Study Guide
Structuring an Essay
In principle, it's not hard to structure an essay. In practice, it's an area where students often struggle. What I present here isn't so much the "right" way to structure an essay as it is "a" way to structure one. If you aren't fully confident—as in, you've already written a couple of essays of this length and have received a good grade—then feel free to use what you find here as a guide.
In Brief
An introductory paragraph that includes your thesis statement.
A paragraph or two that presents the principal points supporting your thesis.
A minimum of two paragraphs in which you provide the evidence and examples that illustrate each of your supporting points.
A section for considering contrary arguments. This section may be separate or may be embedded in your explanatory paragraphs.
A single concluding paragraph.
So, if you figure you have four main points to make, and each will merit three paragraphs, then your essay is sixteen or so paragraphs long. If you figure each paragraph at around 100 words, that's only 1,600 words. At 200 words per paragraph, that's still only 3,200 words, so obviously you'll need more substance in the body of the paper. In some cases, presenting and answering contrary arguments may take more words, especially with controversial topics. In others, though, you may find no alternative interpretations at all. If you find yourself short on word count, the thing to do is to find more main points, along with their supporting evidence, to make.
Introduction
I'll remind you of what I've said elsewhere: do not use your opening paragraph to give background. If it's necessary, which it usually isn't because students usually start too far back, then the background belongs in the body, not the introduction. The purpose of an introduction is simple: it is to introduce.
Introduce what? That's where people make their mistake. It is not to introduce a topic. It is to introduce your essay. That is, the purpose of the introduction is to introduce what you have to say about the topic, not to introduce the topic itself.
So don't start with context, or grand statements, or background, or even something witty. Start with the thesis.
A common opening sentence is a simple statement of fact about your topic. In the case of our ongoing example, the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, the introduction actually has some extra work to do, in part because the topic is controversial and has spawned many theories, and in part because the phrase needs some careful definition. So this is a case where my introduction may need two paragraphs: one to set up, and the second to present my thesis.
For example, I'll need to acknowledge that there are many explanations offered for the fall of the Roman Empire. I could even say here that my paper will be an examination of these. I might say that especially if my thesis won't be coming up until paragraph two, so at least the reader knows where I'm headed. In any case, next I'll need to address definitions. What do I mean by "fall" and how do I define "Roman Empire" and when do I place the event? I have to turn the vague phrase into something specific. This goes for all sorts of topics, such as "the Renaissance" or the "Scientific Revolution" or the "rise of capitalism" or the "decline of slavery" or even the "spread of Christianity". Plenty of student papers founder because the student took the phrase unexamined; because she never was precise about who, what, where and when, her argument and conclusion could never be precise.
Anyway, if I think I can get away with a quick definition, I'll offer it here. More likely, the definition is going to take some work, and my introduction needs to stay focused on getting to the thesis statement, so perhaps I simply state that terms need to be defined and that I'll be getting to it.
Then comes the thesis statement. I've covered that elsewhere.
But it's not enough just to declare the thesis. The statement needs to be followed by your major points. This can be concise as a list in a single sentence, or could be one sentence for each point. You don't necessarily need to include every point you'll make in your paper. You should be able to know which are your strongest points. Those emphatically need to be here; include others as you judge.
And that's it. I've chosen a complicated topic; in many cases—indeed, in most cases—the introduction can be pulled off in a single sentence. Notice that in all the above there's nothing about events or trends or grand conclusions or any of that. All that belongs elsewhere. The introduction has one purpose: to introduce your thesis. Do that. Do nothing else. And move on.
Body
This is the bulk of the paper, but really it's the same advice repeated over and over. It has to do with how you present one of your supporting points. Once you have that, it's just rinse and repeat.
You may have guessed: it's not all that different from how you handled the introduction. A section (we'll call it that; I don't think there's a formal name) has one purpose: to present a specific piece of supporting evidence. Here the best analogy is the courtroom. When an attorney is introducing a piece of evidence, she doesn't wander off-topic, doesn't anticipate her closing arguments; she does three things: she presents the evidence, she explains the evidence to the degree necessary, and she connects that piece of evidence to the larger case.
That's what you'll be doing. For example, one point might be the barbarianization of the Roman army. Job one is easy: just make that statement. But as it stands, the statement needs explanation. What does "barbarianization" mean, exactly? Here I can either cite someone else's explanation, or I can offer my own. I don't want to go too far, though. I don't want to wander off into a description of the barbarian tribes and where they were and when they came into the Empire and what their customs were. That's all explanation, true, but it isn't relevant explanation. If I did that in court, the judge would admonish me to get back to the point.
Having made the statement and explained it, I next need to connect it to the larger case. Here's another place where students often err. They don't do this final step, or they do it incompletely or poorly.
For my point, I would make the brief statement that the Empire relied heavily on the military, especially in the later Empire, to provide political stability and unity. I can't get away with just averring this, though, and here's where the multiple paragraphs come in. I need to elaborate, to provide examples, to make the argument.
I'm not going to write a whole section; I'll just give an example. I could point out that we see little evidence of troops intermarrying with locals in the East. It happened, but it did not happen on the scale that it did in the West. Nor do we see the wholesale integration of alien tribes into Eastern armies. The Roman army in the East remained more truly Roman. Since it was the West that collapsed before the East did, therefore barbarianization of the army must have been a contributing factor.
Finally, contrary arguments. Think of our attorney again. She's not going to present her evidence only. The other side has already presented evidence or she knows they intend to. And she knows they'll challenge her evidence. Rather than wait for them, she strikes first. She takes up that contrary evidence, so she can dismiss it.
In my example, I could say: but look at the Battle of Adrianople in 376. There it was not only an eastern Roman army, it was several legions just back from a very successful campaign against Parthia, so they were proven. Moreover, they weren't just defeated, they were annihilated in the worst defeat suffered by Roman troops since the Teutoburger Wald, or perhaps even Cannae. So if we're arguing for rot in the army, there has to have been more at work than just barbarianization.
Then comes the final step, which is to counter the counter. I might say that while it's true for that one battle, I'm arguing for a longer-term trend. It's not really about battle competence, it's about whether the army was still genuinely Roman or whether it was comprise of non-Romans who happened to be commanded by Roman officers.
Conclusion
Now, the argument might be solid or not. The counter-argument might be solid or not. The refutation of it might be solid or not. That's where I'll be judging. I'll be looking out how thorough was your research, whether you overlooked important facts that you could reasonably be expected to have found given your sources, and how well you presented your evidence.
But here's what's really important. First, that you have all the pieces and parts. If you never present the evidence, or if you never consider counter-arguments, then that's strike one and you haven't even swung yet. So don't make that mistake. Second, and more subtle, is that you show that you understand this. That is, there's a difference between the student who understands what's needed to construct an argument, and the student who is just sort of checking off a list the professor has given him without really understanding those pieces and parts. The one gets a better grade than the other. Coming to that understanding is highly individual; some get it, some get it eventually, and some never get it. Hey, not everyone is a historian.