#gloomystudy

why the 5 paragraph essay thing sucks by apricitystudies

what is the 5 paragraph essay? it’s probably the style of essay with which people are the most familiar. paragraph 1 is the introduction, 2-4 are the three body paragraphs for the three main points, and 5 is the conclusion. it’s simple and easy to teach. think of it as level 1 of academic writing, since it’s used as a starting point to teach to basics of writing essays.

why does it suck? it’s overly simplistic. not to say you should never write a 5 paragraph essay, but you shouldn’t use it as a rule. you’ll often have more than three main points, so restricting yourself to 3 body paragraphs might make each paragraph too long. it also doesn’t encourage linking. a lot of 5 paragraphs use each main point as a standalone reason/example (e.g. the thesis is true because of reasons 1, 2, and 3). a good essay forms connections between points and makes a single, clear argument throughout (e.g. the thesis is evident in how two background theories paragraphs 1 and 2 intersect in the field of context in paragraph 3 and manifest in these effects in paragraphs 4 and 5). more on this later.

should i use the 5 paragraph rule? yes if: the question is really straightforward or otherwise lends itself to a thesis that can only be proven through 3 separate examples, or it straight up asks you for three points/examples/reasons. or if you genuinely only have three main points or you teacher told you to use it. you should not use it in literally any other circumstance, but especially if: the question has multiple parts and therefore your thesis does too, or it requires a deeper analysis or critical investigation. finally, don’t if the word count is long (a 3000 word essay with only 3 body paragraphs would make each paragraph its own essay).

what should i do instead? just don’t use it. to be clear there’s nothing wrong with 5 paragraph essays because you might just so happen to have 3 main points. but the 5 paragraph rule unnecessarily restricts you to an arbitrary number of paragraphs. figure out how many paragraphs you need by analysing the question. what points do you have to prove to support your thesis? do you need examples? case studies? background information? lay out each point in an order that flows well. for most essays, your argument should be like a flowchart, not three separate bubbles.

(beginning of example section)

example 1: research essay. using the intersection of two weeks’ course content, as well as case studies, critically investigate how social inequalities are upheld in society. i used the weeks on neoliberalism and education.

with the 5 paragraph rule, the body paragraphs could go: 1 neoliberalism, 2 education inequality, 3 how they intersect to create social inequality + the case study. in this essay, there isn’t enough depth. the argument is confined to the last body paragraph since the first 2 are just repeating course material. the last paragraph will have to be really long to give proper weight to your analysis. there’s also no nuance or critical thinking. the purpose of case studies is to illustrate your understanding and application of subject content. the case study in this case is not well integrated into the essay.

with a free number of body paragraphs the essay could be: 1 neoliberalism and meritocracy, 2 neoliberalism and meritocracy in singapore’s narrative of success, 3 losers of meritocracy, 4 how education perpetuates class inequality through cultural capital + case study, 5 how education does this through wealth inequality + case study, 6 class divide in singaporean education, 7 how this causes intergenerational inequality in singapore, 8 how singapore’s narrative of success exacerabtes this inequality.

example 2: argumentative essay. examine how beccaria uses social contract theory in his work. to what extent does beccaria’s work embody enlightenment ideals?

with the rule: 1 how he uses social contract theory, 2 yes it embodies enlightenment ideals, 3 no it doesn’t embody enlightenment ideals. this is overly simplistic and doesn’t explain what social contract theory or enlightenment ideals are. when your essay is about analysing someone’s work, you always need to identify what their argument is and critique it. this structure doesn’t allow you to do this well, it’s just a literal reading of his work.

without the rule: 1 what social contract theory is, 2 how beccaria uses it to argue torture is unjustified, 3 what enlightenment ideals are and do they even exist?, 4 which ones are present in his condemnation of torture, 5 which ones are present in his calls for reforming the penal system. this acknowledges the question’s nuances and assumptions about “enlightenment ideals”, and breaks down beccaria’s argument and examines different aspects of it, making it more naunced and analytical.

example 3: reflective essay. based on the overall content of this subject, what advice would you give the american presidential candidates about democracy and dictatorship, their core values, lessons, and dangers? (yes this was a real question that i actually did. i’m not american, nor do i go to an american university)

with the rule: 1 core values of democracy and dictatorship, 2 lessons, 3 dangers. this is an overly simplistic reading of the question. each paragraph is disjointed, making it hard for you to form a thesis. remember that you need an overarching argument that is illustrated/explored through your main points. without an overall thesis, there is very little actual reflection.

without the rule: 1 changing nature of democracy and dictatorship making them less distinguishable, 2 history of democratic victory over fascism and communism, 3 this leads to a sense of complacency about democracy being inevitable, 4 when combined with the notion of western democratic superiority, this causes discontent in the west and anti-western sentiment elsewhere, 5 danger of democratic backsliding. this has an overall thesis connecting the points: democracy is vulnerable.