How do you structure an essay so that you're mostly agreeing but also challenging the prompt slightly? I know we should avoid the agree-agree-disagree order when structuring our essays because that last paragraph just contradicts everything, but does that mean each paragraph we explain why we agree and give examples from the text, but also each paragraph we need to mention why we disagree and give examples on that as well? So lets just say:
Topic: Men and violence are inextricably linked in This Boy's Life. Discuss.
Contention: Although Wolff showcases rare moments of benevolence and sympathy in his male characters, ultimately men are shown as possessing a violent nature due to their dreams of achieving higher social class.
Now, in each paragraph do I explain why/how men are violent in the novel, AND also give examples as to how they aren't violent? Or do I just need the occasional "despite character Xbeing a character of compassion, character Y's desire for transformation proves ........"? I am so lost, please help I didn't come this far to screw up my last sac 
Hey there!
You're definitely on the right track, and this is a common question people have when they're told not to completely agree or disagree, so don't stress!
What I'd recommend is that you separate the idea of 'disagreeing' from the idea of 'challenging.'
You have to challenge the prompt somehow, but you don't have to disagree with it.Disagreeing involves taking an opposing stance, which is sometimes useful or necessary, but is never a requirement.
Challenging a prompt, on the other hand, is where you're building up your discussion by introducing questions and unpacking the prompt's original assertion.
For instance, you might challenge this TBL prompt ('Men and violence are inextricable linked in TBL. Discuss.') by considering
why there is a link between men and violence. Is this a link that's established by society and foisted upon the men in the form of gender roles or normative expectations, or is this something that the men themselves aspire to forge since violence is seen as a display of strength and masculinity in this period? And how do the characters respond to this? Are there characters that reject or resist this link (e.g. Jack)? Are there any men who seem to contradict this assumption, and if so, what is Wolff saying about them?
So you don't have to
disagree and then have your paragraph say something like 'the men are violent, here's some examples. But also some of them aren't violent, so here's some examples of that too.' Like you've said, that'd just contradict everything and get a bit messy.
Instead, you can
challenge the prompt by saying something like 'many of the male characters exhibit violent tendencies, but this violence manifests itself in different ways... here's how that happens' or 'here are some examples of violence being enacted by male characters, but in one instance, we see that this violence is the product of deep resentment and emotional instability (e.g. Dwight), there are also other occasions where violence is almost incidental or unintended (e.g. Jack), and we have way more sympathy for the latter, so maybe Wolff is saying that INTENT matters more than ACTION...?'
^that's not the exact point you'd have to build towards, but it would make for a stronger discussion if you were able to integrate your evidence like this. You can also have the occasional (i.e. once per paragraph) lines where you acknowledge alternate interpretations, like 'whilst Jack's actions could be seen as the start of his journey towards violence and aggression, the fact that he responds to X by saying Y suggests that he's actually...' but you don't need to do this too often
Hope that helps!
Home
Help
Search
Login
