Essays: Structural debate

[joelmamchur]

Hey everyone,
This is a question that has been raised between a friend of mine and me:
Niether of us are sure whether or not to stick to the "traditional" 3 paragraph structure of 1)define/explain 2) anti-thesis 3) resolution/circumstances or to still remain true to the "tasks" required but to add more paragraphs and be more descriptive, hence, a format such as: 1) define/explain 2) Thesis support 3) anti-thesis 4) resolution/circumstances
I've heard that some people got penalized in the past for using a traditional structure, while others benefited from a more concrete and basic structural organization.
What does everyone else think?
Thanks,
-Joel

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

From having taken the writing sample last year and done rather well, I'd say that your second strategy is better. If you just present one example that contradicts the topic statement, you won't have enough meat in your essay. If you present a defensible thesis, argue it consistently with two to three examples in the body of your essay, and make sure one of your examples contradicts the presented topic (ie: satisfy task #2), you'll do well. People's (and the test prep companies') fixation on the "writing tasks" and viewing the writing sample as some kind of game that has to be outwitted tends to lead people to overlook the very simple requirement for a high score-- Come up with an argument that has something to do with the topic and provide an in-depth discussion of said argument.

 

[TTSD]

So 'stream of consciousness' a la James Joyce style = bad, huh? LOL