There are a million different ways to write a good essay. There are a billion different ways to write a bad
one. The following is some advice that I hope will help you write a good one. Everyone is included on the
same page so that everyone may benefit from the advice given to each student. This was the intent of
Nicenet: to help each other learn to make cohesive arguments in essay form.
Guillaume: You have started out by stating that there are two kinds of people: good and bad. This
strikes me as overly simplistic. Don’t we all have a bit of bad and good in us? By starting out with a
statement that is very hard to defend, you are setting yourself up to fail to convince the reader. Your
statement only requires a little tweaking. When it comes to crime, there are offenders and nonoffenders. Or: There are two kinds of people in the world: those that respect the law and those that
don’t. According to Plato, “Good people….” Now the reader is ready to accept for the purposes of this
essay that good people are defined as those who respect the law and bad people are those who don’t.
If we take Plato’s quote at face value, …(at this point you say there is no hope for the bad), but does
Plato say this? He says bad people will always find a way around the law, but he does not make any
statements about the nature or cause of bad people. There is nothing wrong with arguing that bad
people are in general incapable of change (there are many who would agree with this), but you must
first make that case and then logically conclude that jail is the only answer and I am not convinced that
Plato would agree with this. What you believe is irrelevant for this exercise. The important thing is to
argue it logically and convincingly. You therefore must avoid misinterpreting or over-interpreting Plato’s
quote and you must avoid making statements that can be shot down too easily, such as there are two
types of people – good and bad. Having said that, you could conceivably argue that people are
essentially good or bad (the insertion of the word essentially gives you enough leeway to make your
argument). If this is what you wish to argue (by the way, you don’t have to believe it to argue it
convincingly), then I would be tempted to make reference to Golding’s work. If you mention someone
like Golding in your introduction or near the beginning of your essay, make sure you conclude by
returning in some way to this reference. Your argument in this case might go something like this:
In his novel, Golding argues that…
Plato once said…(remember, Plato is not saying anything about the essential nature of people in this
quote; he is simply categorizing people into two groups when it comes to the law. We are left to ask the
questions about what makes a good person or a bad person. You don’t need to discuss any of this in
your essay, you just need to avoid putting words into Plato’s mouth.)
If both these men are right concerning human nature and deviousness, then the only way to protect
society is to…
Kim: What’s the use of laws if good people don’t need them and bad people find ways around them?
This is your opening statement and it is a good statement, but maybe not as your opening line. The
problem is that is creates a bit of confusion unless you link it to its source. We are left wondering what
you are going on about and why unless you provide us with the inspiration for your discussion. Try
saying something like: Plato once said “Good people…” So what’s the use of laws… Your next line
contains a good idea, but it is poorly worded. You wrote: It doesn’t matter how thick the book of laws is,
if the criminals don’t want to be caught they will get away. My advice here is to keep parallel structure
in your ideas and in your syntax. What I mean is if you start talking about laws, continue to talk about
laws in the second part of your sentence. Ex. It doesn’t matter how thick the book of laws is, some
people will find a way around it. O.K. but this sentence is still flawed because it sounds like they are
getting around a book. Try this: No matter how many laws we write, some people will find a way around
them.
Every line and word you write should be absolutely clear and leave no room for confusion or ambiguity.
Question every word and every combination of words. Play around with your choices until you know
that they are the best.
From here, I’m assuming you are going to the next logical step in this argument which is since laws are
ineffective at preventing criminal behaviour, then maybe we should look at what prompts criminal
behaviour and put our resources there.
Hayley: you are off to a great start and so I will try to reproduce what you have created thus far and
throw in some suggestions and questions that may be helpful.
Our prime minister, Stephen Harper is spending a lot of Canadian tax dollars building new jails.
He may be supported by those who agree with Plato’s quote about good people not needing laws to tell
them to act responsibly and bad people finding a way around the laws. (I have changed the wording of
your sentence to incorporate the quote more smoothly; sometimes it is more effective to paraphrase a
quote than to try to cite it directly and in Plato’s case, citing him directly is impossible). However, there
are many who are not sure Harper has his priorities straight. It is a question of believing that either
people are born bad or made bad.
If people are born bad, then our only option is to lock them up indefinitely. (If this is the case,
we’re going to need a lot more jails that what Harper is proposing. Perhaps we should adopt the Russian
gulag model of forced labor camps and send law breakers to the Canadian north for a life time of hard
work. That way, housing them won’t be as costly because we will gain the benefit of their free labor.) I
offer this suggestion as a means of emphasizing how ridiculous the idea of jails as the best defense
against criminal behaviour can become it followed to its logical conclusion.)
(What’s the next logical step? If people are not born bad, but are somehow influenced to
become bad, then we must believe that they can be influenced to become good. Don’t jump too quickly
from A to C. You must also include B.) If we believe people can change, then it is a good idea to try and
rehabilitate criminals. The objective of the justice system should be to help them learn proper ways and
to reintroduce them to society (should be to help them become productive members of society). We
should teach those who break the law that their actions will not be tolerated in such a way that they
learn why they are wrong in the first place. For example, if someone is charged with property damage,
make them clean and repair as community service. (by the way some of your sentences need
“grooming”). O.K. you’ve discussed your view of the proper role of the justice system, now what? How
are you going to avoid repeating yourself in your conclusion? Suggestion: Undoubtedly there are a few
individuals who are incapable of living according to the rules of a civilized society, but surely most
people want to make the most of their short time on earth and if we accept this to be true, shouldn’t we
feel obliged as members of a civilized society and as fellow human beings to help them do this?)
Kara: You start off with the following: There are two sides to this quote (what quote? You cannot jump
right in like this without giving the reader some background): one side is if people are born bad and the
other side is if people are made bad. Plato seems to think that people are born bad or good.(Oh oh. See
comments I made for Guillaume’s paper. Don’t put words into Plato’s mouth. Remember yesterday’s
discussion.) No one is pre-destined to be born bad or good. It is their upbringing in life and depends on
what situation has made them become this way. (This seems to be your thesis statement, and it is
poorly worded by the way. This may be an overstatement and an oversimplification that invites
disagreement. We all know people who had upbringings that seem privileged or good in most ways, and
yet those people chose to become deviants in terms of the law and society. We also know people who
had rough beginnings and yet went on to become productive members of society. We also know that
these people may be the exceptions rather than the rule; therefore, temper your language and you can
make the argument successfully. You temper your language by adding words that allow you to
generalize instead of talking in absolutes. Most people are not predestined to … A child’s upbringing can
make a world of difference in deciding how that child will turn out. Stick to this thesis statement and
argue it, keeping the original quote in mind.)
Now you start with an example: Let’s say (this is colloquialism. It’s overly-familiar language that is fine in
a discussion, but not in a written essay) a little boy was brought up by parents who drank and smoked
and would abuse him often, (comma splice!!!!) that boy will be scarred for life and when he grows up,
he might do the same thing to kids or even(???) his own kids. His parents are the reason why he was
brought up this way (stating the obvious). It doesn’t have to be parents to influence them into doing bad
things. (Arrrrg…now you’re going madly off in all directions and you have left the quote far behind – in
fact, it’s not even on the page).
As I see it, your argument should be about avoiding bad upbringings and therefore avoiding bad
outcomes. If we can avoid bad upbringings, we can shift people from the bad category to the good
category (according to the theory you are going to argue). Therefore, we should spend more of our tax
dollars helping families and less on building jails. (How do we help families? Education, social assistance,
job creation, health care, etc.)
Erin: Based on yesterday’s conversation in class, you might have to change your arguments slightly. I
don’t think we can assume that Plato thought people are beyond redemption. This doesn’t mean you
can’t argue the point, it just means you should attribute this conclusion to Plato’s quote. In the rest of
what you wrote, I think you were heading towards the argument that jails are a bad influence on those
who have already had enough bad influences in their lives. So you need to make the case step by step.
A: good people don’t need laws; bad people get around them
B: we need more good people and fewer bad people
C: people can be influenced to be either good or bad (and some are more readily influenced than
others) You must argue this point successfully in order for the rest of your essay to work.
D: putting bad people with other bad people will only reinforce the bad
E: we should concentrate on surrounding bad people with good influences
Janik: Same comment about putting words into Plato’s mouth. You seem to be arguing that there is a bit
of bad and good in all of us. O.K. How does this relate to the quote? Maybe your point is that we need
to work on bringing out the good and suppressing the bad. You state that we can only do so much to
change behaviour. True. This seems like a middle of the road argument (where truth can usually be
found). So, you are going to argue that we all contain the potential to be good or bad. Therefore we
need to spend our efforts and resources trying to bring out the best (social programs, education, health
care, jobs, etc.), but when all else fails, we will need jails to house those who can’t be helped. Argue it
step by step. I suggest you save the jail solution for your conclusion.
Tyler: Same comment about Plato’s quote and what we can extract from it. You can argue the point, but
temper your words. If we accept Plato’s words and we believe that people are born, not made then we
must conclude that they best way to deal with criminals is to lock them up. (by saying and we believe… I
am avoiding suggesting that Plato says this in his quote) Now you need to make a successful transition
from this point to the one you seem to argue in your essay.
A: if we believe Plato and that people are born not made…
B: BUT, if we believe that people are often made, not born then….(the insertion of the conjunction but,
or however is essential to transition from what you first state to what you will go on to argue.
C: if we believe this, then we should concentrate our efforts on reforming society and not criminals
because in doing so we may avoid the circumstances that result in criminal behaviour.
C: or: if we believe this, then we should concentrate our efforts on reforming criminals instead of simply
punishing them.
(You may want to include both options in your essay. One would be the first line of defense and the
other would be the second; at this point you have only concentrated on the reformation of criminals.)
Gabriel: I like the first line: There are two kinds of people: those who follow the rules and those who
don’t. Good, Now what? You seem to want to argue a hard line approach to criminals – a hang’em high
approach. The problem I seen in your essay arises in the following lines: The bad people in this world
should be punished for all the anguish they’ve caused people. Their crimes against society should be
settled the hard way and maybe they’ll restrain themselves in the future…. (I changed the wording
slightly). It seems you may be contradicting yourself here. Do you believe they can change? You seem to.
Do you believe the only way to make them change is harsh punishment? You seem to. There’s nothing
wrong with the argument. Many people would agree with you, but you must make it logically. Make
reference to the quote somewhere!!
A: 2 kinds of people: good and bad
B: good need protection from bad; bad need to pay for crimes
C: not only will harsh punishment result in keeping bad away from good and force the bad to pay, it will
also result in bad no longer wanting to be bad
D: Conclusion: the solution to crime is harsh punishment
Again, nothing wrong with the argument; make it logically and watch the diction, syntax and grammar.
Lianne: You wrote:
Plato once said “Good people…” The government is giving more money to build more jails. We don’t
need more jails to put more bad people in them. People will influence other people.
You have jumped from A (the quote) all the way to D with no stops in between. You can’t do this. You
must stop at B and C before going directly to D.
A. Quote: good people, bad people
B: good people are made not born
C: This means that they are influenced by factors in their lives
D: This means that surrounding them with negative influences will only result in a worse outcome.
E: This means that we should concentrate our efforts in creating positive influences, not in reinforcing
the negative.
Robyn: I don’t have yours here. Keep working and think about the comments provided to the others.