or cites source material
■■ Presents ideas in a coherent, clear and technically correct manner.
2 Does most or many of the following:
■■ Misinterprets evidence
■■ Fails to identify salient arguments for and against
■■ Superficially evaluates alternative points of view
■■ Draws unjustified conclusions based on little evidence
■■ Maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions,
regardless of the evidence
■■ Inaccurately or inappropriately uses and/or cites source material
■■ Fails to present ideas in a coherent, clear and technically correct manner.
1 Consistently does all or almost all the following:
■■ Offers biased interpretations of evidence
■■ Fails to identify or dismisses relevant arguments for and against
■■ Ignores alternative points of view
■■ Draws irrelevant or unjustified conclusions
■■ Exhibits closed-mindedness or hostility to reason
■■ Inaccurately or inappropriately uses and/or cites source material
■■ Fails to present ideas in a coherent, clear and technically correct manner.
Source: Blattner and Frazier (2002, p. 63).
TABLE 7.1 Critical thinking
scoring guide
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 224 6/15/11 12:09 PM
Chapter 7 Academic writing: the essay 225
These criteria for success are not arbitrary, or simply tools of torture to make life
hard; rather, they are effective benchmarks against which a sustained argument can be
tested — helping us to evaluate the mix of fact and opinion advanced in an effective piece
of writing (or for that matter in an effective oral presentation). Switch roles for a minute:
imagine that it is you who comprises the audience, and that someone else is trying to
persuade you to:
1. change your mind and agree with them
2. give them money
3. help them out.
It probably makes sense for you, in the role of critical evaluator, to impose criteria upon
which to assess what you are reading or hearing, and your criteria would probably be
quite similar to those listed in table 7.1.
Essays: form and content
Essays are documents on specific topics that contain a mix of fact and opinion, laid out
in logical sequences and employing appropriate strategies of expression. An essay com-
prises both content (what is said) and form (the way in which it is said). These aspects are
separate, but not unrelated.
Let’s take an example of an essay. Francis Bacon, one of the earliest users of the essay
form, tackled a wide variety of topics. Here’s one he wrote on that most basic of human
impulses, revenge. The language and punctuation is that of 1625, but a modern reader can
follow it without too much difficulty, and even after almost four centuries most of us can
recognise what he was writing about.
An example: Francis Bacon’s essay on revenge
Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to
weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong,
putteth the law out of office.
Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is
superior; for it is a prince’s part to pardon. And Solomon, I am sure, saith, ‘It is the glory of a
man, to pass by an offence.’ That which is past is gone, and irrevocable; and wise men have
enough to do, with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves,
that labor in past matters. There is no man doth a wrong, for the wrong’s sake; but thereby to
purchase himself profit, or pleasure, or honor, or the like. Therefore why should I be angry with
a man, for loving himself better than me? And if any man should do wrong, merely out of ill-
nature, why, yet it is but like the thorn or briar, which prick and scratch, because they can do no
other. The most tolerable sort of revenge, is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy;
but then let a man take heed, the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man’s
enemy is still before hand, and it is two for one. Some, when they take revenge, are desirous, the
party should know, whence it cometh. This is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be,
not so much in doing the hurt, as in making the party repent. But base and crafty cowards, are
like the arrow that flieth in the dark. Cosmus, duke of Florence, had a desperate saying against
perfidious or neglecting friends, as if those wrongs were unpardonable: ‘You shall read (saith
he) that we are commanded to forgive our enemies; but you never read, that we are commanded
to forgive our friends.’ But yet the spirit of Job was in a better tune: ‘Shall we (saith he) take
good at God’s hands, and not be content to take evil also?’ And so of friends in a proportion.
This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise
would heal, and do well. Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of
Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more.
But in private revenges, it is not so. Nay rather, vindictive persons live the life of witches; who,
as they are mischievous, so end they infortunate.
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 225 6/15/11 12:09 PM
Communicating in the 21st Century 226
Explanatory notes
Solomon: Tenth century BC king of Israel. His willingness to forgive, and not take revenge,
is shown in, for example, 2 Chronicles 1:11.
Cosmus: Cosimo de Medici or Cosimo ‘the Elder’ (1389–1464), first of the Medici family to
rule the Italian city-state of Florence.
Job: Biblical character in the Book of Job, Job 2:10.
Caesar: Gaius Julius Caesar, 100–44 BC. Roman general and emperor, assassinated by
Brutus and Cassius and others, who feared Caesar was intent on becoming a dictator of
the Roman empire.
Pertinax: Publius Helvius Pertinax, AD 126–193. Roman emperor, who ruled for 87 days.
Killed by his own soldiers over a controversy about soldiers’ pay.
Henry III: 1551–1589, king of France (1574–89); son of Henry II and Catherine de’ Medici.
Involved in the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth century,
he was killed by a Dominican monk who feared that Henry would recognise a Protestant
successor.
Bacon’s approach
Many ideas are packed into the 454 words of this essay. In most writing, there is a link
between content and form or style, and this is certainly the case with Bacon’s essay.
He makes a number of key points, many of which are further broken down into sub-
points that are dialectically linked — that is, he sets out opposing arguments (on the one
hand this, and on the other hand that). Table 7.2 shows how this structure is created.
Key point First part Second part
Revenge is a kind of wild justice The more man’s nature runs to
revenge . . . . . . the more ought the law to
weed out that tendency in man.
Relationship of original wrong to
revenge for the wrong The first wrong merely offends
the law. The revenge taken for the wrong
undermines the authority of the
law itself.
Taking revenge or not taking
revenge: relationships with our
enemies
By taking revenge, a man shows
that he is on the same level as
his enemy.
By not taking or by passing over
revenge, man shows that he is
superior to his enemy.
Example of Solomon.
Revenge and time present, past
and future Wise men have enough to do
worrying about the present and
the future without being stuck in
the past, which is what thinking
about revenge does.
Those who are stuck in the
past, preoccupied with revenge,
waste their time.
Motivation for wrongdoing No-one does wrong for wrong’s
sake. Men do wrong because it
will profit them, or give them
pleasure, or save their honour,
and for other reasons.
Futility of being angry with others If another man merely loves
himself better than he loves me,
that is not a good enough reason
for my being angry.
If a man should do wrong
because it is his nature to do so,
then he cannot help it.
Revenge and the law Revenge is acceptable when the
law does punish wrongdoers. We need to be careful when we
take revenge, because the law
might punish us for doing so,
and that would mean that our
enemies would triumph.
TABLE 7.2 Structure of
Bacon’s essay ‘On revenge’
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 226 6/15/11 12:09 PM
Key point First part Second part
1Revenge-taking: open and
concealed styles Some take revenge openly,
and this is the more worthy
approach.
Some take revenge in a base and
crafty way.
Motivation of open-style
revenge-takers These revenge-takers seem to
take more satisfaction in making
the guilty party repent . . .
. . . than in inflicting pain on the
guilty party.
2Forgiveness and our friends Cosmus advises us not to forgive
our friends. But Job advises us that we must
take the evil with the good in our
friends (to a certain extent).
Cosmus’s paradoxical maxim The Bible commands that we
forgive our enemies (e.g. Mark
11:26: ‘But if you do not forgive,
neither will your Father who is in
heaven forgive your sins.’) . . .
. . . but you never read that we
are commanded to forgive our
friends.
Revenge and wounds The man who studies revenge
keeps his wounds green, or
unhealed, and thus does badly.
The man who does not study
revenge lets his wounds heal,
and does well.
Public and private revenges Public revenges for the most part
lead to good fortune: it made
sense to kill Caesar (who was
intent on becoming a dictator),
Pertinax (who withheld his
soldiers’ pay) and Henry III (who
it was feared would recognise
a Protestant successor to the
French throne).
Private revenges for the most
part lead to misfortune.
Vindictive people and
consequences Vindictive people are like
witches . . . . . . but the mischief caused
by witches brings down
1. Main antithesis has
minor antithesis
nested within it.
2. Main antithesis has
minor antithesis
nested within it.
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 227 6/15/11 12:09 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 228 6/15/11 12:09 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 229 6/15/11 12:09 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 230 6/15/11 12:09 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 231 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 232 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 233 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 234 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 235 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 236 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 237 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 238 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 239 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 240 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 241 6/15/11 12:28 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 242 6/15/11 12:24 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 243 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 244 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 245 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 246 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 247 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 248 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 249 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 250 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 251 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 252 6/15/11 12:10 PM
5_60_66172_com21st3e_Ch07.indd 253 18/06/11 6:38 AM
View publication statsView publication stats