Do not, for example, use infer when you mean imply, or disinterested when you mean uninterested, or unique when you mean strange or different, or mad when you mean angry, or crazy when you mean foolish or unwise or difficult to understand or emotionally upset, or awesome when you mean impressive and so on. Particular words have particular meanings, and a sloppy attention to these can create confusion or inaccuracies in your style.

For the same reason don't use the word great to mean very good (as in, for example, "The acting in this play is great"). The word great has a very specific meaning, so don't use it sloppily. Instead use an expression like very good, exceptional, outstanding, and so on.

Do not use the adverbs from the list of words given above to intensify the meaning of an adjective or adverb (as in, for example, "This part of the book is incredibly [or amazingly, terribly] suspenseful"). If you simply want to intensify the meaning of an adjective or adverb, use an expression like very, remarkably, extraordinarily, uncommonly.

The words terrorism and Gestapo here are extremely strong and might suggest that you are so unsympathetic to one side of this issue that you are incapable of discussing it rationally. A better word in the first example might be something like ecological harassment, and in the second something like excessive police force would be a far less loaded expression.

Rewrite this sentence to make your meaning much more precise:

One word to watch carefully is realistic. This word has almost no analytical precision, unless you are prepared to clarify exactly what you mean by it. It almost all cases, you should substitute for this word something more precise: naturalistic, plausible, credible, convincing.

Be careful not to base an argumentative interpretation on words with very little analytical meaning. You may think you are saying something significant, but unless you are prepared to explore in greater precision what that term actually means, your claim may be saying very little. This point is particularly important in essays on literature.

The trouble with statements like this is that they say nothing worth attending to. In the first sentence, the adjective weak needs to be unpacked in detail. What precisely is the nature of Richard's weakness? What does he do or say or think or feel (or not do, say, think, or feel) that enables you to make this judgment about him? Similarly in the second example, a statement about Lady Macbeth's mental abnormality has no explanatory value unless you are prepared to discuss in some detail what you mean by that term.

The point is that such words (and there are many of them, especially terms indicating psychological states) sound meaningful, but they are not unless you explore how you have determined that they are appropriate here. In this connection be really careful of the word mad. Do not confuse it with expressions like emotionally disturbed, depressed, upset, passionately angry, acting irrationally, and so on. When you use the term mad (especially in relation to a character in a work of literature), you are saying, in effect, that she is insane, that her actions have no discernible logic, and that there is no point in trying to figure them out reasonably.

Does as here mean since, or while, or when? The reader is not certain. So rather than using as here, select the most precise word to express what you mean (since, while, or when).

Some of the commonest words and phrases which function as effective indicators of logical transitions are the following:

For indicating a continuity with what has gone before: and, in addition, moreover, furthermore, also, indeed, besides, secondly, next, similarly, again, equally important, beyond that.

For introducing an example or illustration of a point: for example, for instance, as an illustration.

For introducing something adding emphasis to a previous point: in fact, in other words, that is, indeed, as a matter of fact

For leading into a conclusion from or a result of what you have just been discussing: thus, hence, therefore, consequently, as a result.

For introducing a contrast with what has just been said: but, however, nevertheless, by contrast, on the other hand, conversely.

For leading into a qualification, doubt, or reservation about what you have just been discussing: no doubt, of course, to be sure.

For leading into a summary statement: in short, all in all, in brief, in conclusion, to conclude, given all this.

Pronoun and adjectival links to something which has gone before: this, that, the above-mentioned, such.

Words establishing time relationships (important in narrative paragraphs): after, afterwards, then, later, before, while, at the same time, immediately, thereupon, next, meanwhile, subsequently, previously, simultaneously.

Words indicating spatial relationships (important in physical descriptions): above, beside, next to, on the other side, facing, parallel, across from, adjacent.

If your writing suffers from this problem then the only immediate remedy is for you to simplify your sentence structure drastically. You should confine yourself to one clear and simple idea per sentence. And you should keep your sentences very short (no more than 12 words per sentence). The result may sound repetitious and simple, but if the result is a new clarity to your prose, then the price is worth paying. If you cannot control long sentences, then you must go back to a much simpler style. This is very important advice for anyone experiencing such difficulties with a basic writing style.

Rewrite these getting rid of the awkward expressions:

Logically, the expression is when should occur only in connection with a precise time (e.g.., "I read that 6:30 p.m. is when the train is leaving"). Similarly, is where should occur only with a precise spatial location: "The northern tip of the lake is where the fishing is good"). Do not be sloppy about the use of these two terms.

Rewrite this sentence to avoid repeating the idea of the causal relationship:

Never use the expression The reason for . . . is because. . . .

Normally the best place to offer such a definition will be early on in the paper, usually in a special paragraph immediately after the introductory one which defines the argument (the thesis).

If you use a term in an argument which you have not defined earlier in the paper, then define it quickly the very first time you mention it, either in your own paragraph (if a clear definition is essential) or (less commonly) in a footnote.

In the same way, use a language appropriate to the evidence you have presented when you set out the verbs in your conclusions. It may be better (it usually is) to use verbs like suggests, perhaps indicates, raises the possibility, indicates a strong probability, and so on, rather than the much more definite verbs like proves, demonstrates, establishes.

The above point is particularly important in essay on literary fictions, where unequivocal conclusions are usually impossible to establish, because the evidence is inherently ambiguous. Remember that a single point or even a few similar points do not entitle you to claim that something has been proven. In fact, it's generally a good idea to avoid really definite verbs like prove when you are presenting the conclusions to a literary analysis.

As a general rule always let the tone and assertiveness of your conclusions match the quality of the evidence. Strong evidence allows you to be more confident, sometimes virtually certain. Weak evidence requires a good deal more caution, sometimes even a hypothetical suggestion ("If Gertrude helps to murder King Hamlet, then there is a possibility that. . . .").

In technical writing be especially careful to avoid asserting something definitely when the evidence for it is incomplete.

Such statements are immediately suspect because they are simplistic general assertions about very complex subjects and raise questions about your ability to make discriminating judgements.

This habit is particularly to be avoided with historical generalizations which you use to explain away literary or philosophical issues in a text:

As a rule, never try to explain away particular complexities in a work of literature (fiction or philosophy) with a casual appeal to a historical generalization or to some easy biographical link to the author. Deal first and foremost with an explanation which arises out of the details of the text itself.

And if you are dealing with a work of fiction which is based upon a historical event or person (e.g., Shakespeare's Richard II), never interpret the play with reference to historical details of that event or person, unless the play itself presents such facts. In many cases, the work will deliberately alter well known historical facts to create a specific effect.

In literary essays, for example, your conclusion about characters and events should arise from good (and repeated) evidence in the text and not from your quick impression of one or two casual details or from imaginary speculations about things which the text does not mention (e.g., upon speculations about the childhood experiences about which the text is silent).

By the same token, you should not simply overlook a significant part of a fiction or another text which does not fit the argument you want to present. A working principle of any argument about a text should always consider the following question: What is there here which goes against the case I am trying to present? A sophisticated argument will take that into consideration and will deal with it.

Evaluate quotations carefully before putting them into an argument. Do not quote or refer to someone who just happens to share your opinion or a text which is making an unsubstantiated plea (especially if the document comes from an advocacy group). Use secondary sources which are based on firm, reliable studies. Identify the studies and the authors of them. This point is particularly important nowadays, because the Internet makes available all sorts of unsubstantiated opinions by every imaginable interest group. A source is not to be trusted just because it appears on the Internet.

For instance, using an Internet source like the following (imaginary) one does not advance your argument very persuasively:

The trouble with material like this is that the source, as identified, sounds very unreliable. The quotation is merely an opinion given by an advocacy group. We do not know if there is anything reliable supporting that view.

Remember that empirical information (data) or opinions which arise from such data are only as reliable as the source. Just because someone who sounds important declares something to be the case does not mean that that opinion is worth attending to. To make your presentation of empirical evidence persuasive, therefore, identify the source, the study, and the results. And, as much as possible, make sure these come from reputable sources, rather than from unknown or suspect advocacy groups.

Notice in these examples that the writer refers briefly (but does not dwell upon) the method and moves directly to the really important point she wants to use here, the results.

What critics? What studies? If you are not prepared to identify the sources for these assertions (in references, perhaps), then avoid such appeals to unnamed authorities.

Have you read all Ibsen's or all Nietzsche's work? If so and this is your considered judgement, then you are quite entitled to make this comment. But if you have not, don't issue such sweeping statements on your own authority. If the statement comes from a secondary source, then you must identify the source in an appropriate reference.

As a general rule, avoid setting up an essay in which the thesis is an analogy.

This may be a point you wish to introduce into the essay later (perhaps), but do not make such a comparison the major thesis of the argument.

And never use historical analogies unless you are very well informed about the historical event to which you are calling attention. In particular, be very cautious about any analogy involving Nazi Germany, since that comparison clearly involves an extreme, not immediately applicable to something else without considerable reservation.

What about other options? The above arguments are based on a false dichotomy, an assumption that there are only two alternatives. If you want to set up an argument as based upon only two or three alternatives, then you have to make sure that there are no others. Many apparently persuasive arguments rely upon a false dichotomy to close off alternative possibilities.

Here the reasons the writer offers for the opening conclusion are not clearly the cause of anything connected to the main clause. If you want to make a logical connection between the reasons and the results here, you will have to offer a much more convincing link between them.

For the same reason, you should not pull into an argument material which is not directly relevant to the position you are advancing (no matter how interesting that material may be).

Notice how these reasons explain nothing; they simply repeat the conclusion: "X is the case because X is the case."

This logical error can occur in essays on literary interpretation where the writer simply assumes that the particular interpretation is obvious and sets out to make connections between that interpretation and something else. This is a serious problem, if the task at hand is to establish the validity of the interpretation.

Notice that this expression begging the question or begs the question does not mean raising or raises the question. In this expression the verb beg means avoid.

The problem here is the initial criteria. Who says that these make a "really good tragedy"? Unless you are prepared to defend in detail the criteria you have selected, you are really talking in a circle.

An important aspect of this problem and the previous one is the tendency of interpreters of literature to impose on a text something they have determined in advance, rather than letting the interpretation emerge out of the details of the text.

If, for example, you want to argue that Shakespeare's Tempest is an exploration of colonialism, you cannot just assume that it is or list a number of characteristics of the colonial experience and then apply to the play various historical parallels (e.g., Caliban has to learn Prospero's language. This is just like the natives of North America. They, too, went through an experience just like his. . . . and so on). If you want to make the case, then you have to look much more closely at what goes on in the text and let the interpretation emerge bottom up, rather than being imposed top down.

Normally in an essay on a literary text, the opening sentence should identify the particular work you are dealing with (by naming the title). Then, you should in the next few sentences identify the particular part of the text you wish to focus on (a particular character or incident in the fiction, a particular portion of an argument in a philosophical work, for example). Once you have made clear to the reader the precise part of the text you are addressing, you should conclude the opening paragraph with a clear statement (in one or two sentences) of what you are endeavouring to argue about the focus you have selected.

Please strive to avoid the following common mistakes:

7.26.1 Do not make the opening paragraph too abrupt. If you are defining the argument properly, the first paragraph should be substantial (150 to 250 words). If your opening paragraph is simply three or four lines, then the introduction is almost certainly insufficient.

7.26.2 Make sure you narrow the focus of the essay to something very specific which you can manage to deal with in a relatively short paper. As a general rule, the more specific and narrow the focus, the easier it will be to make the argument persuasive. A major cause of poor essays (and especially research papers) is a very large, vague topic. You should, in particular, avoid any arguments which are based upon large historical generalizations (i.e., which make sweeping statements about complex historical developments or which offer historical surveys of complex subjects).

7.26.3 In an argumentative essay make sure the thesis of the essay (which normally comes at the end of the first paragraph) is something we can argue about (i.e., it is possible for someone to disagree with your statement). If you set the essay up as a statement of an obvious fact, then the essay is in trouble right at the start, because there is nothing disputatious on the table. In an argumentative or interpretative essay, make sure you check the introduction carefully to ensure that there is a clearly opinionated thesis (usually at the end of the paragraph).

7.26.4 Make the thesis as specific and opinionated as you can, so the reader is in no doubt about what you are setting out to argue. If necessary take two or three sentences to establish the argumentative stance of the essay.

7.26.5 Don't make the introduction merely a promissory note, which only indicates what you will do: e.g., "In this essay I will look at Elisa's character and discuss the relationship she has with her husband." Such an indication offers no opinionated stance which we can argue about. The task in the opening paragraph is to define the argument, not simply announce the focus. In general, you should avoid phrases like "this essay will," "I will discuss," "I am going to," and so on in the introductory paragraph.

Do not appeal vaguely to some unspecified law or right. If such an appeal is to work as part of a deductive argument, you need to locate the authority behind the claim. Notice the following examples.

The first claim above is empty. Who says we have this right? Where is such a right codified? All this statement means (if anything) is that you are in favour of people having the right to do away with themselves. The second sentence makes a claim about rights, but backs up the claim by pointing to a specific authority which confers the right.

In general, be very careful about using the term right in a deductive argument, unless you can anchor the right in some document, law, or shared agreement.

Thus, while literary evidence is almost always ambiguous, your interpretation cannot create out of it whatever you think necessary, changing from one point in the argument to another to fit whatever it is you wish to establish. To take an obvious example, you cannot logically explain one passage of Hamlet by asserting that the Prince is a teenager and then, later in your argument, deal with another passage by asserting that he is a mature thirty year old.

7.33.1 Without a clear topic sentence (usually at the start of the paragraph) the reader will not understand what the point of the paragraph (and the evidence it contains) might be. Always state the point you are moving to at this stage of the argument before bringing in evidence. Do not start a paragraph in the argument with a statement of fact or with a statement summarizing some part of the story. Indicate the interpretative point you are now moving to consider.

7.33.2 Usually there must be some evidence in support of the opinion you are advancing. This evidence need not be extensive, but it must be reliable and bear directly upon the point you are trying to establish. Do not let opinions stand without evidence to support them. And do not overwhelm the reader with evidence.

7.33.2 Always interpret the evidence that you introduce. Do not leave it to the reader to understand the significance of evidence. The most important part of an argument is usually the way in which the writer presents an interpretation of reliable evidence.

In many research papers (particularly those on subjects in social science), you should require direct quotations quite rarely, even though you are incorporating a considerable amount of secondary material into your argument. The only time you should need direct quotations often will occur when your point requires you to call attention to the particular way in which something is expressed (rather than merely to the information the quotation contains).

As a general rule, you should spend more time in an argumentative paragraph interpreting the evidence you have introduced (in references to the results of certain studies or to particular portions of the text), rather than in just listing evidence or in long quotations.

And never analyze a character in a short story with detailed reference to men or women in general or to the history of a particular world problem. Make your argument with specific evidence about that character which the story provides, and confine your attention to interpreting that story or argument. Of course, you may speculate about what the story does not reveal clearly or link the fiction or the argument to wider issues (especially in the conclusion to the argument), but do not make such habits central to the case you are trying to make.

For example, suppose you are asked to write an essay exploring why Shakespeare frequently has his female characters experience unnecessary suffering, often when they are totally innocent. The task in this essay is not to discuss in a sequence a number of examples (e.g., one paragraph on Ophelia, one paragraph on Cordelia, one paragraph on Lady Macduff, and so on), but rather to structure a series of paragraphs each of which makes a claim about the significance of the pattern (the characters will then come into the essay as evidence for different aspects of this significance). In such an essay, each topic sentence should be a particular assertion about Shakespeare's treatment of women, not simply the introduction of another example.

Similarly, if you are writing an argument about, say, the imagery in a particular poetic style (or poem), do not make the essay simply an opening assertion about the imagery and then a long catalogue of examples. Make each stage of the argument start with a particular assertion about what the imagery contributes and draw examples in support of that assertion.

Similarly, if you are focusing on the changes a character undergoes in a fiction, concentrate upon the significance of those changes, not merely on a description of them. If, for example, you are discussing the significance of the Duke of York in Richard II or of Dr. Rank in A Doll's House, make the essay an argument about their significance, with each paragraph making an assertion about that. Do not simply describe what the characters undergo.

The trouble with statements like these is that they provide no convincing detail. All they tell us is that you liked this aspect of the production. They do not tell us why. Notice the difference between those two sentences and the following:

Notice how in the above examples there is some evidence given (specific observations) to back up the evaluative judgment. This detail is essential if your argument about the production (in, for example, a review) is going to be at all persuasive.

This style may help us to understand why you feel about something the way that you do, but it is not much help if you want us to share your view of the play.

Do not conduct an argument as an exercise in writing poetic impressions or hallowed personal memories. Your task in an argumentative essay is not merely to communicate to the reader how you feel about an issue: the task is to persuade the reader to adopt (or at least to consider seriously) the opinion about the text or the issue you are discussing.

Be careful in such an essay that you are not simply translating the content of the poem into your own prose (that is, providing a summary of what the poetic lines say) or treating the poem as if it is an argument with a clear moral. Such an approach will almost certainly make the essay simply an unsatisfactory rehash of the obvious. So avoid sentences like "In the second verse the speaker says that. . . ." or "The ending of the poem leaves us with the moral that. . . ." Instead you should be writing sentences like the following, "The speaker's response to this experience is ambiguous. His frustration and despair come out clearly in the vocabulary, especially in line 3. . . ." and so on.

An essay on a lyric poem which is not constantly looking at very particular features of the style of the poem and interpreting how these help to define a particular state of feeling in the speaker is probably going astray.