Advanced Writing Week 3 - Opinion Essay
Advanced Writing Week 3 - Opinion Essay
MAIN FEATURES
I/Introduction: MUST include your opinion. You have to signal that this is your opinion.
If you’re lazy, say “I completely agree with the idea that...” or say “I disagree with the suggestion that....”. But
in many cases, you should actually say exactly what your opinion is. You should form an opinion that is either 1
sided or somewhere in between. If it is in-between, be clear and specific.
II/ Organization: (body part): several ways, depending on the topic and on your opinion
1/ If your opinion is ONE-sided (i.e. you totally agree with the given statement, or you totally disagree with
the given statement).
Body para 1: first reason why you agree with the statement (you can give benefits, arguments for, or just give
proofs and examples to prove why the statement is correct).
Body para 2: another reason why you agree with the statement.
Body para 3: another reason why you agree with this opinion.
Etc.
Tip: This is when brainstorming ideas may be difficult because you have to come up with what to say in each
paragraph all by yourself. One very common way of thinking is to REFUTE the other side’s opinion. Read the
sample on the next page and find out where is the refutation part.
Here’s some language for introducing arguments and then refuting them:
PRACTICE: Brainstorm ideas for this opinion essay. Try to include one refutation paragraph.
SAMPLE of ONE-SIDED ESSAY:
2/ If your opinion is IN-BETWEEN, usually it should have 2 parts, so try to identify clearly the 2 parts of your
opinion. Each of these part should be related to the question/task/topic.
Then your organization should look like this:
Body para 1: say why you think the FIRST part of your opinion
Body para 2: say why you still think the OTHER part of your opinion.
(Of course you can have 2 paragraphs on one part of the opinion if you have more ideas, but you must still
have 1 paragraph for the other part of your opinion.)
Sample Essay:
Topic 11: Some people argue that the government should spend money only on medical care and
education but not on theatres or sport stadiums. Do you agree or disagree?
Where public money goes is an issue of broad interest to the general public. Some people advocate that the
government should fund the sectors that bring tangible and immediate benefits to the public, such as medical care
and educational systems, while opponents suggest that those large urban developments, such as stadiums and
theatres, are worth government funding. In my opinion, the possibility remains that the two opinions can be
reconciled and the government can coordinate budgeting to meet the needs of both.
Medical care is essential to the economic and social well-being of a country, particularly of an
underdeveloped country. Both empirical knowledge and academic research suggest that making education
available throughout a country and eliminating illiteracy can pave the way for economic development. By
receiving education, children from impoverished families can shake off poverty, climb high in the social ladder
and live better off. Education also allows citizens to secure employment and earn regular income, thereby
maintaining or improving their standard of living. For a country as a whole, education is linked to skilled
workforce and to high productivity, affecting both resource use and national output.
Government interference in healthcare and medical services is also highly recommended. Availability of
affordable medical service is a mark of the social and economic development of a country. By providing the
needy people with medical service, a country can inspire the loyalty of citizens. People feel assured living and
working in a country where they can be given medical service when unemployed, sick, injured or retired. By
comparison, if they cannot afford the high cost of visiting the clinic, hospitalisation, or buying drugs, they are less
likely to enjoy their living. Social solidarity will eventually suffer.
Although education and medical services are fundamental to the stability and development of a country, it is
not to say that theatres or sport stadiums have no redeeming feature. In the hierarchy of human needs, those
needs for food, shelter and health are among the basic. After these targets are attained, people turn to higher
aspirations, entertainment and recreation. Leisure facilities like stadiums and cinemas satisfy people’s needs in
these fields. A game between one’s motherland and a visiting country can raise people’s sense of national pride
and ethnical unity. The cinema brings artistic pleasure to everyone.
To draw a conclusion, the decision to finance theatres or sport stadiums depends on the financial situation of a
country. When an economy comes to maturity, the launch of recreational and entertainment projects of this kind is
reasonable.
III/ Conclusion: If your opinion is one-sided, summarize main points and stress on the final message. If your
opinion is in-between, summarizing each part of the opinion; then say the final message (maybe stress on the
solution or key point on how to create the “neutral situation”.
PRACTICE:
Come up with the outline for the following topics. Then write the topic sentence for each paragraph. These
topic sentences should be arguments (NOT FACTS).
1/ “Mobile telephones have brought many benefits but they have also had negative effects. Do the
disadvantages of having mobile phones outweigh the advantages?”
2/ “Emails are the most valuable tool for communication in the twenty-first century. To what extent do you agree
or disagree?”
3/ “Individual can do nothing to change society. Any new developments can only be brought about by
governments and large institutions. How far do you agree or disagree?”
6/ Many employees may work at home with modern technology. Some people claim that it benefits only workers,
but not employers. Do you agree or disagree?
7/ Shopping used to be a mundane routine task. Now it is considered a hobby. Do you think this is a positive or
negative change?
8/ Millions of dollars are spent on space research every year. Some people argue that the money should be spent
on improving living standards on Earth. Do you agree or disagree?