Are these strong opening paragraphs?

[macca69831]

The two paragraphs below are my opening paragraphs for an expository piece on the propmt: 'It is difficult to distinguish the innocent from the guilty in situations of conflict'.

Some feedback and/or comments would be greatly appreciated:

The groups involved in conflict can range from the quintessential bully at high school to the powerful armed forces which uphold the peace and keep our country safe. In cases where there is conflict, there is usually one party which is guilty and one which is innocent. Yet, it is difficult to make a distinction between the innocent and the guilty in particular situations of conflict.

History shows that there is generally an innocent party and a condemned party, but, there have been cases in which these two sides cross over, to form a shade of grey. The “Bloody Sunday” saga proves this point, in which Irish demonstrators were brutally attacked by the British military in a peaceful protest. The verdict of who is innocent and who is guilty has been debated upon for the past 38 years, with the decision finally being made.  In the novel, The Secret River, the conflict which exists between the Native Australians and the White Settlers shows that there is no innocent and guilty party, both shows traits of both sides. The conflict which exists in the South of Thailand between that of the yellow shirts and red shirts is a struggle for the future of Thailand. The political struggle that has been going on for the past four years has resulted in each side being the anti-government protesters when the other side held political power. Trying to discern which group is innocent and which is guilty is hard to comprehend. There is often a fine line between the guilty and the innocent, in situations of conflict. Groups that are often labelled innocent can turn out to be guilty.

[EvangelionZeta]

The first paragraph is WAY too short.  Ideally, the intro should be around 200-300 words if you're going for a 1000 word essay.

The second paragraph is too cluttered.  You bring up too many random points at once - better focus on one key idea/source per paragraph (so for instancce, use The Secret River in one, another text in another, and a real life example in another...).

[macca69831]

Sorry, I didnt explain what these paragraphs were too well.
The sac is 450-600 words and these two paragraphs are basically the opening paragraphs/introduction.

[EvangelionZeta]

o_O  Why on Earth is the SAC 450-600 words?  It'd help to know the nature of the task exactly.

[macca69831]

Well, the sac is to write 3 pieces with a length of 450-600 words.
'Draw on ideas and/or arguments suggested by a chsoen text (The Secret River) to create three short texts for different, specified audiences and purposes'.
Prompt:'It is difficult to distinguish the innocent from the guilty in situations of conflict'.

[shinny]

o_O  Why on Earth is the SAC 450-600 words?  It'd help to know the nature of the task exactly.

I had SACs like this too. Had to make one expository, one persuasive and one imaginative piece, each around 500 words. It's the biggest bitch to make a nice expository out of. The others were a little more viable. I guess the teachers just want people to try all three text types before committing themselves to one, but at the same time, they cbf marking 3000 words from each student in their class.

[macca69831]

Exactly, im finding difficult to not only make my pieces flow in a coherent fashion (Which im struggling to do). But also, stick to the word limit. Impossible!

[brightsky]

Try and stick to ~100 words a paragraph. :p

[pooshwaltzer]

Freebie...

If there was ever a clear and definitive resolution to triumph over conflict, one may be forgiven for harbouring the expectation that surely a magnimous discovery of such unprecedented magnitude be registered in the annals of man (and woman) kind's endeavour. Unfortunately, this is not the case; rather, the truth lies unfathomable leagues from these incredulously fictitious flights of fanciful floundering. We would anticipate that somewhere down the track of humanity's revolutionary achievements there'd be, at the very least, a Nobel prize awaiting the revelatory unveiling of a final solution to this age old conundrum.

[EvangelionZeta]

o_O Whoa.  I'll take another look later - totally unfamiliar with this kind of assessment LOL.

[m@tty]

The two paragraphs below are my opening paragraphs for an expository piece on the propmt: 'It is difficult to distinguish the innocent from the guilty in situations of conflict'.

Some feedback and/or comments would be greatly appreciated:

The groups involved in conflict can range from the quintessential bully at high school to the powerful armed forces which uphold the peace and keep our country safe. In cases where there is conflict, there is usually one party which is guilty and one which is innocent. Yet, it is difficult to make a distinction between the innocent and the guilty in particular situations of conflict.

History shows that there is generally an innocent party and a condemned party, but, there have been cases in which these two sides cross over, to form a shade of grey. The “Bloody Sunday” saga proves this point, in which Irish demonstrators were brutally attacked by the British military in a peaceful protest. The verdict of who is innocent and who is guilty has been debated upon for the past 38 years, with the decision finally being made.  In the novel, The Secret River, the conflict which exists between the Native Australians and the White Settlers shows that there is no innocent and guilty party, both shows traits of both sides. The conflict which exists in the South of Thailand between that of the yellow shirts and red shirts is a struggle for the future of Thailand. The political struggle that has been going on for the past four years has resulted in each side being the anti-government protesters when the other side held political power. Trying to discern which group is innocent and which is guilty is hard to comprehend. There is often a fine line between the guilty and the innocent, in situations of conflict. Groups that are often labelled innocent can turn out to be guilty.

I think you elaborate too much on the points for an introduction. Generally I just introduce the specific point I want to make with a source, and then name the text or event, whatever it may be. But still, this may work. Just seems like your giving it all away in the intro.

[macca69831]

Thanks everyone! I think i've fixed it to suit

pooshwaltzer is that like an introduction or something?

[pooshwaltzer]

Thanks everyone! I think i've fixed it to suit

pooshwaltzer is that like an introduction or something?

It can be. I just pulled it outta my arse.

[Fyrefly]

Thanks everyone! I think i've fixed it to suit

pooshwaltzer is that like an introduction or something?

It can be. I just pulled it outta my arse.

It's verbose.
If I have to read a sentence twice to understand it properly, there's something wrong with it.

[pooshwaltzer]

Then so let it be. For we will indeed see whether verbosity and prolixity shall ever become the death of me.  :uglystupid2: