Introductions for text responses

[Stick]

Now that I've written two text responses, I'm starting to get into the swing of things once again. Although, I keep having trouble writing out the introduction. Once I've thought of my three/four main ideas that I wish to discuss, I just get the uncontrollable urge to 'list' them, instead of weaving them appropriately into a cohesive and expressive introductory paragraph. Any ideas to help address this?

[meganrobyn]

I think of my paragraph arguments as coming together to form an extended contention, rather than as a list of things I will discuss.

Basically, I split the prompt into a whole bunch of smaller, open-ended questions - ie, how do i define this word or facet; do i agree with this word or facet; if yes, why and how; if no, why not and how not; if yes, do i go further than it; if no, what is my alternative; if partly yes and partly no, what is my balance?

Then I go through and logically answer each of them.

If you weave those answers together, you actually get an extended, detailed contention that is usually 2-3 sentences and which forms the body of the entire introduction; and, if your paragraphs are logical, they will most times just be stepping through these answers in sections, so you have signposted their topics.

[brenden]

I think of my paragraph arguments as coming together to form an extended contention, rather than as a list of things I will discuss.

Basically, I split the prompt into a whole bunch of smaller, open-ended questions - ie, how do i define this word or facet; do i agree with this word or facet; if yes, why and how; if no, why not and how not; if yes, do i go further than it; if no, what is my alternative; if partly yes and partly no, what is my balance?

Then I go through and logically answer each of them.

If you weave those answers together, you actually get an extended, detailed contention that is usually 2-3 sentences and which forms the body of the entire introduction; and, if your paragraphs are logical, they will most times just be stepping through these answers in sections, so you have signposted their topics.

That's excellent. I'm going to try this.

[meganrobyn]

That's excellent. I'm going to try this.

You changed your username! Seriously, though - cutting that many sig figs off? May as well call yourself 3 and do an engineering degree

[brenden]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We're messing with the real pi

[Stick]

I think of my paragraph arguments as coming together to form an extended contention, rather than as a list of things I will discuss.

Basically, I split the prompt into a whole bunch of smaller, open-ended questions - ie, how do i define this word or facet; do i agree with this word or facet; if yes, why and how; if no, why not and how not; if yes, do i go further than it; if no, what is my alternative; if partly yes and partly no, what is my balance?

Then I go through and logically answer each of them.

If you weave those answers together, you actually get an extended, detailed contention that is usually 2-3 sentences and which forms the body of the entire introduction; and, if your paragraphs are logical, they will most times just be stepping through these answers in sections, so you have signposted their topics.

Just brilliant.

[meganrobyn]

Just brilliant.

Yes, I am, aren't I?