Lesson 45 of 46 · Analytical Writing: the Issue task
Planning an Issue essay in five minutes
Test the statement on cases to find your qualified position, then choose reasons, specific examples and the objection you will answer.
About 20 minutes
In this lesson
- Test an issue statement against concrete cases to find where it holds and where it breaks.
- Choose two or three distinct reasons, each with a specific example that supports it.
- Plan a reply to the strongest objection and turn the plan into a short outline.
The idea
Why plan at all
Thirty minutes feels too short to spend any of it not writing. But an unplanned essay usually discovers its position halfway through, so the introduction promises one argument and the conclusion delivers another. A few minutes of planning buy an essay whose every paragraph points the same way. The time split below is this course's suggestion, not a rule:
| Phase | Suggested time | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Plan | about 5 minutes | position, reasons, examples, objection |
| Write | about 20 minutes | introduction, body, conclusion |
| Revise | about 5 minutes | fixes that change meaning first, then errors |
Step 1: test the claim on cases
The quickest way to find a position you can defend is to try the statement on concrete cases. Pick three or four situations it covers, from different areas of life, and ask in each: is the claim true here?
Take the statement "Leaders should rarely change their minds."
| Case | Does the claim hold? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A captain in a storm, mid-manoeuvre | Mostly yes | Wavering in a crisis costs more than a slightly worse plan. |
| A health minister facing new evidence | No | Refusing to update on evidence turns a mistake into a policy. |
| A company founder setting long-term values | Yes | Constant change makes values meaningless. |
| A coach whose tactic is failing at half-time | No | The point of the break is to adjust. |
The cases do not split at random. The claim holds for values and commitments under pressure and fails for beliefs about facts when evidence changes. That split is your qualified position: "Leaders should hold their principles steady but change their factual judgements whenever the evidence does." You did not invent the qualification; the cases showed it to you.
Step 2: choose reasons that are really different
Two or three reasons are enough. Check that they are distinct: "it builds trust" and "people trust consistent leaders" are one reason in two coats. Good sets often come from different angles on the issue:
- Effects on people (who gains, who loses);
- Practical results (does it work, what does it cost);
- Principle (is it fair, is it honest, what does it assume).
Step 3: give each reason a specific example
An example is specific when it has a who, a what and a consequence. "History shows that stubborn leaders fail" is not an example; it is the reason repeated. "A school head who keeps a timetable that staff and pupils have shown does not work, because changing it would look like weakness, and loses a term of teaching" is an example.
Examples can come from history, current affairs, science, work, study or everyday life. They can also be clearly labelled hypotheticals. What matters is that the example fits the reason closely and that you can explain the connection in a sentence or two. Do not invent statistics or present made-up events as fact; a reader who doubts one claim starts to doubt the rest.
Step 4: find the strongest objection
Ask what a thoughtful person who disagreed with you would say first. Then plan a reply. Three kinds of reply work well:
- Concede and limit: "That is true in cases of type X, which is why my position excludes them."
- Deny the premise: show the objection rests on something false or overstated.
- Outweigh: admit the cost and argue the benefit is larger.
Do not answer a weak objection because it is easy to beat. A reader can tell, and the strongest objection is still standing at the end.
Step 5: write the outline
The outline is a few lines, not sentences you will copy:
- Introduction: key term defined if needed; thesis with its line.
- Body 1: reason, example, link to thesis.
- Body 2: reason, example, link to thesis.
- Objection and reply (its own paragraph or the end of a body paragraph).
- Conclusion: the line restated, with why it matters.
With that on the page, the writing phase is filling in a structure, not searching for an argument.
Worked examples
Example 1: From statement to outline
Statement: "Every adult should be required to spend one year in national service, such as working in hospitals, schools or conservation." Build a five-line outline.
Test cases. A school leaver with no work experience: a year of service may help. A nurse already working in a hospital: compulsion adds nothing. A single parent of a newborn: compulsion causes harm. A wealthy graduate who has never met people outside their own circle: service may widen their view.
Find the line. The benefits fall on people at a transition point, and the harms fall on people with existing duties. Position: "A year of service should be expected of young adults at the end of education, with exemptions for those who already carry caring or professional duties, rather than required of every adult."
Reasons. (1) Effect on people: service at a transition gives skills and contacts at the moment they matter most. (2) Practical: hospitals and schools gain help, but only if participants are not pulled from work that already serves the public.
Objection. "Exemptions will let the well connected avoid service." Reply (concede and limit): exemptions should be defined by duties, such as caring for a child or working in a public service, not by income or influence.
Outline. Intro with thesis; Body 1, transition-point benefit with an example of a school leaver placed in a conservation project; Body 2, the cost of conscripting people already serving; objection and reply on exemptions; conclusion restating the line.
Answer
A qualified thesis (expected at a transition point, with duty-based exemptions), two distinct reasons, one objection with a reply. The tempting plan is to argue for or against "every adult" as written, which forces the essay to defend cases, such as the parent of a newborn, that are hard to defend.
Example 2: Making an example specific
A writer arguing that "public libraries matter more now than they did before the internet" drafts the example: "Many people use libraries for lots of things these days." Make it specific enough to support the reason "libraries give people without home internet access to services that now exist only online".
Name a who: a job seeker who has no computer at home.
Name a what: an employer accepts applications only through an online form, so the library computer is the only way to apply.
Name a consequence, and link it to the reason: without the library, the online-only shift would shut this person out of the job; the internet has made the library more necessary for them, not less.
Answer
"A job seeker with no computer at home finds that an employer now takes applications only online; the library's computers are the difference between applying and not. For such people the internet has made the library more necessary, not less." The tempting fix, adding vague words such as "very many people", makes the sentence longer but no more specific.
Example 3: Picking the objection to answer
Thesis: "Museums should let visitors photograph the collection, except where light could damage an object." Which objection should the essay answer: (1) "Some visitors take bad photographs"; (2) "Visitors who photograph everything look at nothing, so photography spoils the visit it is meant to record"?
Ask which objection a thoughtful opponent would raise first. Bad photographs harm nobody; objection 1 is easy to dismiss, which is why it is tempting and why answering it proves little.
Objection 2 attacks the purpose of the policy: if photography replaces looking, the museum fails at its main job. It deserves an answer.
Plan the reply: concede that some visitors photograph instead of looking, then outweigh it. A photograph lets a visitor return to an object, and banning cameras does not make anyone look harder; it only removes the record.
Answer
Answer objection 2, the stronger one, with a concede-and-outweigh reply. Answering objection 1 would look like engaging the other side while avoiding it.
Common traps
Planning the topic instead of the claim
Notes such as "libraries: books, computers, community" collect material about the topic but contain no position. Plans should start from what you think about the claim and when; the material is chosen to support that.
Three reasons that are one reason
"It builds trust", "people believe consistent leaders" and "followers rely on them" all say the same thing. Each body paragraph should be able to stand without the others. If two of your reasons could share an example, they are probably one reason.
Examples that need a page of set-up
A historical episode you half remember will take a paragraph to explain and may still contain errors. Choose examples you can state accurately in two or three sentences, and never invent figures or present invented events as fact.
Answering a straw man
Picking the weakest objection to defeat looks like engagement but leaves the real objection standing. Ask what the smartest person who disagrees with you would say, and answer that.
Check yourself
Answer each question before you open its answer.
Question 1: Two reasons that are really two
Analyze an Issue
Thesis: "Cities should close their central districts to private cars, provided public transport is improved first." Which pair of body-paragraph reasons gives the essay two genuinely distinct lines of support?
- A.Cars cause traffic in the centre; traffic in the centre is caused by too many cars.
- B.Car-free centres make streets safer and quieter for the people who live and shop there; and they free road space that buses and bicycles can use more efficiently.
- C.Cars are expensive to own; many people enjoy driving.
- D.Car-free centres are better; people prefer car-free centres.
- E.Electric cars produce no exhaust; some cities already have trams.
Show the answer
Answer: B. Car-free centres make streets safer and quieter for the people who live and shop there; and they free road space that buses and bicycles can use more efficiently.
Working
Two reasons are distinct when each stands without the other and both support the thesis. Safety and quiet for residents is an effect on people; freeing road space for buses and bicycles is a practical, transport-efficiency reason. The other pairs either repeat one idea, restate the thesis, or offer facts that do not support it or even cut against it.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. These are one claim stated twice, in reverse. The second paragraph would add nothing to the first.
- C. Neither supports the thesis: running costs are beside the point, and enjoying driving is a reason against closing the centre.
- D. The first only restates the thesis, and the second is an unsupported claim about preferences, not a reason the policy works.
- E. The first fact cuts against the thesis (it suggests cleaner cars instead of closure), and the second is a loose fact with no stated link to the argument.
What carries over
Check that each reason supports the thesis and could stand in its own paragraph without the other.
Question 2: The example that does the work
Analyze an Issue
Reason: "Requiring students to work in groups prepares them for jobs in which results depend on cooperation." Which example best supports this reason?
- A.Group work is common in schools in many countries.
- B.Some students dislike group work because others do not contribute.
- C.Cooperation is important in all areas of life.
- D.A student who learns in a group project to divide tasks, agree deadlines and resolve a disagreement later uses the same skills as a junior engineer whose design must fit a colleague's.
- E.A famous scientist made a major discovery while working entirely alone.
Show the answer
Answer: D. A student who learns in a group project to divide tasks, agree deadlines and resolve a disagreement later uses the same skills as a junior engineer whose design must fit a colleague's.
Working
A supporting example names a specific who and what, and its consequence matches the reason. The student who learns to divide tasks, set deadlines and resolve a disagreement, and then uses those skills as an engineer, shows the preparation the reason claims. The other choices are general statements, facts beside the point, or material that cuts against the reason.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. How common group work is says nothing about whether it prepares students for cooperative jobs.
- B. This is an objection to group work, not support for the reason; it belongs in a reply-to-objection paragraph.
- C. This is a general claim, not an example: it has no who, what or consequence, and it barely differs from the reason.
- E. A lone discovery, if anything, weakens the reason; it shows success without cooperation.
What carries over
An example supports a reason only when its consequence is the very thing the reason claims.
Question 3: Answering the strongest objection
Analyze an Issue
Thesis: "Governments should fund scientific research whose practical use is not yet known." The strongest objection is that public money is limited and should go to research with clear benefits. Which planned reply best answers it?
- A.Point out that some scientists find applied research boring.
- B.Ignore the objection and add a third reason in favour of the thesis.
- C.Concede that money is limited, then argue that a modest share for open-ended research is justified because applied work later depends on findings no one could have predicted would be useful.
- D.Answer instead the objection that research topics are sometimes hard to explain to the public.
- E.Argue that governments should fund every research proposal they receive.
Show the answer
Answer: C. Concede that money is limited, then argue that a modest share for open-ended research is justified because applied work later depends on findings no one could have predicted would be useful.
Working
The objection is about scarce money. A good reply engages it directly: concede that money is limited, then argue that a modest share for open-ended work pays off, because later applied work depends on earlier findings whose use was unknown. The other plans ignore the objection, answer a different and weaker one, rest on irrelevant preferences, or inflate the thesis.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Scientists' preferences do not answer an objection about how limited public money should be spent.
- B. Leaving the strongest objection unanswered means it is still standing at the end, however many reasons support the thesis.
- D. That is a weaker objection chosen because it is easy to beat: a straw man that leaves the real one unanswered.
- E. This overstates the thesis into a position that ignores limited money altogether, making the objection stronger, not weaker.
What carries over
Answer the objection a thoughtful opponent would raise first, and engage its actual point.
Key points
Test the statement on three or four concrete cases; where they split is your qualified position.
Choose two or three reasons that could each stand alone, often from different angles.
A specific example has a who, a what and a consequence that matches the reason.
Plan a reply to the strongest objection, not the easiest.
A five-line outline turns the writing phase into filling in a structure.
All questions here are original and written for UniExamer; none comes from the test maker.
Written by the UniExamer team with AI assistance. Every worked example and check question was re-solved by an independent checker before publication. No subject expert has reviewed this lesson yet. If you find a mistake, write to support@uniexamer.com.