Hi Rachelrachel!
This is difficult to completely diagnose without an example paragraph of your work that I could help you dissect. Essentially, there could be a bunch of reasons why this happening.
One of the most common errors is that you may be trying to cram a little too much into your topic sentence as an overarching idea. If your topic sentence is too generalised, you may instinctively be looking to provide clarification, leading to those other surplus 'explanation' type sentences. Check to see if you can clearly understand the idea being presented within the topic sentence of your paragraph alone.
Alternatively, from the structural example you've provided with the 'as a consequence' point 2, and the 'ultimately' point 3, you could be providing unnecessary extrapolation that could wait until later in your paragraph to be further developed.
You are absolutely correct to diagnose this as an error which can impede clarity. When you mark you are expecting to see the evidence that supports a point directly near the point that is made. Jumping back and forth between the idea, a second supporting idea, further clarification of the ideas, and then the necessary evidence for the first idea is not a clear essay.
Criteria wise it is in your best interest to manage the complexity of your argument/the method of your articulation to keep in mind the importance of clarity.
With that in mind, I dug up a sample paragraph that I wrote for VCE English when I finished Year 12 in 2015. This is for a text no longer on the text list, Euripides' Medea.
The topic was: Euripides' Medea reveals the downfalls of pride.
Euripides seeks to personify Jason as the quintessence of logic and masculinity, and as such his final downfall, as resultant of his pride, reveals the calcified nature of the Greek social order. The logical nature of Jason’s personality is evident in the very syntax of his speech “you are banished,” he tells Medea with little pathos. Here Vellacott’s translation employs use of sharp, laconic sentence structure to imply the cold, sterile nature of Jason’s character as one that is “not swayed by passion.” It is this extremity of logic that Euripides condemns; though Jason is aware that Medea is a woman willing to commit murder for the sake of love, he chooses to dismiss Medea’s grievances as “ridiculous tirades.” The phallocentric nature of Greek society allows Jason to dismiss Medea as “weak [and] passive,” for as a barbarian and a woman Jason logically perceives that she presents no threat to him. Medea’s ability to manipulate this prideful belief in masculine superiority is thus symbolic of the logical flaw in reasoning of the greater Greek society – as Euripides seeks to caution the audience into understanding the dangers presented by the ‘Other.’ Medea’s destruction of Jason by way of his pride is totalistic – through the murder of both Creon and Glauche, Medea has ridded Jason of his family, and through the killing of their children she has ensured that he will have no heirs. As the very apex of masculine Greek identity is founded upon heroic kleos (reputation), the death of Jason’s sons means that there will be no one to carry on his lineage and by implication ensure that his identity persists among future generations. This is further cemented by Medea’s final prophecy the Jason shall “die an unheroic death” his “head shattered/By a timber from the Argo’s hull.” Medea has thus recognised Jason’s desire that “life brings [him] fame” and exploited his pride in marrying into “royal blood” by dooming him with knowledge of his inglorious death. Ultimately then, through the vehicle of Jason, Euripides excoriates a society which finds its foundations on pride born from ignorant belief in superiority.
Okay so the topic is essentially saying that this play, Medea, shows the downfalls of different types of pride.
My argument was that it does show the downfalls of pride within the character of Jason, whose pride in his logic and masculinity leads to his downfall.
In order to support this argument I need to provide evidence that these ideas are correct.
1. I need to prove that Jason is extremely logical (See the purple)
2. I need to prove that Jason takes pride in this logic (See the red)
3. I need to prove that this pride can lead to Jason's downfall (See the blue)
So this is clearly an argument this is similar to yours - in that it has multiple consequential sub-components that are linked to my original idea. However, in my execution these ideas are woven in throughout the paragraph.
I hope this explanation provides assistance, RachelRachel.
Warm Wishes,
Tanya
Home
Help
Search
Login
