Writing the Introduction and Conclusion

Why are we just now getting to the introduction? Shouldn’t we write the introduction before the body paragraphs since it will be read before them? You might feel comfortable writing a “working introduction” to begin with: you can always go back and change it.

No one is going to arrest you or tear up your paper if you write the introduction first, but there are a couple of reasons to wait until the body of the essay is complete. As you write, for example, you may change your position. Even though you start with a clear thesis statement in mind, you may discover that you need to change it as you work through the body paragraphs. Write the body first, and you can write the introduction so that it takes these changes into account. Another reason to write the introduction after the body paragraphs is that you will know exactly what you are introducing. If you’ve already written your body paragraphs, it’s easier to write an attention-grabbing opening.

The introduction should answer two questions:

Why are you bringing up this topic?
What are you going to say about the topic?

The answer to the second question is your thesis. What is the answer to the first one? (“Because it is the prompt for this exam,” is not a valid answer.) With regard to the example about the Forster essay, you might give some background about the reasons Forster wrote this. You could mention that after WW II, the world needed international cooperation in order to reestablish world peace. Or you could start closer to your own knowledge and experience. You might talk about how love has always seemed a valid answer but that reading Forster’s essay caused you to feel differently.

Rate this introduction in terms of how well it assesses the Forster text.

As a child I heard over and over admonitions to “love thy neighbor.” Love was an unquestioned virtue; it was the basis for all that is good about human interaction. I have not become cynical enough to lose faith in the power of love, so I was surprised to read E. M. Forster’s “Tolerance.” This essay advises that tolerance rather than love should guide public affairs. Although Forster makes a strong case for tolerance rather than love as a basis for public affairs, in making his case, he assumes an overly limited definition of love. Love of one kind is personal and intimate as Forster points out, but there is a more general emotion that can also be called love that pervades public affairs related to human rights.

This introduction is not without shortcomings, but it is a reasonable introduction to the imaginary essay of this lesson. It places the topic of the essay (an objection to Forster’s limited view of love) in the context of a more commonly held view and then it claims that there is more than one type of love.

You’re a harsh critic. But as long as you notice the strengths in this introduction, there’s every reason to shoot for something better.

Bad? Really? Take a good look and consider what you would change. Just don’t throw positive qualities out along with whatever bothers you.

A good conclusion is important because it is the last thing people will read; therefore, it is the part of your essay they are most likely to remember. If the conclusion is abrupt and awkward, it will reflect badly on the essay as a whole. If the conclusion is eloquent and assured, it will leave a reader with that same impression of the essay.

A row of books between bookends that look like people

Source: People-shaped bookends, istockphotos

You absolutely must return to your thesis in the conclusion. Don’t use the same words you used in the introduction, but clearly state the position you defended and briefly review the reasons for a reader to agree.

A conclusion that mirrors the introduction will bookend the essay. This strategy is easy to implement and has a powerful impact. You can also develop your conclusion with new examples (but not new argument points) and suggestions for action.

Rate this paragraph as a conclusion to an analysis of the Forster text.

When I was told as a child to love my neighbor, I thought of the Johnsons and the Greenbergs, not the farmers in Idaho or the miners in Peru. Forster’s contention that love must be personal and cannot be felt for people we don’t know would have made sense to me back then. I was thinking of one kind of love, the personal kind. But now I think there are many kinds of love. One kind of love is personal and intimate. Another kind is a general human regard. It is the second kind of love that makes us want freedom for the people living under totalitarian regimes. It is the love that makes us care about the tsunami victims in Indonesia. It is the love that makes a man from Pennsylvania design drilling equipment to save miners trapped in a mine in Chile. These are not examples of personal love, but they are more than simple tolerance. Tolerance does not cause us to feel these feelings or take action as a result of feeling them. This is human regard, a second kind of love.

This conclusion could be different and probably better, but it is a reasonable conclusion to the imaginary essay of this lesson. It mirrors the introduction with the references to childhood understanding of love. It returns to the thesis and gives some examples (not used in the body paragraphs) of the type of love that the writer argues for.

You’re a harsh critic. There is no reason not to revise this conclusion. But you should admit that it has some positive qualities.

Is it too gushy and sentimental for you? That’s fine to object to. But notice the mirroring and the examples; you’ve got to admit those are strengths.