how are explanatory and argumentative thesis statements similar

How To Write 3 Types Of Thesis Statements

A thesis statement is “a short summary of the main idea, purpose, or argument of an essay that usually appears in the first paragraph.” It’s generally only one or two sentences in length.

A strong thesis statement is the backbone of a well-organized paper, and helps you decide what information is most important to include and how it should be presented.

What is a good thesis statement?

This thesis statement, for example, could open a paper on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s importance as a civil rights leader: “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential figures of the American civil rights movement. His moving speeches and nonviolent protests helped unite a nation divided by race.”

This example lays out the writer’s basic argument (King was an important leader of the American civil rights movement), offers two areas of evidence (his speeches and nonviolent protests), and explains why the argument matters (united a divided nation).

A good thesis statement delivers a clear message about the scope of the topic and the writer’s approach to the subject. In contrast, poor thesis statements fail to take a position, are based solely on personal opinion, or state an obvious truth. For example, “Democracy is a form of government,” is a weak thesis statement because it’s too general, doesn’t adopt a stance, and states a well-known fact that doesn’t need further explanation.

What are the different types of thesis statements?

Thesis statements can be explanatory , argumentative , or analytical . The type of paper determines the form of the thesis statement.

1. Explanatory thesis statement

An explanatory thesis statement is based solely on factual information. It doesn’t contain personal opinions or make claims that are unsupported by evidence. Instead, it tells the reader precisely what the topic will be and touches on the major points that will be explored in the essay. An explanatory thesis statement is sometimes also called an expository thesis statement .

For example: The core components of a healthy lifestyle include a nutritious diet, regular exercise, and adequate sleep.

2. Argumentative thesis statement

In an argumentative essay, the writer takes a stance on a debatable topic. This stance, and the claims to back it up, is the argument . Unlike an explanatory thesis statement, an argumentative thesis statement allows the writer to take a position about a subject (e.g., the deeper meaning of a literary text, the best policy towards a social problem) and to convince readers of their stance. The body of the argumentative essay uses examples and other evidence to support the writer’s opinion.

For example: Shakespeares’s Taming of the Shrew uses humor, disguise, and social roles to criticize the lack of power women had in Elizabethan England.

3. Analytical thesis statement

An analytical thesis statement analyzes, or breaks down, an issue or idea into its different parts. Then, it evaluates the topic and clearly presents the order of the analysis to the reader.

For example: The school’s policy to start its school day an hour later revealed three related benefits: students were more alert and attentive in class, had a more positive about school, and performed better in their coursework.

How to write a thesis statement

Writing a thesis statement requires time and careful thought. The thesis statement should flow naturally from research and set out the writer’s discoveries. When composing a thesis statement, make sure it focuses on one main idea that can be reasonably covered within your desired page length. Try not to write about the entire history of America, for example, in a three-page paper.

Although deciding upon a thesis statement can be challenging and time-consuming, a strong thesis statement can make the paper both easier to write and more enjoyable to read. Don’t worry: we’re not going to leave you hanging! We’ve got a whole article to help you write an effective thesis statement here .

Ways To Say

Synonym of the day

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

Guide on Writing an Exceptional Explanatory Thesis Statement

Writing is fun, especially when you bring your best to it. You get to pour all your ideas on paper in a creative way for someone else to read. But, as the popular saying goes, history is always written by the victor because the vanquished cannot tell their story. Therefore, any topic, situation, or event has various views and story versions. As problematic as that might sound, that is the general truth to telling a story or giving an explanation.

What Is Explanatory Thesis Definition?

What does an explanatory thesis statement do, what are some explanatory thesis statement examples, how to write an explanatory thesis.

A more modern ideology is employed to explain an event or influence one’s thinking. If explaining a compelling argument is the way to go, the best option would be to use logic and evidence to show that the explanation is valid. This, in a nutshell, is what an explanatory essay or thesis is all about. This written piece teaches you to write a thesis and provide explanatory thesis examples. With that in mind, let’s start with a definition.

An explanatory thesis is a form of writing where the writer showcases an opinion or viewpoint on a certain topic or different topics governed by events or situations. It is a writing type equipped with a method such that when the author narrates or describes certain events or topics, there might be a case for you to align your point of view with theirs.

Although, in essence, the view doesn’t have to be one the author fully agrees with or wants you to agree with either. This thesis type aims to conduct extensive research and apply logic to feasible explanatory points. For instance, if you’re a writer of an explanatory thesis, you need to choose a particular topic and approach the discussion of that topic from a specific angle.

Usually, this angle tends to emerge from a personal experience or specific point of view; hence it may be challenging to understand at first glance. So, it would be best if you represented your angle of discussion in a way that sufficiently explains your opinion or the outcome you intend to reach.

Typically, most writers do not know how to write an explanatory thesis. Instead, these writers tend to come from the point that they are defending one side of an argument or criticizing a particular perspective. That is not what this type of thesis entails. Instead, explanatory writing is essentially about presenting a topic for discussion and approaching it from a neutral viewpoint through the provision of research and analysis to back the points of the thesis up.

The fundamental goal of writing an explanatory thesis is to cover the trenches of confusion and offer a lucid explanation as to why the viewpoint is being discussed or approached in a particular manner. The main angle of an explanatory thesis is usually the explanatory thesis statement.

An explanatory thesis statement is a basic opinion the author stands for or the major points they are trying to pass across concerning the subject of discussion. The thesis statement contains the controlling viewpoint of the thesis and gives the direction and unifying element to all the points later mentioned in writing. A well-written explanatory thesis statement convinces the reader that the thesis is valid.

You may be curious about the best example of an explanatory thesis statement, but there is no one-size-fits-all for every explanatory thesis. Instead, each statement is designed towards a particular subject in mind. The first step to writing an effective explanatory statement is to summarize the main objective of the topic into one detailed statement.

Secondly, the statement should follow the thesis subject clearly to be further broken down for explanation. Thirdly, the explanatory thesis statement must contain the main ideas of the topic, and finally, all these must fit into one well-written declarative statement.

Thesis statements are structurally written at the end of the paper’s first paragraph. The explanatory thesis statement examples about to be given must follow the same structure in writing.

A good explanatory thesis statement example is “the life of a regular employee characterized by time in the office, amount of holidays, and time spent socializing with coworkers.” Another good one is “Art, movies, and literature can define Canada’s cultural identity.”

Usually, students in higher education are assigned an explanatory thesis to write. For instance, a student can be asked to write an explanatory essay on World War One and its effects worldwide or explain the impact of technology on modern civilization.

Major examples of an explanatory thesis statement include:

• Alcohol consumption can affect your mental and physical health and result in heart complications.
• Good sleep enhances the thinking capacity of a child as it helps to develop the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of the child.
• Regular exercise promotes healthy living as it improves cardiovascular functioning, reduces depression, and enhances better muscles.
• Internet usage if not regulated within the school system can cause distractions for students as they will spend more time surfing social media platforms like Facebook.
• Also, a good example will be an explanatory thesis on the use of social media – is a modern environment for communication with users and young people

As a student, to provide a well-written explanatory thesis, you should refrain from debate or arguments in your piece. As mentioned earlier, being completely neutral in your expression is one of the key facets of an explanatory thesis. Therefore, before you begin your writing, you have to conduct extensive research and scrutinize your opinion to combine unique ideas and general worldviews.

Afterward, you need to generate a compelling and controlling explanatory thesis statement. A good thesis statement is a brief expression representing the main idea that will guide your readers through the entire written paper. The size of your explanatory essay depends on the data collected and presented in your piece.

The best explanatory thesis is one that has:

• An introduction;
• A convincing conclusion;

The introduction contains the thesis statement and the general outlook of the thesis. The body should describe a comprehensive idea of the thesis statement and the subject matter being discussed. The conclusion combines and rounds off all the ideas discussed to give the thesis a refined finish.

Writing an explanatory thesis may come off as very easy, but mistakes can easily be made, and proper research is required to give accurate accounts of the ideas expressed. With some focus and a reminder of the main aim of an explanatory thesis paper, you should have no problem creating a properly written piece.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

• Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
• Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
• Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
• Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
• Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
• Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

• Make a claim
• Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
• Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
• Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

• Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
• Cite data to support your claim
• Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
• Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

• Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
• Highlight the problems with this position
• Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
• Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

• Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
• Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
• Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
• Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, what is your plagiarism score.

Writing a Thesis Statement — Definition, Types, and Examples

What is a thesis statement.

A thesis statement is a single sentence that identifies the topic and purpose of a scholarly research paper or academic writing. A thesis statement directly or indirectly presents the main points of the paper. Information presented in the essay should tie directly back to the thesis.

Overall, a good thesis statement accomplishes the following:

Identifies the purpose of the essay

Expresses the writer's position/opinion

Lists the main supports (optional)

Briefly summarizes the writer's conclusion(s)

Establish if the essay is explanatory, argumentative, or analytical

People often confuse thesis statements with topic sentences , which start each body paragraph. Typically, the thesis statement is the final sentence in the introductory paragraph and acts as a “road map” for the rest of the paper.

Types of thesis statements

The three main types of thesis statements are explanatory, argumentative, and analytical.

Explanatory thesis statements are used in expository essays that focus solely on informing the reader. Papers with this type of thesis do not contain the writer's opinion, nor do they try to persuade the reader.

The three main branches of science taught in public schools include biology, chemistry, and physics.

Argumentative thesis statements identify the writer's position or point of view on a given topic. Argumentative essays persuade the reader to agree with the writer's stance. If the reader cannot agree or disagree with the claim in the thesis, then it is not argumentative.

Public schools should place more emphasis on the arts because they encourage creativity, help improve academic development, and provide a beneficial emotional outlet.

Analytical thesis statements are used in papers that analyze how or why something does what it does. These thesis statements identify what the writer is analyzing, the parts of the analysis, and the order of those parts.

An analysis of course requirements in public schools suggests access to more electives can increase graduation rates.

How to write a thesis statement

When writing a thesis, the following guidelines apply:

Step 1: Determine the type of paper (explanatory, argumentative, or analytical).

Step 2: Identify the topic, position/claim, and supports of the essay.

Step 3: Determine if the supports should be included within the thesis. Although they are considered optional, they might be required depending on the audience and purpose of the essay.

Step 4: Compose a sentence that includes the topic, position, and supports (optional). While a thesis statement can be more than one sentence, it should not exceed two.

Step 5: Place the thesis statement at the end of the introductory paragraph(s). Placing it at the end of the introduction and before the supports allows the reader to focus on the paper’s main purpose.

Thesis statement examples

The following examples highlight each type of thesis statement.

Topic: Alternative Energy Sources

Explanatory Thesis: Alternative energy sources that can supplement the use of fossil fuels include solar, wind, and geothermal.

Argumentative Thesis: To combat reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, the United States would benefit from focusing on alternative energy options.

Analytical Thesis: Analysis suggests that replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources could negatively impact the economy.

Topic: Social Media

Explanatory Thesis: Three of the first platforms that influenced the world of social media include Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Argumentative Thesis: Social media negatively influences society as it increases opportunities for cyberbullying, limits face-to-face interactions, and creates unrealistic expectations.

Analytical Thesis: An analysis of the use of social media suggests itis irrevocably harming the development of teenagers.

Topic: Standardized Testing

Explanatory Thesis: Standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT play a limited role in influencing college acceptance.

Argumentative Thesis: Standardized testing should not be required because it increases anxiety, does not measure progress, and cannot predict future success.

Analytical Thesis: Analysis suggests that standardized testing in elementary and high school negatively impacts students' academic success.

• Essay Guides
• Main Academic Essays
• Explanatory Essay: Definition, Outline, Writing Steps & Samples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Explanatory Essay: Definition, Outline, Writing Steps & Samples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An explanatory essay  is a type of essay that aims to explain or describe a particular topic or subject. The purpose of an explanatory essay is to provide readers with information and to educate them about a topic in a concise manner.

In this article, we will discuss an explanatory writing definition, provide an outline of key components, and guide you through how to write an explanatory essay. Additionally, we will provide a well-written explanatory essay example to further illustrate required structure and format of writing the paper. Whether you are a college student or a professional, this article will offer all the tools you need to write a clear and effective explanatory essay. Our professional essay writers did their best to share all essential details on an explanatory essay – beginning with an introduction and ending with a conclusion. Let’s get started!

What Is an Explanatory Essay: Definition

An explanatory essay is a type of academic writing in which the writer presents an explanation or analysis of a specific topic or idea. Its main goal is to provide the reader with a clear, unbiased and well-supported understanding of the subject matter, through use of evidence and logical reasoning.  Instead of persuading or arguing with the reader, explanatory essays provide relevant information to them. Therefore, a writer must present information objectively, without injecting their own personal opinions or biases.  Additionally, explanatory writing can be used in professional settings as well, for example, in a scientific report, or in a business proposal to explain the process of a product or service creation, or to provide data analysis. According to definition of explanatory writing, it explains why things happen the way they are.

What is the Purpose of an Explanatory Essay?

Explanatory essay purpose is to provide an explanation or clarification of a particular topic or subject. This type of assignment is used to inform or educate readers about a specific concept or idea. Similarly to writing an informative essay , the focus is on offering a clear and comprehensive understanding of topic, rather than arguing about a particular point of view.  A writer should present information, define terms, and use evidence to support their explanations. Explanatory essay also aims to explain complex ideas in a clear and concise manner, making information accessible and understandable to reader.

Explanatory Essay Outline

Explanatory essay outline varies depending on information that author is trying to present. Aim of explanatory outline is to organize points into paragraphs and provide a framework on how to write an explanation paper. You can find an example of an essay outline online that can help guide you on what to do.  Below is an example of an explanatory essay outline template.

• Background information on the topic.
• Thesis statement.
• First point supporting thesis statement.
• Evidence or examples to support this point.
• Explanation of evidence provided.
• Concluding statement.
• Second point supporting thesis statement.
• Evidence or examples to support point.
• Third point supporting thesis statement.
• Summarize main points
• Restate thesis statement
• Call to action or future implications.

Explanatory Essay Structure

Structure of an explanatory essay typically includes an introduction , body , and conclusion .  Writing an explanatory essay begins with drafting an introduction . Introduction provides background information on topic and  thesis statement in closing sentence. Thesis statement offers the main idea of paper. Subsequent parts of an explanatory essay support the developed thesis statement using valid evidence.  Body of the paper is where writers present evidence, examples, and explanations to support their thesis statement. Body typically contains several paragraphs, each focusing on a specific aspect of topic and providing evidence to support it.  Finally, conclusion summarizes main points and arguments of the writing, and restates thesis in different ways. It also provides a final perspective on topic, and may offer some recommendations or suggestions for further reading or research.

Explanatory Essay Introduction

Have you been wondering how to write an explanatory essay introduction? A good introduction for an explanatory essay should have three main elements:

• Background information
• Thesis statement

The hook is an attention-grabbing and interesting sentence that entices reader to continue reading. It can be a surprising fact, a quote, or a thought-provoking question. Background information provides context for the topic being discussed and helps readers to understand significance of the issue. This section should be brief and to the point. Last part of introduction paragraph for an explanatory essay is a thesis statement . This is a statement that author will support by using facts, quotes and examples throughout the body of paper before concluding with personal opinion based on provided evidence.

Explanatory Essay Thesis Statement

It is important to know what is an explanatory thesis statement before exploring its purpose. Thesis is a statement that presents main idea or topic in a clear and concise manner. Thesis statement for an explanatory essay is an essential element as it serves as a roadmap for the entire work. It should be specific and arguable.  Thesis statement should be presented early in paper, typically in introduction, to guide reader's understanding of essay's main points. It should be specific enough to clearly convey a topic, but not so specific that it limits the paper’s scope. Additionally, it should be arguable, meaning that it should be open to interpretation and debate.  With this information, you can practice how to write a thesis statement for an explanatory essay.

Explanatory Essay Body

Next step after introduction is to write a body paragraph for an explanatory essay . Explanatory essay body paragraph provides evidence that supports thesis statement. It should include facts, statistics, expert opinions, examples and other evidence that help to prove thesis statement is accurate.  Body paragraphs should be written in a clear and logical manner, making a strong case for thesis statement. It should also be written in a way that is easy for readers to understand and follow, ensuring that evidence is presented in a clear and convincing manner.  To effectively convey information in the body of an explanation essay, it is important to use a variety of different techniques and strategies. This may include use of images, infographics, examples, theories, quotes, and other relevant information. By incorporating these different elements, writers can more effectively engage readers and provide a more comprehensive understanding of topic at hand. Additionally, use of these different techniques can help to break up text and make it more visually appealing and easier to read.

Explanatory Essay Conclusion

An explanatory essay conclusion is the final section of the paper that summarizes main points and restates the thesis statement. Conclusion for explanatory essays should be written in a way that ties all of information presented in paper together, providing a clear and concise summary of main ideas.  Steps on how to write a conclusion for an explanatory essay are as follows:

• Restate the thesis statement.
• Summarize main points: conclusion should sum up key points and evidence presented in paper, highlighting most important information.
• Provide a sense of closure: indicate that paper has come to an end and that main points have been fully discussed. Your conclusion must show that the ideas have been explored fully.
• Emphasize significance of the topic.
• Provide final thoughts or recommendations: give reader something to consider after reading your work.

How to Write an Explanatory Essay Step-by-Step?

Best way to understand how to write an explanatory essay is by practicing certain steps involved in the process. By following these steps, writer will have a clear understanding of process and be able to effectively present information in a logical and easy-to-understand manner. Subsequent section will discuss how to do an explanatory essay by covering some important tips and considerations for each step, to help you produce a high-quality writing. Details on each step are discussed below.

1. Produce an Idea

First step in producing an idea in an explanatory essay is by thinking about what you are passionate about or interested in. This will make writing process more enjoyable and will also make it easier for you to have a strong understanding of the topic. When brainstorming a topic in explanatory essay writing, you should consider your audience and what they may be interested in reading about. More ways to brainstorm new ideas include looking at current events or trending topics in your field of study or area of interest.  Narrow down your list of ideas by evaluating which explanatory essay topics would make most interesting and informative writing. Once you have a topic in mind, do some preliminary research to ensure that there is enough information available to write a comprehensive paper.

2. Make a Detailed Research

Before writing an explanatory essay, you should do detailed research to collect relevant information. Here are some steps to follow when gathering information:

• Identify topic and focus of your research paper. This will help you determine what types of sources to look for and where to find them.
• Search for sources using a variety of methods, such as online databases, library catalogs, and search engines.
• Evaluate credibility of each source. Check for things like author's credentials, publisher, and date of publication.
• Take detailed notes as you read through your sources. Be sure to note author, title, and publication date for each source, as well as any key information or quotes that you plan to use in your paper.
• Finally, review all sources again, and make sure they are reliable and trustworthy before you use them in your explanatory paper.

3. Use Appropriate Examples

Examples in explanatory writing are an effective way to explain a concept or idea because they provide a concrete illustration of topic being discussed. They can make complex ideas easier to understand by providing a real-world context. Using an appropriate explanatory essay example can help to strengthen credibility of information being presented. Sources used in this paper should be applicable to the real world. Examples can be used to persuade readers to see a certain point of view. For instance, when discussing a controversial topic, providing examples can help to demonstrate validity of the writer's argument. Also, providing illustrations helps the reader to understand unfamiliar concepts.

4. Create an Explanatory Essay Outline

Best way to know how to write an explanatory essay outline is to consider the amount of information gathered through detailed research and obtaining logical arrangement to ensure flow of ideas. Created through identifying a specific idea from detailed research and ensuring readers can easily relate logical flow throughout the paper. Appropriate outline for explanatory essay entails introduction, body and conclusion each containing specific information arranged in a logical manner to provide flow of your paper.  Example of an outline provided above follows a general structure and provides the best organization of communicating directly to readers. Moreover, a sample above shows a flawless way of obtaining information and opinion of an author. Besides, it provides an outline in a manner that is easy to follow and comprehend.

5. Write an Outstanding Beginning

Capturing attention of the reader to go ahead and read entire paper is dependent on the introduction. Therefore, providing a hook seems like the best way on how to start an explanatory essay. First step to capture your audience’s attention is usually to write an introduction paragraph for an explanatory essay. Introduction becomes the first paragraph in any type of writing, and it is important in capturing interest among readers.  Writing an effective introduction involves providing a hook and general description of the topic, background information and thesis statement. These elements provide an overview of your paper and instigate readers to expect more detailed information about your topic throughout the writing.

Explanatory Essay Introduction Example

Introduction paragraph is the beginning of paper and helps to introduce general ideas about topic and to capture attention and interest of your readers to continue reading. Introduction must begin with a hook, followed by scope of the topic and closing sentence should include a debatable thesis statement. Revising explanatory essay introduction examples can help you understand the concept better. Below is an example of introduction paragraph.

Why do teenagers commit suicide? The rate of committing suicide among teenagers have been on rise. Some leave suicide notes while others left nothing to show the cause of their actions. Suicide has been linked with mental disorders. Nevertheless, there has been a need to investigate other underlying causes apart from mental disorder. Therefore, there are several underlying factors that lead to suicidal actions among youths that need to be investigated. Increase in suicide rates among teenagers can be attributed to a combination of societal pressures, mental health issues, and a lack of access to proper resources and support.

6. Come Up With an Explanatory Essay Thesis Statement

Understanding how to write a thesis statement for an explanatory essay is essential in ensuring that the reader comprehends whole idea author is trying to prove. Thesis statement for explanatory essays provides main idea in a precise manner. It is usually written in concluding statement of introduction paragraph of explanation writing.  Effective thesis statement should be specific but must consider scope of the work. In addition, an outstanding thesis statement doesn’t include your emotions or opinion. Save arguments and viewpoints for an argumentative essay .

Explanation Essay Thesis Statement Example

Thesis statement is written in the concluding sentence. It is supposed to be specific and concise in providing the main idea of your paper. Additionally, to make it effective, thesis statement should be outstanding and debatable with open interpretation. Thesis statement sums up central point of the writing, and should articulate it in a few words without providing too much information. However, reader has to note specific ideas that author is trying to relay.  Example of an explanatory essay thesis statement is stated as follows:

Increase in suicide rates among teenagers can be attributed to a combination of societal pressures, mental health issues, and a lack of access to proper resources and support.

7. Support Your Ideas With Evidence

The central idea that author intends to express can only be validated through relevant evidence from credible sources. Supporting thesis statement is based on how well one knows how to write an explanatory body paragraph. Body of an explanatory essay entails evidence to support your topic. Evidence supporting the idea is obtained from detailed research conducted after identifying a specific idea.  Main aim of the body paragraph is to prove thesis statement. Some ways used to communicate in body include examples, facts and opinions among other evidence that are deemed relevant and credible. Having an effective body in writing requires presenting evidence in a clear and convincing way that will enable reader to easily relate important ideas to thesis statement. Including different techniques of presenting evidence in body of report, provides vivid understanding and wider perception of the topic.

Example of an Explanatory Essay Body Paragraph

Body paragraph provides evidence that supports thesis statement. Below is a perfect explanatory body paragraph example about factors that cause suicide among teenagers.

Society plays a significant role in shaping mental health of teenagers. With constant pressure to fit in and meet societal expectations, many teens struggle with low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy. Social media amplifies this pressure by providing a platform for teens to compare themselves to others and constantly measure themselves against impossible standards. This can lead to depression, anxiety, and ultimately, suicide. Mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, are also major contributing factors to suicide among teenagers. These conditions are often left undiagnosed and untreated due to a lack of access to proper resources and support. Many teens may not have the means to seek out professional help or may not understand the severity of their condition. Additionally, the stigma surrounding mental health can prevent teens from seeking help, leaving them to struggle alone with their thoughts and feelings. This further increases the risk of suicide.

8. Summarize Your Explanatory Paper

Last section of the explanatory essay writing is to summarize your evidence to support the thesis statement. Explanatory summary restates thesis statement and highlights important information presented throughout the work. Main idea is to link all information in the paper together to provide a common relationship between main ideas and thesis statements. Opinion of author is provided in summary section, which is dependent on depth of evidence provided in body. Author can agree or disagree with thesis statement, if it is efficiently supported by credible and relevant sources. Besides, the summary provides necessity of the topic at hand and possible recommendations.

Example of Explanatory Essay Conclusion

Conclusion paragraph starts by restating thesis and summarizing main points. Sample of an explanatory essay conclusion as one provided below will help you understand concept better.

In conclusion, suicide among teenagers is a complex issue that is influenced by a combination of societal pressure, mental health issues, and a lack of access to proper resources and support. It is important that we take a holistic approach to addressing this issue by solving underlying causes and providing teens with support and resources they need to navigate challenges of adolescence. This includes providing mental health education, addressing societal pressures, and increasing access to professional help and support. By working together, we can help to reduce suicide rates among teenagers and give young people the chance to live happy and fulfilling lives.

9. Proofread an Explanatory Essay

Final step in writing an explanatory article involves proofreading your work properly. It entails revising paper a couple of times to check if it has proper flow of thoughts, communicate to audience with the clear ideas, and understand if conclusion provides a concise value of the thesis statement. It is usually done a day after completion to easily spot mistakes. Moreover, proofreading explanatory essays aims at detecting minor errors and grammatical mistakes that might affect clarity and quality of the paper. During proofreading, any error or mistake is noted and necessary editing done to improve the value of the paper.

Explanatory Essay Format

Format for an explanatory essay depends on the discipline provided in the paper. There are different formats to write an explanatory essay including APA style format , MLA format and Chicago style paper format which are provided in instructions. Format provided in paper also dictates the style of structure and citation of sources used in the paper. The format does not have any influence on content of the paper and is usually based on a system preferred by the author. Writer uses the recommended format that seems easier and familiar. Therefore, explanatory papers can take any format with similar structure and enable the author to communicate effectively to readers.

Explanation Essay Examples

Explanatory writing examples  provided below show the required structure of the essays. Under the structure there are possible sections with some clarifications to help the reader understand the main idea. Explanatory essay samples are necessary to readers because they help in understanding how to build up the topic under study. Moreover, each of the example of explanatory writing provided below is important in learning different formats of writing, conveying a general idea of the work.

Explanatory Essay Writing Tips

Writing tips are essential in ensuring an excellent explanation essay. Some of these writing tips are listed below:

• Take advantage of transition and linking words and write a hook for an explanatory essay.
• Cite sources from which facts were drawn. Sources should be credible and recent to ensure high value of paper. Following examples of explanatory essays is the best way of learning how to cite.
• Proofread the paper. This involves revising work to ensure topic is analyzed in a logical manner that follows correct explanatory essay layout which is easily understood by audience.
• Edit an essay. Follows after identifying and noting errors and mistakes during proofreading. It is done a day after completion of writing to ensure all mistakes are edited and paper’s value improved.
• Share the paper with a close person as a way of further improving its value and ensuring explanatory essay meaning is maintained. In addition, by sharing, authors can get feedback on where to make necessary corrections and changes to ensure writing is more understandable and clearly communicates to the audience.

Explanatory Essay Checklist

Before final submission of the explanatory essay, there are several checks it should go through first to ensure a proper flow in the paper and that the intended information is easily understood by the reader. The checklist enables one to write a good explanatory essay. The checklist includes the following:

• checkbox My explanatory writing is clear.
• checkbox Provided information has required flow and is connected with transition words.
• checkbox Supporting evidence proves my thesis statement.
• checkbox I started an explanatory essay with a hook that grabs reader’s attention.
• checkbox My writing is understandable to the reader or doesn’t leave them confused.
• checkbox My summary ties key points to the thesis statement.
• checkbox The citation and referencing style is appropriate to the paper format.

Bottom Line on How to Write an Explanatory Essay

The question of what is explanatory writing has various definitions but generally,  it is usually academic writing which provides analysis of a specific topic or idea to readers. Explanatory essay template provides the basic structure that can be followed in explanatory writing. Besides, explanatory essay examples provide vivid understanding on how to write a good explanatory paper. Through using templates and examples, one can master steps and structure of writing an explanatory essay.  Structure of explanatory paper has three parts that are logically arranged to enable readers to easily understand what the author intends to prove.  Besides, flow of ideas in a logical manner enables relating different evidence provided in body to thesis statement and accounting for correct conclusion. If you need more help on writing, feel free to seek more suggestions in our Blog. From guides on exemplification essay to tips on evaluation essay , you will find tutorial fitting any academic need.

If you are struggling with writing an expository essay, remember that you can always count on our expert academic writers. Let us know your assignment details and we will craft a custom paper in line with all requirements to your ‘ write my college essay for me ’ request.

FAQ About Explanatory Essays

1. how is an explanatory essay different from an argumentative essay.

Differences between explanatory and argumentative essay is that explanatory paper is about presenting information to explain something while an argumentative writing is about persuading the readers to agree with an opinion. In the explanatory paper, the author provides an open interpretation of the topic before finally providing links between main ideas  that proves the thesis statement. 

2. Is an explanatory essay the same as an informative essay?

No. An informative essay is based on detailed facts and data while an explanatory paper requires author’s opinion on some certain points. Explanatory essay meaning is drawn from author’s presentation of idea and how well it is supported. Despite having an open interpretation and debatable thesis statement, clear facts about topic in explanatory paper are not easily determined. Author makes rational decisions based on the weight of evidence provided.

3. What is included in explanatory essay?

Explanatory essay is a type of writing where author presents some points of view on a certain topic, event or situation. Opinion of author is generally the idea supported by most of the evidence provided in body. Remember to include introduction, body, and conclusion to adequately support your claims and understand the difference between those parts of your paper.

4. Is an explanatory essay objective or subjective?

Explanatory writing is about presenting a balanced, objective description of the topic. The paper is objective and provides an all around perception of topic both opposing and proposing evidence on thesis statement. General description provides the author's idea and reader can easily understand point of view based on provided sources and evidence.

5. How many paragraphs are in an explanatory essay?

Explanatory essay has five paragraphs though it can include more. Paragraphs vary with subheading the author decides to include in essay. General structure requires one paragraph for introduction, three for body and last one for conclusion. However, in case of extra evidence in body and long introduction, more paragraphs can be used.

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

How to Write an Explanatory Essay: Comprehensive Guide with Examples

What Is an Explanatory Essay: Definition

Have you ever been tasked with explaining a complex topic to someone without prior knowledge? It can be challenging to break down complex ideas into simple terms that are easy to understand. That's where explanatory writing comes in! An explanatory essay, also known as an expository essay, is a type of academic writing that aims to explain a particular topic or concept clearly and concisely. These essays are often used in academic settings but can also be found in newspapers, magazines, and online publications.

For example, if you were asked to explain how a car engine works, you would need to provide a step-by-step explanation of the different parts of the engine and how they work together to make the car move. Or, if you were asked to explain the process of photosynthesis, you would need to explain how plants use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to create energy.

When wondering - 'what is an explanatory essay?', remember that the goal of an explanatory paper is to provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic at hand. Unlike an opinion essay , this type of paper does not argue for or against a particular viewpoint but rather presents information neutrally and objectively. By the end of the essay, the reader should clearly understand the topic and be able to explain it to others in their own words.

Also, there is no set number of paragraphs in an explanatory essay, as it can vary depending on the length and complexity of the topic. However, when wondering - 'how many paragraphs in an explanatory essay?', know that a typical example of explanatory writing will have an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

However, some essays may have more or fewer body paragraphs, depending on the topic and the writer's preference. Ultimately, an explanatory essay format aims to provide a clear and thorough explanation of the topic, using as many paragraphs as necessary.

30 Interesting Explanatory Essay Topics 

Now that we have defined what is explanatory essay, the next step is choosing a good explanatory topic. A well-chosen topic is interesting and relevant to your audience while also being something you are knowledgeable about and can provide valuable insights on. By selecting a topic that is too broad or too narrow, you run the risk of either overwhelming your audience with too much information or failing to provide enough substance to fully explain the topic. Additionally, choosing a topic that is too controversial or biased can lead to difficulty in presenting information objectively and neutrally. By choosing a good explanatory topic, you can ensure that your essay is well-informed, engaging, and effective in communicating your ideas to your audience.

Here are 30 creative explanatory essay topics by our admission essay service to consider:

• The Impact of Social Media on Modern Communication
• Exploring the Rise of Renewable Energy Sources Worldwide
• The Role of Genetics in Personalizing Medicine
• How Blockchain Technology is Transforming Finance
• The Influence of Globalization on Local Cultures
• The Science Behind the Human Body’s Circadian Rhythms
• Understanding the Causes and Effects of Global Warming
• The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence and Its Future
• The Psychological Effects of Social Isolation
• The Mechanisms of Dreaming: What Happens While We Sleep?
• The History and Cultural Significance of Coffee
• How Does the Stock Market Work? An Introductory Guide
• The Importance of Bees in Ecosystem Maintenance
• Exploring the Various Forms of Government Around the World
• The Process of DNA Replication and Its Importance
• How Personal Finance Trends Are Shaping the Future of Banking
• The Effects of Music on Human Emotion and Brain Function
• Understanding Climate Change: Causes, Effects, and Solutions
• The Role of Antioxidants in Human Health
• The History of the Internet and Its Impact on Communication
• How 3D Printing is Revolutionizing Manufacturing
• The Significance of Water Conservation in the 21st Century
• The Psychological Impact of Advertising on Consumer Behavior
• The Importance of Vaccinations in Public Health
• How Autonomous Vehicles Will Change the Future of Transportation
• Exploring the Concept of Minimalism and Its Benefits
• The Role of Robotics in Healthcare
• The Economic Impact of Tourism in Developing Countries
• How Urban Farming is Helping to Solve Food Security Issues
• The Impact of Cultural Diversity on Workplace Dynamics

How to Start an Explanatory Essay: Important Steps

Starting an explanatory essay can be challenging, especially if you are unsure where to begin. However, by following a few simple steps, you can effectively kick-start your writing process and produce a clear and concise essay. Here are some tips and examples from our term paper writing services on how to start an explanatory essay:

• Choose an engaging topic : Your topic should be interesting, relevant, and meaningful to your audience. For example, if you're writing about climate change, you might focus on a specific aspect of the issue, such as the effects of rising sea levels on coastal communities.
• Conduct research : Gather as much information as possible on your topic. This may involve reading scholarly articles, conducting interviews, or analyzing data. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of mindfulness meditation, you might research the psychological and physical benefits of the practice.
• Develop an outline : Creating an outline will help you logically organize your explanatory essay structure. For example, you might organize your essay on the benefits of mindfulness meditation by discussing its effects on mental health, physical health, and productivity.
• Provide clear explanations: When writing an explanatory article, it's important to explain complex concepts clearly and concisely. Use simple language and avoid technical jargon. For example, if you're explaining the process of photosynthesis, you might use diagrams and visual aids to help illustrate your points.
• Use evidence to support your claims : Use evidence from reputable sources to support your claims and arguments. This will help to build credibility and persuade your readers. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of exercise, you might cite studies that demonstrate its positive effects on mental health and cognitive function.

By following these tips and examples, you can effectively start your expository essays and produce a well-structured, informative, and engaging piece of writing.

Do You Need a Perfect Essay?

To get a high-quality piece that meets your strict deadlines, seek out the help of our professional paper writers

Explanatory Essay Outline

As mentioned above, it's important to create an explanatory essay outline to effectively organize your ideas and ensure that your essay is well-structured and easy to follow. An outline helps you organize your thoughts and ideas logically and systematically, ensuring that you cover all the key points related to your topic. It also helps you identify gaps in your research or argument and allows you to easily revise and edit your essay. In this way, an outline can greatly improve the overall quality and effectiveness of your explanatory essay.

Explanatory Essay Introduction

Here are some tips from our ' do my homework ' service to create a good explanatory essay introduction that effectively engages your readers and sets the stage for the entire essay:

• Start with a hook: Begin your introduction with an attention-grabbing statement or question that draws your readers in. For example, you might start your essay on the benefits of exercise with a statistic on how many Americans suffer from obesity.
• Provide context: Give your readers some background information on the topic you'll be discussing. This helps to set the stage and ensures that your readers understand the importance of the topic. For example, you might explain the rise of obesity rates in the United States over the past few decades.
• State your thesis: A good explanatory thesis example should be clear, concise, and focused. It should state the main argument or point of your essay. For example, you might state, ' Regular exercise is crucial to maintaining a healthy weight and reducing the risk of chronic diseases.'
• Preview your main points: Give your readers an idea of what to expect in the body of your essay by previewing your main points. For example, you might explain that you'll be discussing the benefits of exercise for mental health, physical health, and longevity.
• Keep it concise: Your introduction should be brief and to the point. Avoid getting bogged down in too much detail or providing too much background information. A good rule of thumb is to keep your introduction to one or two paragraphs.

The Body Paragraphs

By following the following tips, you can create well-organized, evidence-based explanation essay body paragraphs that effectively support your thesis statement.

• Use credible sources: When providing evidence to support your arguments, use credible sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals or reputable news outlets. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of a plant-based diet, you might cite a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
• Organize your paragraphs logically: Each body paragraph should focus on a specific aspect or argument related to your topic. Organize your paragraphs logically so that each one builds on the previous one. For example, if you're writing about the causes of climate change, you might organize your paragraphs to focus on human activity, natural causes, and the effects of climate change.
• Use transitional phrases: Use transitional phrases to help your readers follow the flow of your ideas. For example, you might use phrases such as 'in addition,' 'furthermore,' or 'on the other hand' to indicate a shift in your argument.
• Provide analysis: Don't just present evidence; provide analysis and interpretation of the evidence. For example, if you're writing about the benefits of early childhood education, you might analyze the long-term effects on academic achievement and future earnings.
• Summarize your main points: End each body paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point or argument you've made. This helps to reinforce your thesis statement and keep your essay organized. For example, you might end a paragraph on the benefits of exercise by stating, 'Regular exercise has been shown to improve mental and physical health, making it a crucial aspect of a healthy lifestyle.'

Explanatory Essay Conclusion

Here are some unique tips on how to write an explanatory essay conclusion that leaves a lasting impression on your readers.

• Offer a solution or recommendation: Instead of summarizing your main points, offer suggestions based on the information you've presented. This can help to make your essay more impactful and leave a lasting impression on your readers. For example, if you're writing about the effects of pollution on the environment, you might recommend using more eco-friendly products or investing in renewable energy sources.
• Emphasize the importance of your topic: Use your concluding statement to emphasize the importance of your topic and why it's relevant to your readers. This can help to inspire action or change. For example, suppose you're writing about the benefits of volunteering. In that case, you might emphasize how volunteering helps others and has personal benefits such as improved mental health and a sense of purpose.
• End with a powerful quote or statement: End your explanatory essay conclusion with a powerful quote or statement that reinforces your main point or leaves a lasting impression on your readers. For example, if you're writing about the importance of education, you might end your essay with a quote from Nelson Mandela, such as, 'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.'

Explanatory Essay Example

Here is an example of an explanatory essay:

Explanatory Essay Example:

Importance of Basketball

Final Thoughts

Now you understand whats an explanatory essay. However, if you're still feeling overwhelmed or unsure about writing an explanatory essay, don't worry. Our team of experienced writers is here to provide you with top-notch academic assistance tailored to your specific needs. Whether you need to explain what is an appendix in your definition essay or rewrite essay in five paragraphs, we've got you covered! With our professional help, you can ensure that your essay is well-researched, well-written, and meets all the academic requirements.

And if you'd rather have a professional craft flawless explanatory essay examples, know that our friendly team is dedicated to helping you succeed in your academic pursuits. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you achieve the academic success you deserve? Contact us today with your ' write paper for me ' request, and we will support you every step of the way.

Tired of Struggling to Put Your Thoughts into Words? 

Say goodbye to stress and hello to A+ grades with our top-notch academic writing services.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Six: Evaluating Inductive Logic

Chapter Sixteen: Explanatory Arguments

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads or you shall learn nothing. —T. H. Huxley, letter, September 23, 1860

Hypotheses and theories are not derived from observed facts, but invented in order to account for them. —Carl Hempel, The Philosophy of Natural Science

Correct Form for Explanatory Arguments

• The Total Evidence Condition (1): the Improbability of the Outcome
• The Total Evidence Condition (2): the Probability of the Explanation

Explanatory arguments are probably the most fundamental and frequently used of all arguments, both in science and in everyday life. Like their close cousins, inductive generalizations, explanatory arguments aim to expand our knowledge. But they differ from inductive generalizations in an important way. Both the premise and the conclusion of an inductive generalization are concerned with the same subject matter. Suppose, for example, that on a camping trip to the mountains you say to your friend, “This pot of water boiled quickly at this altitude; so all water boils quickly at this altitude.” The premise and conclusion are both about the boiling of water at this altitude. Explanatory arguments typically expand our knowledge by offering a different subject matter in the conclusion. Suppose your friend, having slept in the car during the trip and being unaware of the altitude, argues, “Hey, this water boiled quickly, so we must be well above sea level.” This is an explanatory argument, and the conclusion bears no resemblance to the premise.

Explanatory arguments require humble attention to the facts of our experience, as Huxley notes above. But, as Hempel suggests, that is not all they require—they require imagination. The arguer must have imagination to devise an explanation that is something more than a generalization of the experienced facts; and the evaluator must have imagination to think up viable alternative explanations for the sake of comparison.

As with the other argument forms introduced in this text, there are a variety of alternative terms for explanatory arguments, none of which seems to have taken the lead. The most common alternative is the term theoretical argument —in which, it is said, a theory is supported by appeal to facts. This terminology is acceptable but can be misleading, since many theories are quite factual and many facts are highly theoretical. [1]

16.1 Correct Form for Explanatory Arguments

Explanations, to recall Chapter 2, are not necessarily arguments. Suppose on the camping trip your friend wonders why the water boiled so quickly, and you reply, “Because we are at a higher altitude.” This is not an argument. It is not offered as a reason to believe that the water boiled quickly. Why would you try to persuade your friend of something you have both just agreed is true? It is just an explanation, designed to make the unexpected experience easier to understand.

But when, having slept in the car, your friend says, “This water boiled quickly, so we must be well above sea level,” this is offered as a reason to believe that we are well above sea level. It is an argument. And it contains the two essential components of an explanatory argument. First, its conclusion—that we are above sea level—is an explanation. An explanation —also termed a theory or an explanatory hypothesis —is, for our purposes, loosely defined as a statement that enables us both to predict and to better understand the cause of that which it explains. Second, its explicit premise— this water boiled quickly —is the observable outcome of the explanation. The observable outcome —also termed the data, the prediction, or the facts —follows from the explanation and can in a certain way, at a certain time, and under certain conditions, be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.

The correct form for an explanatory argument, assuming that P is the explanation and Q is the observable outcome, is this:

• If P then Q.

The first premise, often implicit, states that the explanation enables you to predict the observable outcome—that it really is an outcome. The second premise states that the observable outcome is known to have happened—that it has been observed. The argument concludes with the assertion of the explanation. The mountain argument can be clarified roughly as follows:

• [If we are well above sea level, then water boils quickly.]
• Water boils quickly.
• ∴ We are well above sea level.

For a more substantial example, let’s look at a famous explanatory argument from science. [2] In 1687, Isaac Newton published his monumental Principia. It included an account of the physical laws that govern the interactions of the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies. The physics of Descartes still dominated science, and it would be several decades before Newton’s views completely won out. In 1695, Edmund Halley began to ponder whether Newton’s account of celestial mechanics was correct and, in particular, whether it applied to the motion of comets. To simplify, Halley wondered about the following statement:

Newton’s account of celestial mechanics is correct and, in particular, applies to the motion of comets.

So far as anyone at the end of the 17th century had been able to tell, the motion of comets was utterly irregular. But if Halley was right about Newton’s views, there would be detectable regularities—certain comets would be found to follow fixed elliptical orbits around the sun.

Halley was especially interested in a comet he had observed in 1682. After much research, he found that comets with similar orbits had also been observed in 1530 and in 1606. Applying Newton’s laws to these data, he boldly made the following prediction:

A comet with an orbit similar to the 1530 and 1606 comets will appear in December 1758.

It was a remarkably precise prediction—preposterous, really, given the rarity of comets, unless one made the assumption of Newton’s celestial mechanics. As the decades passed it was not forgotten, and the comet appeared on Christmas Day, 1758. Some historians mark this as the day of the final triumph of the Newtonian over the Cartesian theoretical tradition.

The sentence Newton’s account of celestial mechanics is correct . . . serves here as an explanation of the otherwise unpredictable appearance of the comet on Christmas Day of 1758. The sentence A comet with an orbit similar to the 1530 and 1606 comets will appear in December 1758 is the observable outcome, that which the explanation enables us to predict and to better understand. The comet argument can be clarified as follows:

• If Newton’s account of celestial mechanics is correct and applies to the motion of comets, then a comet with an orbit similar to the 1530 and 1606 comets will appear in December 1758.
• A comet with an orbit similar to the 1530 and 1606 comets did appear in December 1758.
• ∴ Newton’s account of celestial mechanics is correct and applies to the motion of comets.

P is the explanation.

Q is the observable outcome.

16.1.1 The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

The correct form for an explanatory argument should look familiar—it is also the form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, introduced in Chapter 11. Does this mean that explanatory arguments are always fallacious? No. The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a fallacy only of arguments that rely solely on form for their logical success—that is to say, it is a fallacy of deductive arguments. But explanatory arguments are inductive arguments. They must satisfy the correct form condition, but, like every other inductive argument, they would be logical failures were that their only success; they must also satisfy the total evidence condition. This condition is the logical requirement on any inductive argument that its conclusion fit appropriately with the total available evidence.

In practice, it is usually easy to tell the difference between an explanatory argument and a deductive argument. Is the if-clause intended to provide a better causal understanding of the then-clause? Is the if-clause offered as superior to alternative explanations of the then-clause? Then it is an explanatory argument. On the other hand, does the arguer seem to expect the form alone to provide the logical support for the conclusion? Then it is a deductive argument and commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Suppose I say to you, “If he is from Chicago, then he is from Illinois—and he is indeed from Illinois, so he must be from Chicago.” You can’t be absolutely sure without some wider context, but it normally wouldn’t make sense for me to explain someone’s residency in Illinois by pointing to his residence in Chicago. If I were trying to give you a better causal understanding of it, you would probably expect me to tell you something about the chain of events—the family history or career decisions—that led him to Illinois. So an argument of this sort is probably just a logical mistake, not an explanatory argument.

It can also be helpful to know that when explanatory arguments occur in ordinary language, the if–then premise is more often than not implicit (which tends not to be the case with the fallacy of affirming the consequent). And, though you may not find the if–then premise, there are two things you can always expect to find if the argument is explanatory: reference to the explanation, often with a discussion of why it is better than alternative explanations; and reference to the observable outcome, often with a discussion of how unlikely that outcome would otherwise have been.

That a deductive failure and an inductive success can share the same form reminds us of an important lesson: deductive arguments rely only on the correct form condition, while inductive arguments also have recourse to the total evidence condition. A form that cannot pull any of the load in a deductive argument may nevertheless pull a share of the load in an inductive one.

Signs that an Argument Is Explanatory Rather than Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

• If-clause is intended to provide better understanding of then-clause.
• If-clause is compared favorably to alternative explanations.
• Then-clause is said to be unlikely without if-clause.
• If–then premise is implicit.
• Argument doesn’t seem to depend on form alone.

Exercises Chapter 16, set (a)

For each of the following conclusions, create two arguments: an argument that (in normal circumstances) commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent and an explanatory argument.

Sample exercise. He’s her father.

Sample answer. Fallacy of affirming the consequent.

• If he’s her father, then he’s an adult.
• He’s an adult.
• ∴ He’s her father.

Explanatory argument.

• If he’s her father, then he will go to great lengths to take care of her.
• He goes to great lengths to take care of her.
• The roof is leaking.
• I’m out of money.
• My watch stopped.
• The concert is sold out.

16.1.2 The Variety of Explanatory Arguments

Explanatory arguments come in several varieties. Two ways of distinguishing them—according to chronology and to generality—can be especially helpful.

The first point of distinction is chronological . In many cases, an explanation is formulated before the observable outcome has been observed. Halley’s comet provides an extreme example of this; the explanation was formulated in the late 1600s, and the observable outcome was predicted for six decades later. Often, however, the chronological order is reversed; the observable outcome is observed, then the explanation fashioned in response to it. If you find a dead body, for example, with assorted fingerprints on the candlestick, you are beginning with the observable outcome; only later does the detective invent the explanation that the butler did it. Here is an example from Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet; Dr. Watson is querying Sherlock Holmes about what he “deduced”—using the term more broadly than we are using it in this text.

“How in the world did you deduce that?” I asked. “Deduce what?” said he, petulantly. “Why, that he was a retired sergeant of Marines.” “. . . Even across the street I could see a great blue anchor tattooed on the back of the fellow’s hand. That smacked of the sea. He had a military carriage, however, and regulation side-whiskers. There we have the marine. He was a man with some amount of self-importance and a certain air of command. You must have observed the way in which he held his head and swung his cane. A steady, respectable, middle-aged man, too, on the face of him—all facts which led me to believe that he had been a sergeant.” “Wonderful!” I ejaculated.

Unlike the case of Halley’s comet, the observable outcomes—a blue anchor on his hand, a military carriage, regulation side-whiskers, an air of command—are where the reasoning begins. The explanation—that he was a Marine sergeant—comes next. Nevertheless, we clarify and evaluate the argument just like the comet argument. Here is one good way of clarifying it:

• If the man were a Marine sergeant, then he would have a maritime tattoo, a military carriage, regulation side-whiskers, and an air of command.
• He had a maritime tattoo, a military carriage, regulation side-whiskers, and an air of command.
• ∴ The man was a Marine sergeant.

From a logical point of view, the chronological relationship between the two does not matter. We make our observations when we can and we fashion our explanations when they occur to us, and the same principles of evaluation apply regardless of which comes first. Practically speaking, however, explanations that do precede their observable outcomes are often logically stronger. It is easy to invent a convenient explanation for data you already have, but then to disregard failure to fully satisfy the total evidence condition. It is much harder to invent an explanation that successfully predicts future observations. You should be a bit more suspicious of explanatory arguments in which the observable outcome preceded the explanation—but for psychological, not logical, reasons.

A second way of distinguishing among explanatory arguments is in their level of generality. General explanations —Newtonian celestial mechanics, for example—are intended to apply broadly; Newton’s theories explain the motion of all heavenly bodies at all times. Such arguments are typical of science, though are not restricted to it. Singular explanations —that the butler did it, or that the man was a Marine sergeant—are designed to apply to a very specific thing or event—to this particular murder or to that particular man’s physical characteristics. Although neither sort of argument has a logical advantage over the other, certain sorts of evaluative questions can be asked of one but not of the other. For example, we can ask about the frequency of singular explanations—how frequently butlers leave their fingerprints on candlesticks or how frequently marines have tattoos—but it isn’t helpful, probably not even meaningful, to ask about the frequency with which Newtonian mechanics is true.

Distinction among Explanatory Arguments

• Chronology —the observed outcome can be observed either before or after the invention of the explanation ( after being psychologically better).
• Generality —the explanation can be either general or singular (each lending itself to different evaluative questions).

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (b)

Clarify the explanatory argument in each of the following passages. Then state whether it is general or singular and whether the explanation or the observable outcome came first.

Sample exercise. “At the end of the summer term, the teachers at a New England school were informed that certain children had been identified as ‘spurters’ who could be expected to do well over the coming months. These youngsters had, in fact, been selected at random from among their classmates. . . . When they were retested several months later, however, this time with a genuine intelligence test, those falsely identified ‘spurters’ did, indeed, show a significant improvement over their fellow students. This result can be explained by the fact that because the teachers expected them to do well, their perceptions of each student’s ability rose and those children’s own self-image was enhanced.” —David Lewis and James Greene, Thinking Better

Sample answer.

• If higher expectations by teachers and by themselves causes students to perform better, then randomly selected students whom teachers believe—falsely—to have greater potential end up performing better.
• Randomly selected students whom teachers believe—falsely—to have greater potential end up performing better.
• ∴  Higher expectations by teachers and by themselves causes students to perform better.

General explanation. Not clear from the passage which came first, though it was probably the explanation (apparently whoever set up the experiment already had the explanation in mind and was testing it).

• It was a tiny dent, no larger than a nickel, on the main frame of one motorcycle moving along an assembly line that produces about 175 such vehicles every day. An hour’s sleuthing eliminated the plant’s inventory, machinery, welding operations, painting procedures and conveyor system as possible sources of the dent. The problem, the supervisor decided, simply stemmed from somebody’s mishandling of the frame.
• “And whatever happened to Satcom III, the telecommunications satellite that some say almost crippled the satellite insurance industry? ‘At the time, I heard that 15 seconds into a 30-second burn both transmission channels died simultaneously,’ says Hughes. ‘That would tend to imply that the damned thing blew up.’” — Science85
• Woman interviewed on TV: “At first I heard a funny roar. I thought it was the wind blowing up the canyon, like it does, you know, except it was real still. I saw the sagebrush and the grass wiggling and starting to shake, and I thought, ‘Earthquake.’”
• “I knew you came from Afghanistan. . . . The train of reasoning ran, ‘Here is a gentleman of a medical type, but with the air of a military man. Clearly an army doctor, then. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardship and sickness, as his haggard face says clearly. His left arm has been injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an English army doctor have seen much hardship and got his arm wounded? Clearly in Afghanistan.’” —Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet
• “There has recently been a startling decline in a large number of amphibian populations, apparently because UV radiation is harmful to them. Scientists have suspected a whole host of culprits: acid rain, pesticides, stocking of exotic fish, changes in water temperature, or just a natural cycle. But in an Oregon State University study that was replicated several times, wild frog eggs were placed in 72 cages, some with filters that let all sunlight inside except UV radiation. The cages were then placed in the same spot where the frogs laid the eggs. From 20 percent to 25 percent more eggs under the filters hatched successfully than those that were unshielded.” — Science News.
• “I can remember, not long ago, listening to a pal rail about a mutual friend’s apparently overwhelming need to flirt with every man in a given room. I instinctively jumped to the tease’s defense. ‘Believe me, I know she’s annoying,’ I said. ‘But don’t you think she needs to flirt because she’s so insecure?’ ‘Insecure?’ my friend blasted back. ‘Couldn’t it be that she carries on like that because she has a huge and overweening ego ?’ Now there was a novel thought: Someone who acted obnoxiously because she was . . . obnoxious.” —Sara Nelson, Glamour

16.2 The Total Evidence Condition (1): The improbability of the Outcome

As we have seen in the preceding chapters, the conclusion of a strong induction must fit both the premises and the available background evidence. For explanatory arguments there are two main parts to the total evidence condition: the outcome must be sufficiently improbable and the explanation must be sufficiently probable. In this section we will look at the improbability of the outcome.

The Total Evidence Condition for Explanatory Arguments

• The observable outcome must be sufficiently improbable.
• The explanation must be sufficiently probable.

16.2.1 The Outcome Must Be Sufficiently Improbable

No one would have expected a comet in December 1758 unless they were assuming the Newtonian explanation; such an event would have been extremely improbable. This is an important source of the comet argument’s logical strength. If comets were common in December, then the premises of the argument would have still been true, but they would have given us no good reason to believe the conclusion. If the comet had been expected anyway, why should its appearance point toward Newtonian mechanics as opposed to whatever was the already accepted explanation? Similarly with our other cases. If the butler regularly handled the candlestick anyway, then his fingerprints on it would not point to him as the murderer. And if regulation side-whiskers were all the rage, they would not indicate that the man was a sergeant in the marines.

The first part of the total evidence condition is that the observable outcome must have a low prior epistemic probability. Epistemic probability, as explained in Chapter 9, refers to the probability of the statement’s truth given all relevant available evidence. The term prior, in this case, means that the probability calculation must be done prior to your making any judgment about the explanation itself and prior to your making any observations pertinent to the observable outcome. In other words, it means that you cannot use all of the relevant available evidence in making this particular judgment—you must exclude the assumption that the explanation is true, and you must exclude observations that might have already been made in the attempt to verify premise 2.

This makes good sense. If you evaluate the probability of the appearance of the comet but include in your background evidence the assumption that Newton is correct, then (setting aside the problem this would probably be the fallacy of begging the question) the probability of the 1758 comet would be very high—it is, after all, derived from the Newtonian explanation as its outcome! Again, if you include the observations actually made in December of 1758, the probability would be very high—they saw it!

There would be no good reason to expect the outcome prior to these two steps:

• Making any judgment about the explanation.
• Making any judgment about the outcome.

Why is this criterion important? If the prior probability of the outcome is high, then we expect the outcome to happen anyway—even if the hypothesis is false. Suppose Halley had decided to look for confirmation of Newton’s celestial mechanics by studying the sun rather than comets and, based on Newton, had confidently predicted that the sun would rise the next day. It is not likely that we would now call it Halley’s sun. When the outcome already has a high prior probability, the hypothesis does no work. The work is being done by whatever independent reason we already have for expecting the outcome to occur.

Some writers refer to this as the surprise criterion; it tests to see if you would be surprised by the outcome were you not to assume the explanation. The more surprising the outcome would be, the lower the prior probability and the stronger the logic of the argument. This can be a useful standard, but remember that surprise is a psychological condition—thus, strictly speaking, it is an indicator of low subjective, rather than epistemic, probability. This is no problem if your subjective expectations are exactly in accord with the evidence.

Unfortunately, there is no formula for calculating the prior probability of the observable outcome. There are, however, several helpful strategies that you can follow in making your judgment.

• Reject unfalsifiable explanations.
• Favor precise outcomes.
• Favor outcomes for which no explanation already exists.
• Favor outcomes that would falsify alternative explanations.

16.2.2 Reject Unfalsifiable Explanations

It isn’t possible to say with precision how improbable the outcome must be to count as sufficiently improbable. But it is possible to specify the lowest hurdle that must be cleared. The explanation must, at a minimum, be falsifiable. Falsifiability applies when there is some possible observable outcome of the theory that could prove the explanation to be false. Suppose I am encouraging you in your fledgling acting career and argue, “You are so talented that all the critics who don’t praise you are just jealous. I know that all the critics panned your opening performance last night. But that proves my point.” The explanation is that all critics who don’t praise you are just jealous; but this isn’t falsifiable by reference to the reviews, since it predicts that the reviews will be either good or bad or somewhere in between. But it is highly probable, whether my theory is true or false, that the reviews will be good or bad or somewhere in between. So my jealousy explanation flunks the test for low prior probability.

Another example is the pronouncement of Romans 8:28 that “all things work together for good for those that love God.” Some Christians will take any outcome at all to be, in some sense or other, good and thus to be evidence for the truth of this saying. When desperately needed money arrives mysteriously in the mail, that is support for Romans 8:28. When your entire family is wiped out in a car crash, that is support for Romans 8:28 too—after all, they are in heaven and you are going to have your character strengthened, so it is good. This interpretation of the saying is unfalsifiable and can receive no logical support from the nature of one’s experience.

To put it more generally, to say that an explanation or an outcome is unfalsifiable is to say that any observation at all is consistent with the explanation. And it is highly probable that we will have “any observation at all.” Any unfalsifiable explanation is in principle unable to satisfy the improbable-outcome criterion and can never be the conclusion of a sound explanatory argument. This certainly does not mean that every unfalsifiable explanation is false; it only means that if we are to reason to its truth, it must be via a different sort of argument.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (c)

Each of these passages discusses an explanation that might be thought to be unfalsifiable. In a short paragraph, identify the explanation, discuss why it may be unfalsifiable, and explain how this results in a problem with the first part of the total evidence condition.

• Some believers in the paranormal hold that skeptical attitudes can inhibit paranormal results. A professor at Bath University in England combines this rationalization with the idea that psychic powers work backward and forward in time; he suggests, in apparent seriousness, that the failure of attempted experiments to prove psychic forces is actually evidence in favor of parapsychology, since skeptics reading about successful experiments afterward actually project their skepticism back in time to inhibit the experiment!
• Freud argued that repression and resistance are two important mechanisms of our minds. Repression is the mechanism by which we push out of awareness and into our unconscious memories of deeply traumatic childhood experiences. Resistance is the mechanism by which we refuse to allow these repressed memories to be brought back to the surface. When people insist that they have no repressed memories, then, Freud considers this to be evidence for the presence of resistance, which is itself evidence for the existence of repression.

16.2.3 Favor Precise Outcomes

Although there is no formula for deciding on the improbability of the outcome, there are some helpful strategies that you can follow in making your decision.

One good way to check for an improbable outcome is to ask this: Is this outcome so vague that it might well be true anyway? Recall, from Chapter 13, that larger margins of error make it much more probable that the conclusion of an inductive generalization is true; there is a much greater chance that between 50 percent and 60 percent of the voters favor Jones than there is that exactly 55 percent of them do. This point can be broadened: vague statements, in general, are more likely to be true than precise ones. Halley’s job would have been much easier if, instead of predicting a comet precisely in December 1758, he had made the following vague prediction:

At least one comet will appear somewhere in the sky at some time in the future.

This observable outcome easily follows from the Newtonian explanation—thus, it would provide us with an argument with true premises. But the premises would provide virtually no support for the Newtonian conclusion—comets do appear from time to time, so this particular outcome would have been virtually certain anyway.

In ancient Greece, when there was a difficult decision to be made, the wealthy Greeks would sometimes travel to Delphi and consult the oracle there—an oracle who, it was believed, had special powers to foresee the future. The oracle tended to utter solemn pronouncements of a very unspecific sort—for example, “I see grave misfortune in your future.” It was almost inevitable that such a vague prediction would come true. For the Greek might count anything as grave misfortune, from a financial reversal to the death of an aged parent. When it did come true, it was often counted as reason to believe that the oracle had special powers. But the extremely high prior probability of the outcome renders the argument logically useless. For exactly the same reason, we can hardly consider astrology to be supported when someone finds that the day’s horoscope has some truth in it; horoscopes are worded so vaguely that there are almost always events that can be interpreted as making them true.

The problem in all of these cases is that the explanation does no work. It is freeloading; so it deserves no credit when the outcome comes true.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (d)

For each of the brief explanatory arguments, identify the explanation and offer a more precise observable outcome that would lower its prior probability and thus make the argument logically stronger. Don’t worry about whether the outcome has much likelihood of being true (since that has to do with the truth of premise 2, not with the logic of the argument).

Sample exercise. Astrology is reliable. Just watch—as my horoscope says, something will disappoint me today.

Sample answer. Explanation: Astrology is reliable. Observable outcome: As my horoscope says, at 3:00 today my bank will call and tell me that they have gone bankrupt and my life savings is lost.

• My iPhone will run out of power within the next 12 hours. That should prove to you that it is running low.
• She is a great actress. You’ll see—the audience will applaud at the end.
• I know of some people with cancer who smoke. Clearly, smoking causes cancer.
• She must be a good driver, since she usually gets where she’s going without running into anybody.
• My employer values me. It will be proven when I get some sort of raise in the next few years.

16.2.4 Favor Outcomes for Which No Explanation Already Exists

Another good way to check for an improbable outcome is to ask this: Does another explanation for this outcome already exist? Included among your background evidence may be a belief that already serves as a perfectly good explanation for the outcome—in which case, you would expect the outcome anyway. This is why, for example, we are amused but not persuaded by the rooster who thinks that the sun is raised each morning by his mighty crowing. Another explanation for the sunrise already exists in our own background evidence—that the earth is rotating on its axis.

More subtle examples are easy to find. Wilson Bryan Key, whose most famous book was titled Subliminal Seduction, has argued that Madison Avenue strategically permeates its advertisements with camouflaged sexual images that are invisible unless you look very hard for them. For example, an unnoticed erotic image on a Ritz cracker, Key says, “makes the Ritz cracker taste even better, because all of the senses are interconnected in the brain.” The problem with his argument is that another explanation for these “unnoticed images” already exists; we all know that we’re capable of finding images if we look really hard for them, simply as the products of our imagination. His argument would gain some logical strength if, when we looked for them, we could find sexual images in advertisements more often than we find them in the clouds. Until then, the argument is no better than a product of Key’s own imagination.

An even subtler example can be found in academic discussions of the theory that punishment motivates learning better than does reward. The experience of flight instructors was at one time taken to be good evidence for the theory. Instructors found that when a student pilot was scolded for a poor landing, the student usually did better the next time. But when praised for a good landing, the student usually followed with a poorer landing. The argument might be clarified as follows:

• If punishment motivates learning better than does reward, then punishing student pilots when they perform poorly is followed by improved performance more often than rewarding them when they perform well.
• Punishing student pilots when they perform poorly is followed by improved performance more often than rewarding them when they perform well.
• ∴ Punishment motivates learning better than does reward..

Then someone realized that this sort of evidence provided no logical support for the conclusion. For the observable outcome of premise 2 is something that we would fully expect, even if the explanation were false. Why? At any given time, each pilot has achieved a certain level of competence—call it the pilot’s current mean level of competence. Any performance significantly better or worse than the student’s current mean level of competence would be largely a matter of chance. After significantly departing from the mean level of competence, we would expect that the next attempt would be closer to the current mean. This means that an unusually good performance would typically be followed by a poorer one—returning downward to the mean—and that an unusually bad performance would typically be followed by a better one—again returning to the mean, but this time upward. The scolding and praise are no better than a fifth wheel in the argument, since the outcome is highly probable anyway. Because the explanation does no work in making the outcome probable, it should get none of the credit when the outcome is observed.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (e)

For each of the arguments below, offer an alternative explanation that already exists, which thus renders the outcome probable and the argument logically weak.

Sample exercise. New evidence shows that optimists live longer. Healthy elderly people who rated their health as “poor” were two to six times more likely to die within the next four years than those who said their health was “excellent.” — Bottom Line, citing the work of Professor Ellen Idler of Rutgers University

Sample answer. Alternative explanation that already exists. Healthy people who rate their health as “poor” know enough about their health to know that they are not as healthy as healthy people who rate their health as “excellent.” Given that they are elderly and in the low end of the healthy group, they will die sooner.

• The lights in this old house keep flickering. When I bought the house—despite its terrible condition—the sellers let slip that someone had died here. I think it might be haunted.
• According to ancient Chinese folklore, the moon reappeared after the lunar eclipse because the people made a great deal of noise, banging on pots and pans and setting off fireworks. It always does reappear after an eclipse when much noise occurs.
• In Billy Graham’s Peace with God, Graham refers to the failure of an international peace conference and asks, “Could men of education, intelligence, and honest intent gather around a world conference table and fail so completely to understand each other’s needs and goals if their thinking was not being deliberately clouded and corrupted?” Such failures, he continues, show that there is a devil, who is “a creature of vastly superior intelligence, a mighty and gifted spirit of infinite resourcefulness.”
• Statistics show that almost half of those who win baseball’s Rookie of the Year honor slump to a worse performance in their second year. This is solid evidence for the existence of the so-called sophomore jinx.

16.2.5 Favor Outcomes that Would Falsify Alternative Explanations

Another good way to check for an improbable outcome is to ask this: Does this outcome rule out the leading alternative explanations? The philosopher Francis Bacon wrote four centuries ago of this experience:

When they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods, —“Aye,” asked he again, “but where are they painted that were drowned after their vows?”

The explanation here is The gods are powerful and the observable outcome is Many who worship the gods have escaped from shipwrecks. But there is a viable alternative explanation for this outcome—namely, Escaping from a shipwreck is largely a matter of luck, shipwrecks having little regard for passengers’ religious beliefs. The logic of the gods argument would benefit if its observable outcome ruled out the luck alternative—if, for example, the outcome were revised, as Bacon hints, to this: Nobody who worships the gods has drowned in a shipwreck. Partly because this revised outcome would be false, it has not been offered; so the argument is handicapped by an outcome that leaves the luck alternative still standing. So the outcome probably would be true even if the gods explanation were false, and the argument is logically extremely weak.

Favoring outcomes that rule out alternative explanations is an especially powerful strategy. For, as researchers have shown, we have a natural tendency—termed a confirmation bias —to look for outcomes that support our preferred explanation rather than those that might falsify the alternatives—to look, for example, for worshippers who escaped rather than thinking also about those who drowned.

To illustrate this bias, suppose I tell you that I have in mind a set of numbers that includes the numbers 2, 4, and 6, and I then ask you to guess what set of numbers I am thinking of. You probably already suspect that it’s the set of all even numbers; but before I make you commit to that answer, I offer you the opportunity to test your answer by suggesting one more number that is either in or out of the set. If you are like most people you suggest, “Eight is in the set.” And my reply is that yes, 8 is included, because I am thinking of the set of all whole numbers. You can now see that you squandered your one opportunity. Influenced by the confirmation bias, you proposed a number that would confirm your preferred answer. But you would have done far better to propose, “Seven is not in the set.” If you had been right, you not only would have confirmed your preferred even-numbers answer, but also you would have ruled out the whole-numbers alternative—thereby improving the logical support for your answer. And if you had been wrong—and you would have been wrong—you would have had the chance to correct the error of your ways.

To illustrate how this strategy is related to the prior epistemic probability of the outcome, suppose I propose the following fanciful explanation:

I am bewitched, so that gravity has no affect on me whatsoever; the only reason I am able to walk around on the ground is because of magical shoes that counteract the bewitchment when I wear them.

My evidence? I offer the observable outcome that I walk around on the ground while I wear the shoes. And so I do. But this outcome provides no support for the explanation. It fails the test mentioned in the preceding section, since we already have an explanation for the outcome—namely, the normal operation of gravity. The argument would be greatly improved if the outcome included an attempt to rule out this alternative explanation, namely, I walk around on the ground while I wear the shoes, and I float in the air when I take them off. If this turns out to be true, it provides much better support for the explanation since it rules out the gravity alternative. An observable outcome for which there are fewer possible explanations is that much more improbable—and, thus, is that much logically stronger.

This helps to explain why so-called anecdotal evidence can be problematic. Suppose I have heard that vitamin C prevents colds; I don’t know whether to believe it but decide it’s worth looking into. I presume:

1. If vitamin C helps prevent colds, then when I take a lot of vitamin C I get fewer colds than normal.

I do take a lot of vitamin C over the winter and get only one or two colds, though I usually get three or four. So I add the premise,

2. When I take a lot of vitamin C I do get fewer colds than normal.

I then conclude,

• ∴ Vitamin C prevents colds.

My argument may provide a small measure of logical support for its conclusion, but what it does not do is rule out the following alternative explanations:

• The reduction in my colds was simply a coincidence.
• I was being more careful about my health because I was engaged in the experiment.
• I subconsciously wanted the test to succeed, so I tended not to count less severe colds that I otherwise would have counted.

A more careful test of the same theory would rule out these alternatives by using two large groups—one group that receives Vitamin C and a control group that receives a placebo—in a double blind test. (It is called double blind because neither those receiving the pills nor those administering the study knows which group is getting the real Vitamin C and which is getting the bogus Vitamin C.) By using large groups, the coincidence alternative is ruled out. By using the control group, the alternative is ruled out that the effect is somehow induced by the test itself. And by using a double blind test, the alternative is ruled out that the data were being interpreted differently for each group.

This argument would have the same form as the first one, differing only in the nature of the observable outcome.

• If vitamin C helps prevent colds, then the group taking vitamin C has substantially fewer colds than the group taking the placebo.
• The group taking vitamin C has substantially fewer colds than the group taking the placebo.
• ∴ Vitamin C helps prevent colds..

Because the observable outcome rules out the leading alternative explanations, its prior probability is far lower than the anecdotal argument—and thus the argument is logically much stronger.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (f)

For each of the passages below, ( i ) state the observable outcome and ( ii ) offer a different observable outcome that would rule out alternative explanations and lower its probability, thus making the argument logically stronger. Do not worry for now whether the observable outcome is true.

Sample exercise. “Hundreds of people gathered for a second night Wednesday to see an image described as the outline of the Virgin Mary on a wall of an empty house in Hanover Township, Pa. Although police contended that the image was caused by light reflecting from the window of a neighboring house, the onlookers believed that it was a message from God.” — Ann Arbor News

Sample answer. Observable outcome: An image looking like the outline of the Virgin Mary was seen on the wall of a house. Improved outcome: An image looking like the outline of the Virgin Mary was seen on the wall of a house, and it remained there when the window of the neighboring house was opened.

• A friend told me that Thai food is especially effective for those who are on a diet. I found a Thai restaurant and now I go there for lunch every day. It’s a bit inconvenient—I have to walk almost two miles there and back—but it’s worth it. My friend was right. I’ve really slimmed down.
• I never thought it would work, but I read somewhere that we should get a cat if we wanted to rid ourselves of the mice in the garage. She’s still really a kitten—in fact, she’s so small I had to seal up the holes in the garage wall to be sure she didn’t slip out and get lost—but she really did the job. No more mice.
• After one of our couple friends started going to a fertility clinic, they just relaxed and stopped consciously trying to conceive. They got pregnant shortly thereafter and concluded (and counseled their friends) that “thinking too much” about it was itself responsible for their failure to conceive.
• “It has long been my suspicion that, especially in Washington, when people say that they have ‘read’ a book, they mean something other than attempting to glean meaning from each sentence. I recently organized a small test of this hypothesis. A colleague visited several Washington-area bookstores and slipped a small note into about 70 books . . . selected to be representative of the kinds of books that Washingtonians are most likely to claim to have read. The notes were placed about three-quarters of the way through each book, hard against the spine so that they could not be shaken out. The notes said: “If you find this note before May 1, call David Bell at the New Republic and get a $5 reward,” with our phone number. We didn’t get a single response.” —Michael Kinsley (who, to his credit, adds “I don’t claim much for this experiment,” and then goes on to consider additional evidence).
• “Delynn Carter learned that the dramatic episodes of wheezing, which incapacitated her almost daily for the last eight years, were due not to asthma but to a vocal cord dysfunction that mimicked the symptoms of asthma and can be treated by speech therapy. Specialists found the cause by taking motion pictures of the patients’ vocal cords during an attack and during a normal period. During an episode of wheezing, they found that the vocal cords, which are located in the airway leading to the lungs, formed almost a complete barricade across the passage. This closure did not occur during a normal period. Also, the doctors reported, an extensive battery of pulmonary function tests failed to produce the kinds of findings that are characteristic of an asthmatic. Once the vocal cord problem was identified, the patients were taught certain techniques by a speech pathologist which, the report said, ‘immediately reduced both the number and the severity of attacks in all patients.’ For her part, Delynn Carter said she knows what triggered her attacks. “It was all those asthma medications that I didn’t need,” she said. ‘They took me off all of them and since then I’ve had no attacks. It’s like coming back from the dead.’” — Los Angeles Times

16.3 The Total Evidence Condition (2): The Probability of the Explanation

16.3.1 the explanation must be sufficiently probable.

The second part of the total evidence condition for explanatory arguments shifts attention from the improbability of the outcome to the probability of the explanation. As with the outcome, the concern here is also with prior epistemic probability—in this case, the probability that you would assess to the explanation prior to your making any judgment about the observable outcome. This makes good sense, because the probability of the explanation after you make a judgment about the observable outcome would roughly be your assessment of the soundness of the argument and it is too soon to make that judgment. Further, it is not necessary for the prior probability of the explanation to be high; if the explanation were already highly probable, there would be no need for the argument! Rather, it is simply necessary that it not be implausibly low and that it be higher than that of the leading alternative explanations.

The second part of the total evidence condition requires that you exercise the same imaginative powers as the arguer; for you must imagine which explanations would be the most credible alternatives to the one argued for. We typically favor the explanations with the highest prior probability. A house fire victim, for example, is quoted in the newspaper as explaining, “I kept smelling something, and then I saw the smoke. I thought somebody must be barbecuing. I couldn’t believe it was a fire. After a few seconds, I knew it was.” Barbecues occur far more frequently than house fires, so they have a much higher prior probability; but when the observable outcome—way too much smoke—does not follow from the barbecue explanation, we are logically forced to the less probable explanation that it is a house fire.

How to Think about High Enough Prior Probability of Explanation

Before making any judgment about the outcome, you should determine these two things:

• The probability of the explanation is not implausibly low.
• The explanation is more probable than the leading alternatives.

But sometimes the more probable explanation does not occur to us—we need more imagination or, perhaps, a better education. When he was a young lawyer, Abe Lincoln had to defend a client against a case that seemed to be strongly supported by a list of undisputed facts. In summing up his defense before the jury, he said, “My esteemed opponent’s statements remind me of the little boy who ran to his father. The lad said that Suzy and the hired man were up in the hayloft—that Suzy had her dress up and the hired man had lowered his trousers. ‘Pa!’ exclaimed the youngster, ‘they are getting ready to pee on the hay!’ ‘Well, son,’ replied the father, ‘you’ve got the facts all right, but have reached the wrong conclusion.’” Lincoln’s client, we are told, was acquitted. Part of the reason, presumably, was because the jury saw that if they carefully thought about alternative explanations, they might find one with a higher prior probability than the one Lincoln’s opponent was arguing for.

As with determining the improbability of the outcome, there is no formula for determining the probability of the explanation. There are, however, several useful strategies that we will discuss next.

• Favor frequency.
• Favor explanations that make sense.
• Favor simplicity.
• Look for coincidence as an alternative explanation.
• Look for deception as an alternative explanation.

16.3.2 Favor Frequency

For singular explanations—such as The butler did it or This man was a Marine sergeant —the best question to ask is this: Is this sort of thing known to occur, and does it occur more frequently than do the leading alternatives? Suppose the phone rings and you pick it up, only to hear the “click” of someone’s hanging up on the other end. “Aha!” you say, “Someone is casing the joint and now knows not to burglarize us, since someone answered the phone!” This explanation is the sort of thing that is known to happen—burglars do sometimes call ahead to see if anyone is home—so it is not implausibly low. But the problem is that there is at least one alternative explanation that occurs much more frequently. Consider the alternative that someone has accidentally dialed a wrong number, only to hang up when hearing an unfamiliar voice on the other end. Which occurs more frequently—burglars or butterfingers? Butterfingers, of course. So the logic of the burglar argument is shown to be weak. [3]

This can be a powerful evaluative tool. Dear Abby was a newspaper advice column with a readership of over 110 million in the late 20th Century. Here is one of the classic exchanges: [4]

Dear Abby: I’m a traveling man who’s on the road five days a week. I have a pretty young wife (my second) whom I’ve always trusted until last Friday night when I came home, put on my bathrobe and found a well-used pipe in the pocket! I don’t smoke a pipe. Never have. And my wife has never smoked anything. She claims she has never seen that pipe before and doesn’t know how it got there. OK, so she’s not admitting to anything, but the next day when I went to get the pipe, it wasn’t where I had put it! It just plain disappeared. I searched the apartment, but it was nowhere to be found. My wife claims she doesn’t know what happened to it. We are the only two people in this apartment. From what I’ve told you, what conclusions would you draw? No names, please. My wife calls me—Papa Bear

Dear Papa Bear: It’s just a wild guess, but I think somebody’s been sleeping in your bed. Pity, the evidence went up in smoke.

About a month later this letter appeared—really:

Dear Abby: The letter from the traveling man who spends five days a week on the road interested me. He said he came home to discover a well-used pipe in the pocket of his bathrobe. . . . Well, Abby, this should clear up the mystery of MY missing pipe. Being a plumber, I was summoned to the home of an attractive woman to repair a faulty shower nozzle that was spraying water all over her bathroom. While waiting for my clothes to dry, I slipped into a robe hanging on a hook in the bathroom, and I must have thoughtlessly put my pipe into the pocket. After searching for it high and low later, I suddenly remembered. When I went back to that house, the door was open and I could hear a loud argument coming from another room, so I sneaked in and quietly retrieved my pipe. I hope this explains it for all hands. Pete McG. P.S. Could you find out for me which five days that man is on the road?

Dear Pete: Sorry, no help from this corner for a plumber who can’t keep track of his pipes.

Abby’s explanation is that the wife is having an affair; the observable outcome is that the pipe unexpectedly appears and then mysteriously disappears. But the second letter, using the same observable outcome, offers an alternative explanation—namely, that a plumber visited, left the pipe, then surreptitiously retrieved it.

How does Abby’s conclusion fare in the face of this alternative explanation? Not too badly, if we compare the frequencies of each. The plumber explanation is burdened with improbabilities:

• How often do people call an expensive plumber over a faulty shower nozzle when it could be easily unscrewed and replaced with a $5 part?
• How often do people leave water spraying everywhere rather than simply turning it off?
• How often do plumbers leave water spraying everywhere rather than turning it off—if not at the faucet, then at the main?
• How often do plumbers waste time by doing things such as drying their clothes when they can make more money by going on to another job?
• How many plumbers smoke pipes?
• The husband said he put the pipe somewhere, and the plumber had no way of knowing where; how often is someone going to be able to sneak in and find something like that without being caught?
• The plumber says he went to a house, while the man says he lives in an apartment; how often does someone make that sort of mistake?
• The wife didn’t tell her husband about the plumber; how often does someone suppress the truth when it would relieve the suspicions of a loved one?
• The plumber could’ve called the man or sent a note (enclosed, perhaps, with his bill) to straighten things out, but wrote Dear Abby where there was a good chance it wouldn’t be published or the man wouldn’t read it; how often does a well-intentioned person take such an ineffective action to right a wrong?

The answer in each case is very infrequently. When we compare frequencies we see that the prior probability of each portion of the plumber explanation is quite low; and the conjunction of all portions (recall Chapter 10—this requires that the probabilities of all the parts be multiplied) is far, far lower. Clearly, the plumber explanation has a much lower prior probability than does the affair explanation. Abby’s argument remains moderately strong.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (g)

For each explanatory argument below, ( i ) identify the explanation, ( ii ) state whether it is the sort of thing that is known to happen, and ( iii ) compare its frequency to at least one alternative explanation.

Sample exercise. “C. B. Scott Jones, a staff member for U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), wrote an alarmed letter to the secretary of defense; he had discovered the word ‘simone’ (pronounced si-MO-nee) in the secretary’s taped speeches, as well as in the speeches of the secretary of state and of the president—when the speeches were played backwards. Jones argued that ‘simone’ was apparently a code word, and that it would not be in the national interest that it become known. It turns out that played forward, the word ‘enormous’ occurs from time to time in these speeches; and ‘enormous’ sounds like ‘simone’ when it is played backwards.” — Los Angeles Times

Sample answer. Explanation: “Simone” is a code word. So far as I know, officials have not used backward code words in their public speeches, so the prior probability of the explanation is exceedingly low. An alternative explanation is that Jones was hearing the word “enormous,” which sounds like “simone” backwards and occurs frequently in the speeches (and probably does not pose any danger to national security).

• Teacher to student: “I never received your research paper. Wait—don’t tell me—your dog ate it, right?”
• Judge to scofflaw: “So, my papers show that you failed to pay 48 separate parking tickets. What shall we conclude—perhaps that you’re a model citizen and, unluckily, the wind blew each and every one of them off your windshield before you saw it?”
• Several of the younger trees by Beaver Creek stream are now nothing more than two-foot posts sticking out of the ground; the treetops are nowhere around, and the top of each stump comes to a curious point. This is further proof that aliens from outer space have visited us.
• Woman on a TV talk show with theme “Moms who keep secrets from daughters”: “Mom, you always told me that my father was killed in the war right after I was born. But I’m not stupid. You never talked about him like he was a hero—never made any effort to keep his memory alive with letters and pictures. Admit it. I’m illegitimate.”
• A medical student has been reading intensively about various diseases of the nervous system. One morning she wakes up after a late night reading and finds her vision is somewhat blurred; she immediately diagnoses optic neuritis.
• “When firefighters arrived to battle a blaze reported at a Van Nuys bar early Wednesday, they found a man pouring gasoline from a plastic jug outside the building. In a window on one side was a burning Molotov cocktail. Firefighters doused the flaming Molotov cocktail and then detained the man . . . until police arrived and took him into custody. An arson investigator said the man offered an explanation: ‘The suspect said that he was using the gas to start his car and that he felt the jug was too full so he poured out some of the gasoline near the building. He claims he has no knowledge of the Molotov cocktail.’” — Los Angeles Times

16.3.3 Favor Explanations that Make Sense

General explanations—such as Newtonian mechanics applies to the motion of celestial bodies or Vitamin C helps prevent colds —do not lend themselves to the question about comparative frequencies because they are general. But you can still ask whether such explanations make sense, and whether they make more sense than the alternative explanations. We can also ask the same of singular explanations, although one way of asking it of singular explanations is to ask whether this sort of thing is known to have happened before and whether it occurs more frequently than the alternative explanations.

Another way to put this is to ask whether there is a satisfactory conceptual framework for the general explanation—and whether it is more satisfactory than the alternatives. Would it require the world to function in mysterious ways or in ways that differ dramatically from the ways that are well established by science? If so, it is probably better to judge the logic of the argument as, at best, undecidable and, at worst, extremely weak. It must be emphatically added that the world is in many ways mysterious, and that science can be mistaken, and often is. But explanatory arguments that rely heavily on mystery or that depend on the overthrow of science cannot be considered successful until they do the hard work of filling in the blanks. If there are too many blanks, then the explanation’s prior probability is too low for the argument to be logically strong.

Examples of this abound, even in some of the most widely accepted explanatory theories. Many smart people refused at first to wholeheartedly endorse Newtonian mechanics because it lacked a satisfactory conceptual framework in one important respect. It assigned a central role to gravity, which is, in effect, action at a distance; but it did not offer any account of how gravitational forces can act across space without any intervening physical bodies. Due to this defect, it took an especially rich array of observable outcomes and an especially compelling theoretical simplicity for it to gain rational acceptance. In another example, continental drift initially was reasonably rejected as the explanation for the striking biological and geological similarities between continents that are widely separated by oceans because there was no known mechanism for the drift. But the theory of plate tectonics eventually provided a conceptual framework for continental drift, and the explanation no longer has an unacceptably low prior probability. Meteorites provide yet another example. Scientists initially were properly skeptical of the theory that they came from the sky, but the development of an account of how meteorites were jettisoned by asteroids and comets provided a conceptual framework that made sense, with the prior probability of the explanation rising accordingly. (The Vitamin C example is similar; one reason that researchers have not worked harder at collecting evidence for the theory is because it is unclear how it would work. Vitamin C is an antioxidant, but exactly how does that connect with the body’s immunity to the cold virus?)

When established scientists reject offbeat theories, defenders of such views love to cite these cases. Scientists rejected Newton, they rejected continental drift, they rejected meteorites, and they were wrong! So the scientists are wrong when they reject the paranormal, ancient astronauts, and homeopathic medicine! Scientists were right to reject these formerly offbeat views until they could make good sense of them, and they will be right to reject the paranormal, ancient astronauts, and homeopathic medicine until they can also make good sense of them. Some explanations will eventually measure up to the standards of good reasoning; that is no reason to eliminate the standards.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (h)

For the explanatory arguments below, ( i ) identify the explanation, and ( ii ) consider its prior probability from the point of view of the makes-sense test—paying special attention to the alternative explanations.

Sample exercise. A 17-pound meteorite of unknown origin was found in Antarctica. Normally scientists can trace meteorites back to comets and asteroids, debris left over from the formation of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago. Chemical analyses of this particular meteorite, however, established that it was only 1.3 billion years old and made of cooled lava. Where, then, could the extraterrestrial have come from? Searching for a once volcanic place of origin, researchers ruled out both Venus, because the atmosphere is too thick for such a rock to have escaped, and the moon, since it stopped erupting 3 billion years ago. Then NASA’s Donald Bogard compared the meteorite’s “fingerprint” of noble gases to those found on Mars by the Viking lander—and discovered that they matched closely. “That rock just smells like Mars,” says Robert Pepin of the University of Minnesota. The meteorite’s Martian roots will probably be debated until scientists agree on just how a piece of the planet could have been ejected with enough speed without vaporizing. — Newsweek

Sample answer. Explanation: the meteorite came from Mars. Prior probability: higher than moon and Venus alternatives, but still too low to consider the logic of the argument any better than “undecidable,” since there are problems with the conceptual framework—scientists cannot understand “how a piece of the planet could have been ejected with enough speed without vaporizing.”

• “For many years, ship captains navigating the waters of Antarctica have been intrigued by rare sightings of emerald icebergs. Now it’s been discovered that the icebergs are broken pieces of huge ice shelves that are hundreds of years old, according to a study reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The unusual coloring occurs when the icebergs capsize, revealing the underside where frozen sea water contains yellowish-brown organic material. Pure ice appears blue, and the presence of the organic material shifts the color to green.” — New York Times
• Death and disaster provide a convincing argument that, contrary to the persistent notion, women are not the weaker sex. Archeologist Donald Grayson of the University of Washington has found some evidence in the Donner Party catastrophe. It’s a favorite of macabre schoolchildren. Delayed on the way west in 1846, 87 pioneers were stranded in late October by heavy snows in the Sierra. Nearly half the party died before an April rescue, the survivors cannibalizing the dead. Thirty of the 40 who died were men and, says Grayson, most of the male deaths occurred before that of a single woman. Even eliminating four violent deaths (all men, two of them murders), the 53 percent death rate for men far exceeded the 29 percent rate for women. Men were exposed more frequently to the elements, since they did the hunting and tree cutting. But Grayson believes it’s unlikely such factors fully explain the statistics. For instance, of 15 Donner Party members who attempted to snowshoe out in late December, all five women survived while eight of the ten men died. And chivalry didn’t make the difference, the researchers say, since women got no more food than men. “It comes down to physiology,” says Grayson. “Men are evolutionarily built for aggression. Women are built for giving birth, and the long haul that involves.” — In Health
• Scientists at the University of Manchester have discovered a distant planet where virtually no one would have expected it to be, orbiting a pulsar star, PSR1829, which was born during a supernova. The planet is too dim to be seen, but the scientists said they are convinced it is there because the pulsar emits radio signals that vary in a way that can best be explained by the gravitational tug of a nearby planet—the waves are a bit early for three months, then for three months arrive a bit late. One other possible explanation is that as the pulsar spins it might be wobbling due to some strange effect in the inside of the star, though such an effect is not understood and has never been observed before. — Science News
• For years, scientifically trained observers dismissed voodoo death as primitive superstition. But eventually, confronted by many cases in which there seemed to be no medical reasons for deaths, anthropologists and psychiatrists came to accept it as a pathology in its own right, linked to the victim’s belief in sorcery. But how can the mere belief that one is doomed be fatal? Two kinds of theories have been proposed. One emphasizes the power of suggestion as a psychological process; if faith can heal, despair can kill. The other roots the power of suggestion in physiology: extreme fright and despair disrupt the sympathetic nervous system and paralyze body functions. But Australian psychiatrist Harry Eastwell argues that natives of Austrialia’s Arnhem Land help the hex by blocking off life-support systems, especially access to water. The victims and their families realize there is a hex; it becomes difficult to live a normal life, and the stress exacerbates any bodily problems. Relatives gather close to the victim, wailing, chanting, and covering the victim with a funeral cloth. Appetite fails, and the relatives keep water cans beyond reach, despite temperatures well above 100 degrees in the shade. With total restriction of fluids, death follows in 24 hours. In Arnhem Land, it seems, sorcery kills not by suggestion or paralyzing fear, but by dehydration. — Psychology Today

16.3.4 Favor Simplicity

Simplicity can be a significant contributor to the probability of an explanation. The point is not that the world is necessarily simple, any more than the world is necessarily filled only with frequently occurring or nonmysterious things. The point is that, other things being equal, simple explanations, like frequently occurring and nonmysterious explanations, have a higher prior probability. An explanation is in this way like a machine. Some machines require a large number of moving parts to work properly. But the more moving parts a machine has, the more likely it is that it will break down—so a well-designed machine includes no more parts than absolutely required.

This applies to both singular and general explanations. One good way to check for simplicity—a way typically more useful with singular than with general explanations—is to ask whether the explanation offers only as many explanatory entities as needed. When faced with the dead body and the candlestick bearing the butler’s fingerprints, even if there were no evidence pointing toward the chambermaid, an alternative explanation might have been this:

The butler and the chambermaid committed the murder together, but only the chambermaid was wearing gloves.

The observable outcome follows from this explanation just as well as it does from the explanation that it was merely the butler who did it, but the simpler butler explanation has a higher prior probability. Why? Suppose the prior probability that the butler did it was .10, likewise for the chambermaid. Then, recalling our discussion of evaluating the truth of both–and sentences in Chapter 10, the prior probability that it was both of them can be roughly understood as .10 times .10, or .01. Add a moving part to the machine, and the probability that every part will work drops dramatically.

This interlocks with the test, under the preceding improbable-outcome criterion, of asking whether an explanation for the outcome already exists. When an explanation already exists, the arguer is free to respond in, for example, the case of the student pilots’ performance, “OK, but this outcome is explained both by the efficacy of punishment and by the normal return to the current mean after an aberrant performance.” But now it violates the second part of the total evidence condition as well!

Aspects of Simplicity

• For singular explanations, the simplest one normally offers the fewest explanatory entities.
• For general explanations, the simplest one normally predicts the smoothest curve.

For general explanations, a good way to check for simplicity is to ask whether the explanation predicts the smoothest possible curve. In the 17th century, the Italian mathematician Torricelli hypothesized that the Earth was surrounded by a sea of air, which decreased in pressure uniformly as the altitude increased. Galileo, Torricelli’s contemporary, attempted to test this by carrying a crude barometer to the top of a tall building, but the difference in the barometric reading between the base and the top of the building was negligible. Another contemporary of his, French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, suspected that Torricelli was right but that a greater altitude was required to prove it. Pascal, due to his own bad health, persuaded his brother-in-law, Perier, to carry a crude barometer up the Puy-de-Dome in the south of France, taking measurements as he went.

Perier stopped and measured the barometer from time to time as he scaled the mountain, with results that were widely taken as impressive proof of Torricelli’s hypothesis. The reading in Paris, at sea level, was 30 inches; at the base of the Puy-de-Dome, at 1,300 feet, it was about 28.7 inches; and at the mountain’s peak, at 4,800 feet, it was about 25.2 inches. For the sake of illustration, I will slightly idealize the intermediate readings: say, it was 28.2 inches at 1,800 feet, then one inch lower at each of the next thousand-foot intervals. [5] A graph of these results, representing our evidence in this case, looks like this.

The argument might now be clarified as follows:

• If the Earth is surrounded by a sea of air that decreases uniformly in pressure as the altitude increases, then Perier’s barometer reads 30 inches at 0 feet, 28.7 inches at 1,300 feet, 28.2 inches at 1,800 feet, 27.2 inches at 2,800 feet, and 26.2 inches at 3,800 feet, and 25.2 inches at 4,800 feet.
• Perier’s barometer reads 30 inches at 0 feet, 28.7 inches at 1,300 feet, 28.2 inches at 1,800 feet, 27.2 inches at 2,800 feet, 26.2 inches at 3,800 feet, and 25.2 inches at 4,800 feet.
• ∴ The Earth is surrounded by a sea of air that decreases uniformly in pressure as altitude increases.

Given that the explanation calls for a uniform decrease in air pressure, it would then predict that if samples were taken at all other altitudes on the Puy-de-Dome, they would be plotted on the graph along a line described by the smoothest curve that can be drawn through the points already there, as follows.

But suppose I offer the alternative explanation that air pressure is highly irregular but that it so happens that barometric pressure nevertheless would be 30 inches at 0 feet, 28.7 inches at 1,300 feet, 28.2 inches at 1,800 feet, 27.2 inches at 2,800 feet, 26.2 inches at 3,800 feet, and 25.2 inches at 4,800 feet. The line on the chart, I argue, does pass through the six plotted points but otherwise zigzags wildly, say, as follows.

Both explanations do an equally good job of entailing Perier’s results as their observable outcome. But the first one, Torricelli’s, has a higher prior probability because it is simpler, due to its prediction of a smoother curve.

The simplicity test, as explained here, is related to the makes-sense test. As we have seen, explanations that make good sense are those for which we have an adequate conceptual framework—for which we have a reasonably good account of the causal mechanisms involved. Further, we suppose that causal mechanisms operate uniformly in the world—that under similar circumstances they operate similarly, and that slight dissimilarities in circumstances tend to produce slight dissimilarities in the way they operate. Slightly less oxygen means that we get tired a little sooner; slightly worn brakes stop the car a little more slowly; slightly less sunlight means the plant grows a little shorter. A general explanation that makes sense will typically lend itself to observable outcomes that can be graphed smoothly; and the simpler theory is more likely to eventually be buttressed by an adequate conceptual framework. This is what happened with Torricelli’s hypothesis. The conceptual framework was eventually supplied: the most important causal mechanism behind it is gravity, and, according to the eventually well-established Newtonian laws, gravity’s pull on the air molecules decreases regularly as distance from Earth increases.

16.3.5 Look for Coincidence as an Alternative Explanation

When you cannot think of another explanation, it can be tempting to accept an explanatory argument even when the prior probability of the explanation is exceedingly low. Resist the temptation, especially when you can see that coincidence has not been ruled out as an alternative explanation.

Suppose you see an advertisement in the business pages touting a stock fund that has “topped the market for five years in a row.” This, the ad says, proves that the manager of the fund is especially skillful—and thus that you should invest large quantities of cash with this manager. The leading alternative explanation is that the manager has succeeded by sheer luck. What is the prior probability of this alternative? Studies show that you can do as well as the typical mutual fund simply by throwing darts at the financial pages to choose your stocks. Thus, the prior probability of beating the market in a single year is roughly .50. [6] The probability of two consecutive years of success is no higher than .50 times .50, or .25. Doing the math for five years, we find that the prior probability of the coincidence explanation is about .03—that is, about 1 in 30 could be expected to have this kind of success just by chance.

And what is the prior probability of the skill explanation? There are a few money managers who succeed on the basis of skill—multibillionaire Warren Buffet is the most famous example. Further, we have a conceptual framework for Buffet’s skill—the causal mechanism makes sense—for his strategies have been widely publicized, and the small handful of others who have had the discipline to follow them have also succeeded over the long run. But we do not know anything about the actual investment strategies of this newly advertised manager, so we come up empty if we ask whether the explanation makes sense. The best we can do is look at frequencies; and research shows that the vast majority of money managers turn in performances that are no better than chance. It is doubtful that more than 1 in 30 is able to win five years in a row on the basis of skill—that is, the probability of succeeding for five years by skill is probably no better than the probability of doing it by chance. In short, coincidence has not been ruled out, so we cannot judge this to be a logically strong argument. Note that I am being careful not to say that coincidence is thus proven to be the correct explanation; the point, a more modest one, is that skill is not supported as the correct explanation. We do not have to establish the correct explanation to establish that the argument is a bad one.

This point is not lost on investment companies. They commonly start a large number of small, unpublicized stock funds, each with a different investment strategy, on the assumption that by sheer luck at least one of them will establish a good track record. The funds that fail are closed, and the manager of the one that succeeds is advertised widely. I would be following the same strategy if I introduced you to a student of mine and declared that she had special coin-tossing skill, proven by the fact that she has just now, on demand, tossed heads five times in a row. You might be impressed until you learn that I asked all 30 students in my class to stand up and try to toss heads. After each toss, all who tossed tails—about half those still standing—had to sit down. There were 15, then 8, then 4, then 2; then, after the fifth toss, this one student remained. The fact remains that she tossed heads, on demand, five times in a row, but you now realize that coincidence is at least as good an explanation as talent—after all, how many people can actually toss heads whenever they want?—and you are likely to lose interest.

This insight can be especially valuable when improbable events are explained by appeal to the paranormal. Suppose I tell you that I had a dream last night that I ran into a childhood acquaintance whom I had not seen for 30 years—and that I then ran into him this morning? Your first thought would probably be that this supports the explanation that we are sometimes able to see into the future via our dreams. But this explanation has an exceedingly low prior probability. No one can even begin to provide an account of the conceptual framework, of the causal mechanisms, that would make sense of it. This is the place to ask about coincidence as an alternative explanation. I have had many thousands of dreams—most of which I have immediately forgotten, in part because they have not come true. By sheer coincidence, a few of these thousands of dreams are going to seem to come true, and these are the ones that will stick most vividly in my memory (remember the vividness shortcut from Chapter 1). Just like the coin-toss and mutual fund cases, coincidence does make sense and is at least as likely here as the paranormal. So the argument’s logic must be considered weak.

Two Alternative Explanations to Bear in Mind

• Coincidence

16.3.6 Look for Deception as an Alternative Explanation

When an explanation’s prior probability is extremely low, another alternative explanation is deception. My heads-tossing student may have been skillful, or she may have gotten lucky . . . or she may have been secretly using a two-headed coin. Neither of the two alternatives has been ruled out, and either is more probable than that she is one of the very few people who has perfected special coin-tossing skill.

Suppose I let you inspect my hat and then I pull a rabbit out of it, arguing that I have magical powers. That explanation has a nearly nil prior probability, since it does not make any sense; there is no uncontroversial example of this sort of thing actually happening, and we haven’t the slightest notion of the causal mechanisms that would be involved. We do know, however, that deception of this sort happens—that there are entertainers who work very hard at producing illusions like this, and they can make a lot of honest money at it. So, not only is the prior probability of magic negligible, but it is far lower than that of the leading alternative, illusion. The logic of the argument is accordingly weak.

This is not to say dogmatically that magic cannot happen. Rather, it is to say that an argument for magic must meet high standards, and this one does not yet do so. To return to an earlier case, no lesser a light than Thomas Jefferson, when he heard the reports of meteorites from Harvard and Brown professors, said, “I would rather believe that the Yankee professors lied than that stones fall from the heavens.” This was probably reasonable as an initial reaction—though, in this case, the high standards were eventually met.

Nevertheless, smart people suffer lapses of rationality and allow themselves to be persuaded that a man like Uri Geller has special powers because he can perform feats that any practiced illusionist can perform—and can detect. The only difference is that Geller claims that he is not using deception. But this does not make the special-powers explanation more probable than the deception explanation; it simply enlarges the deception.

So-called crop circles in southern England’s grain fields were widely reported in the media a few years ago. These were huge, precise patterns of bent stalks of wheat, corn, and barley that lent themselves to spectacular aerial photographs. Proponents of the paranormal seized on them as new evidence of visitations from other galaxies; said one Patrick Delgado, author of several profitable books on the subject: “No human being could have done this. These crops are laid down in these sensational patterns by an energy that is of a high level of intelligence.” Alas, two British painters finally confessed that they had perpetrated the hoax over a 13-year period simply by pulling around flat, four-foot planks by hand with reins to topple over the stalks. Circles that had only later begun to appear elsewhere, they suggested, were created by copycats. Said author Delgado, “We have been conned. This is a dirty trick. Thousands of lives are going to be wrecked over this.” At least one source of income was going to be wrecked.

Those desperate to discredit a good explanatory argument might misuse this guideline. Just as a good explanatory argument rules out coincidence, it also rules out deception. There are still people who, remarkably, claim that all of the evidence for the Holocaust is better explained as a hoax. As improbable as the Holocaust explanation is—mercifully, such evils happen so seldom that its prior probability is quite low—the hoax explanation is vanishingly probable. Far worse than the plumber explanation from Dear Abby, it requires a long list of independently improbable things all to be true—alternative ways, for example of accounting for the following: the vast documentation rescued from the German Archives; the elaborate sealed rooms set up for funneling the prisoners to their deaths; the movement of enormous quantities of asphyxiating Xyklon B gas to the death camps; the photographs of mounds of bodies; the vast body of eyewitness testimony by both victims and their murderers; and the otherwise mysterious disappearance from history of millions of Jews. The deception explanation should often be considered, but it is subject to the same high standards that apply to any other explanatory argument.

EXERCISES Chapter 16, set (i)

Bring it all together by fully clarifying and evaluating the explanatory arguments in each of these passages.

Sample exercise. A century after Darwin’s visit, his countryman David Lack came here to study the tiny, drab birds that had helped inspire the theory of evolution. Lack noticed that on an island shared by two species of finches, one’s beak was markedly smaller than the other’s. But where either species lived by itself on an island, it developed a beak in between these two extremes. Lack suggested that a finch species alone on an island evolved an intermediate beak for eating seeds of various sizes. But where the two species competed for seeds, one evolved a beak suited for the small seeds, while the other developed a beak for the large seeds. Skeptics have suggested another explanation: Perhaps this is because of peculiarities in each island’s food. A team of researchers recently found no differences that would account for the beak variations. The researchers also monitored a drought that killed off 85 percent of the finches on an island one year. The survivors were the finches with beaks closest to either of the two extremes—a demonstration of how competition eliminates intermediate beaks and forces each species to specialize in seeds of one size. — Science85

• [If competition for food among finches on Galapagos is the main cause of extremes in beak sizes, then there are extremes in beak sizes on Galapagos finches, there is no relevant difference in food from island to island, and in conditions of scarcity the finches with extremes survive best.]
• There are extremes in beak sizes on Galapagos finches, there is no relevant difference in food from island to island, and in conditions of scarcity the finches with extremes survive best.
• ∴ Competition for food among finches on Galapagos causes the extremes in beak sizes.

Premise 1 is probably true. Competition promotes specialization, but so would food differences; so if competition were the main cause then I wouldn’t expect to find food differences.

Premise 2 is probably true. The magazine reporting it is reliable, and there is no reason to distrust it in this case.

Fairly strong. Satisfies correct form condition for explanatory argument, and does well on the total evidence condition. First part: The prior probability of the prediction is extremely low—helped especially by the inclusion of predictions (i.e., no relevant difference in food from island to island) that succeed in falsifying alternative hypotheses (i.e., that the difference is because of difference in food). Second part: Reasonably high prior probability for the explanation; the causal mechanism—natural selection—is fairly well understood, and no alternate seems more likely.

Probably fairly sound.

• What prehistoric culture created the huge and magnificent likeness of George Bernard Shaw that is topographically sculpted on the southern tip of an island in the Leaf River in northern Quebec? The achievement is all the more remarkable when you consider that the mysterious sculptors created their masterpiece millennia before the existence of their subject. (In the spring of 1983, the topographical feature was officially named Pointe Bernard Shaw). — Discover
• Psychologists at San Jose State studied the traffic violations handled by 10 police officers assigned to routine patrol duty in a California town of 8,000 people. Researchers found that during a three-year period, the percentage of tickets, compared to simple warnings, was considerably higher during the night shift: more than 71 percent of the drivers stopped at night got tickets, compared with 58 percent of those stopped during the day (the others got warnings). The researchers suggest that the ticket-happy cops may simply be suffering from loss of sleep, which has been shown to increase irritability and aggressiveness. — Psychology Today
• Why is Tylenol “the pain reliever hospitals use most?” The ads imply that it’s better than other brands. But the editors at Consumer Reports learned that hospitals buy their drugs through competitive bidding, and that they usually only buy one brand of any drug, and that Tylenol is the cheapest of the painkillers. This may come as a surprise to you if you’ve recently bought a package—at retail it’s among the priciest. But its maker, Johnson and Johnson, is the king of discounters when selling to hospitals. One doctor said, “One brand is as good as another. The company gives it to us dirt cheap, so how can we resist?”— Consumer Reports (Focus on the explanation that Tylenol is encouraging us to adopt.)
• Dr. R. A. Rabinoff, professor of physics at Maharishi International University (MIU), presented a paper titled “Effect of Coherent Collective Consciousness on the Weather” reporting evidence that the weather could be modified by practicing transcendental meditation (TM). During the previous winter MIU had been involved in a major construction project (a domed structure for the practice of levitation). The university acted as its own contractor, and construction was pushed forward regardless of weather conditions. This disregard for weather extended even to the pouring of concrete. Concrete, according to the campus architect, was poured whenever the schedule required and the necessary materials were available. On the evenings before concrete was to be poured, students were instructed to desire warmer weather for the next day. Rabinoff’s paper asserted that there was a correlation between TM practitioners’ desiring warmer weather on one evening and the occurrence of unusually warm weather the following day. Rabinoff claimed that this was evidence for a cause–effect relationship between TM and the weather.

A later investigation showed that there was indeed a correlation between TM and warmer weather, but an even stronger correlation between TM and the preceding afternoon’s forecast of warmer weather for the next day. MIU had practiced TM on eight nonconsecutive days, without a miss, when the preceding day’s forecast predicted mild or continuing mild weather. MIU’s architect had said only that the decision to pour concrete was based on the construction schedule and the availability of certain materials. But it turned out that concrete was available only when mild weather had been predicted. The MIU supplier of concrete had required MIU to give one day’s notice of the need for concrete, but never agreed to provide it for the next day until first referring to the National Weather Service. —Franklin D. Trumpy, Skeptical Inquirer (Concern yourself with the inference made by Dr. Rabinoff.)

16.4 Summary of Chapter Sixteen

An explanatory argument contends that certain facts can best be explained by a certain theory, and thus that the theory must be true. The first premise states that the theory, or the explanation, really does enable you to predict the facts, or the observable outcome. The second premise states that the observable outcome has happened—that it really has been observed. And the argument concludes that the explanation is thus true. It takes the same form as the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but the two are easy to distinguish; an explanatory argument, unlike the deductive fallacy, depends not only on form, but also on the total evidence, for logical support.

In some explanatory arguments, the explanatory theory is first invented, then the observable outcome is predicted and looked for. In others, the outcome is first observed, then the explanation is invented to account for it; although these are subject to exactly the same evaluative conditions as the first sort, we can more easily be fooled by them. In another type of distinction, some explanatory arguments are general, given that they have application to a wide range of possible observable outcomes; others are singular, in that they apply only to a specific outcome. Again, the two sorts are subject to the same logical standards, though we can shape our inquiry a bit differently in each case.

As with our other inductive arguments, the total evidence condition for logical success has two parts. The first part focuses on the importance of the improbability of the outcome. More precisely, the condition is that the prior probability of the observable outcome must be sufficiently low. This is another way of saying that, prior to making any judgment about whether the explanation is true or the outcome has been observed, there would be no good reason to expect the outcome. If there is good reason to expect it anyway, then the explanation is doing no work and receives no logical support. To test for this, there are several questions that can require “yes” answers. Is the explanation falsifiable? Is the outcome stated precisely? Is there no other explanation of the outcome that already exists? Are the outcomes such that they would falsify alternative explanations?

The second part of the total evidence condition focuses on the probability of the explanation. The explanation’s prior probability—that is, its probability prior to judging whether the observable outcome is true—must not be implausibly low and it must be higher than that of the leading alternative explanations. As with the first part, there are various ways of testing for this. If it is a singular explanation, you can ask if it is the sort of thing that is known to happen, and if it tends to happen more frequently than do the alternatives. For any explanation you can ask whether it makes sense—that is, whether there is an adequate conceptual framework to account for the causal mechanisms required by the explanation. And, finally, you can ask if the explanation is sufficiently simple. In some cases, it can be tempting to accept an explanation with an extremely low prior probability simply because you cannot think of any plausible alternative. In these cases it is better to say that you simply cannot decide, especially if the argument has not ruled out coincidence or deception as alternative explanations.

16.5 Guidelines for Chapter Sixteen

• Structure an explanatory argument, when it would be loyal to do so, as follows: the first premise states that if the explanation is correct, then a specified outcome of it will be observable; the second premise states that the outcome has been observed; and the conclusion states that the explanation is thus correct.
• Be careful not to confuse explanatory arguments with deductive arguments that commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
• Be more suspicious of explanatory arguments in which the explanation was invented after the observable outcome was observed.
• As a useful standard, apply the surprise test by asking whether the outcome would surprise you (assuming you reserved judgment about whether the explanation were true and whether the outcome had been observed). If so, then it probably has a low prior probability.
• Reject explanatory arguments that have unfalsifiable explanations; they are in principle unable to satisfy the first part of the total evidence condition.
• Ask whether the outcome is too vague. Vague outcomes are likely to have a high prior probability and thus are likely to signal that the argument is logically weak.
• Ask whether an explanation for the outcome already exists. If an explanation does already exist, then the outcome has a high prior probability and the argument is logically weak.
• Ask whether an outcome rules out the leading alternative explanations. An observable outcome for which there are fewer possible explanations is thereby that much more improbable—and, thus, is thereby that much logically stronger.
• The second part of the total evidence condition for explanatory arguments is this: the probability of the explanation must not be implausibly low and must be higher than that of the leading alternative explanations. This requires imagination in coming up with alternative explanations for the sake of comparison.
• For singular explanations, ask whether this sort of explanation is known to occur and, if so, if it occurs more frequently than do the leading alternative explanations. If the answer is yes, then the argument is at least moderately strong (assuming it has not failed the first part of the total evidence condition).
• For both general and singular explanations, ask whether this sort of explanation makes sense—that is, whether there is a satisfactory conceptual framework for it and whether it is more satisfactory than the alternatives. If the explanation leaves too much to mystery, or requires too much of established science to be replaced by less well-established views, then the argument can normally be no better than logically weak.
• Simplicity contributes to epistemic probability, so ask whether the explanation is sufficiently simple. One test is to ask whether it offers only as many explanatory entities as needed. Another is to ask whether it predicts the smoothest curve.
• If the prior probability of the explanation is extremely low and coincidence has not been ruled out as an alternative explanation, judge the logic of the argument to be weak.
• If the prior probability of the explanation is extremely low and deception has not been ruled out as an alternative explanation, judge the logic of the argument to be weak.

16.6 Glossary for Chapter Sixteen

Confirmation bias —our natural tendency to look for outcomes that support our preferred explanation rather than those that might also falsify the alternatives.

Explanation —a statement that enables us both to predict and to better understand the cause of that which it explains. Also termed a theory or an explanatory hypothesis.

Explanatory argument —an argument whose correct form, assuming that P is the explanation and Q is the observable outcome, is this:

The first premise states that the explanation really does enable you to predict the observable outcome—that it really is an outcome. The second premise states that the observable outcome has happened—that it has been observed. And the argument concludes with the assertion of the explanation. Also called a theoretical argument, inference to the best explanation, hypothetico-deductive argument, transcendental argument, or diagnostic argument.

Falsifiability —the requirement that it be possible to specify some observable outcome of an explanation that could prove it to be false. This is a way of emphasizing the importance of an improbable outcome. To say that an explanation or an outcome is not falsifiable is to say that any observation at all is consistent with the explanation. And it is highly probable that we will have “any observation at all.” So, an unfalsifiable explanation fails the improbable outcome test.

General explanation —an explanation that can apply to a wide range of observable outcomes. Newton’s theories, for example, while applied here to Halley’s comet, actually cover the motion of all objects at all times. General explanations are typical of science, though are not restricted to it.

Observable outcome —what is explained in an explanatory argument; the observable outcome follows from the explanation and can in a certain way, at a certain time, and under certain conditions, be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. Also termed the data, the prediction, or the facts.

Singular explanation —an explanation that is designed to apply only to a single thing or event. Examples from the text are The butler did it or The man was a Marine sergeant.

• Several other terms account for roughly the same thing. Gilbert Harman is associated with the phrase inference to the best explanation, Carl Hempel with hypothetico-deductive arguments, Charles Peirce with abductive reasoning, and David Hume with transcendental reasoning. More recently, Larry Wright has called this sort of argument diagnostic reasoning. ↵
• For a fuller—and fascinating—account of Halley’s reasoning, see Ronald Giere, Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005). A longer, but quite accessible, narrative can be found in The New York Times Guide to the Return of Halley’s Comet by Richard Flaste, Holcombe Noble, Walter Sullivan, and John Wilford (New York: Times Books, 1985). ↵
• Thanks for the example to W. V. Quine and J.S. Ullian, The Web of Belief (New York: Random House, 1978). ↵
• Taken from the DEAR ABBY column by Abigail Van Buren. © UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. ↵
• An engaging and more detailed account of this experiment can be found in Keith Arnold’s “Pascal’s Great Experiment,” Dialogue 28, (1989), pp. 401–15. ↵
• Roughly, since we are not allowing for the cost of commissions, for dividend income, and the like. ↵

A statement that enables us both to predict and to better understand the cause of that which it explains. Also termed a theory or an explanatory hypothesis.

What is explained in an explanatory argument; the observable outcome follows from the explanation and can in a certain way, at a certain time, and under certain conditions, be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. Also termed the data, the prediction, or the facts.

An argument whose correct form, assuming that P is the explanation and Q is the observable outcome, is this:

1. If P then Q. 2. Q ∴ C . P

An explanation that can apply to a wide range of observable outcomes. Newton’s theories, for example, while applied here to Halley’s comet, actually cover the motion of all objects at all times. General explanations are typical of science, though are not restricted to it.

An explanation that is designed to apply only to a single thing or event. Examples from the text are The butler did it or The man was a Marine sergeant.

The requirement that it be possible to specify some observable outcome of an explanation that could prove it to be false. This is a way of emphasizing the importance of an improbable outcome. To say that an explanation or an outcome is not falsifiable is to say that any observation at all is consistent with the explanation. And it is highly probable that we will have “any observation at all.” So, an unfalsifiable explanation fails the improbable outcome test.

Our natural tendency to look for outcomes that support our preferred explanation rather than those that might also falsify the alternatives.

A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues Copyright © 2020 by David Carl Wilson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

27 How do I Write a Synthesis Essay?

A synthesis essay is a type of essay that gathers information from a variety of sources to form a new idea, question, or argumentative thesis. Writers composing a synthesis essay will discuss ideas, data, and evidence from a series of sources to either explain or argue something original.

Explanatory vs. Argumentative Synthesis Essays: How Are They Different?

Though the formatting is largely the same, there are two main types of synthesis essays: explanatory and argumentative.

• 1.   Explanatory : The purpose of an explanatory synthesis essay is to use different sources to explain a particular point of view. These synthesis papers objectively examine the similarities and differences between ideas but don’t necessarily choose a side or attempt to sway the reader in any direction.
• 2.   Argumentative : An argumentative synthesis essay follows the same structure as a typical argumentative essay. The thesis of an argumentative essay will argue one specific point.

Synthesis Essay Structure

Synthesis essays typically adhere to the five-paragraph essay structure, but there are slight nuances to structuring this type of essay. Here is how a synthesis essay is structured.

•   Introduction : The foundational ideas of your essay are expressed in the introductory paragraph. You will address the general landscape of ideas around your topic, introducing some of your sources. You will also introduce the argument to be made through a thesis statement, which succinctly states your primary argument in a sentence or two. The thesis statement typically comes at the very end of your introductory paragraph.
•   Body : The body of your synthesis essay is usually about three paragraphs long. This typically includes two paragraphs synthesizing your sources in a way that supports your argument, and one paragraph that acknowledges opposing arguments.
• Conclusion : The conclusion of your synthesis essay reiterates the argument that you’ve made throughout your essay. It may emphasize how each of the points you made and the sources you’ve cited substantiate your point.

How to Write a Synthesis Essay

A great synthesis essay walks readers through a series of ideas and sources to prove or explain a larger point.

Follow this step-by-step guide for writing your essay:

• Choose a topic you’re curious about . Brainstorm a few ideas for your synthesis essay topic, prioritizing the subjects you feel passionate about.
• Do your research . Once you’ve decided on a topic, use the internet, library, and other sources to perform extensive research. You can turn to academic primary sources to find quotes from scholars and experts, or look up statistics or scientific studies relevant to your topic. This research will help you develop a point of view that is backed up by concrete information. Use credible sources that are unbiased.
• Outline your point . Your entire essay should focus on either explaining a certain perspective or making an argument. Outline how each of your sources relates to your theme and support your idea.
• Write your introduction . An introduction is the first paragraph of a paper. Its main purpose is to present the general premise of the paper, provide any necessary background information, and hopefully, capture the reader’s attention. The introductory paragraph to your synthesis essay should be where you include a strong thesis statement. This is where you will state the point of view that you’re exploring or the argument you’re making.
• Include your body paragraphs . Synthesis essays will typically contain three body paragraphs. A good body paragraph contains three main sections: a topic sentence (or key sentence), relevant supporting  sentences, and a closing (or transition)
• sentence. This structure keeps your paragraph focused on the main idea, providing clear, concise information. Each body paragraph should discuss different elements and supporting arguments of your thesis, along with evidence drawn from each source. Explain the common theme between your resources, as well as how they are relevant to your text. Include counterarguments as well as how your source material can discredit those claims and support your own idea.
• Wrap it up with a strong conclusion . A conclusion is a final piece of writing in a research paper, essay, or article that summarizes the entire work. The concluding paragraph of your synthesis essay will restate your thesis, summarize the key supporting ideas you discussed throughout the work, and offer your final impression of the central idea.
• Proofread . Always proofread your writing a few times before submitting or presenting it. A few missed words or grammatical errors can sometimes change or discredit the entire crux of an argument or opinion. Make sure that your grammar, syntax, and flow are as accurate and clear as possible. This will help you come across as a credible source.

College Reading & Writing: A Handbook for ENGL- 090/095 Students Copyright © by Yvonne Kane; Krista O'Brien; and Angela Wood. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

7+ Explanatory Essay Examples That Get the Best Grades

Table of contents

Meredith Sell

Writing explanatory essays is hard, even for experienced scholars.

In this post, I want to try to tackle the major challenges students face when writing this type of essay, using examples of successful essays. These challenges include:

• Struggling to come up with the right idea . (solution:  brainstorming techniques )
• Difficulty in organizing the essay. (solution: working on the outline of the essay)
• Not having enough evidence or sources to back up points. (solution: doing proper research )
• Failing to come up with a conclusion. (solution: following our guide to conclusions )
• Not having enough knowledge of the topic. (solution: summarizing key articles on the topic)
• Having trouble finding the right words. (solution: writing with Wordtune )
• Not having enough time to finish the essay. (solution: working on student time management )
• Not being able to present arguments effectively. (solution: learning essay persuasion techniques )

As you can see, for every issue there is the relevant solution, but it takes time to implement it. Another way of tackling this essay is to see other people's essay examples and getting inspiration from them.

Write your explanatory essay faster with this FREE AI tool > Write your explanatory essay faster with this FREE AI tool >

What Is an Explanatory Essay?

If you google “explanatory essay”, you’ll find a bunch of sites saying that an explanatory essay is the same as an expository essay, or that it’s totally different, or not even mentioning that expository essays exist. Who’s right?

Answer: Whoever your professor agrees with.

No, seriously. Your professor decides the parameters of your assignment. So if your professor defines an explanatory essay as one that describes a perspective or analyzes the efficacy of, for example, a local housing policy—that’s the definition you should work from.

But if your professor distinguishes between explanatory essays (which simply explain what something is and how it works or was developed) and expository essays (which expose the reality of a person, place, thing, or idea through investigation and evaluation), you should distinguish between them as well.

For the purposes of this piece, we’re going to use explanatory and expository interchangeably. The dividing line that some draw between these essay types is unnecessarily technical. What’s important is that both:

• Use an objective perspective
• Let the facts speak for themselves

As long as your essay does the same (and includes analysis if required by your professor), you should be in good shape.

Example of explanatory essay

We wrote a whole article on generating essay topic ideas , but here is a good example that can help you get an idea for your own essay:

Why is having a dog as a pet such a wonderful experience?

Dogs are one of the most popular pets in the world. They are beloved companions that bring joy and happiness into the lives of their owners. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and have evolved to become the perfect pet for humans. In this essay, I will explain why having a dog as a pet is a wonderful experience.

One of the primary benefits of having a dog as a pet is the companionship they offer. Dogs are social animals that thrive on human interaction. They are loyal and loving creatures that are always there for their owners. Dogs can help alleviate feelings of loneliness and depression, and provide comfort and support during difficult times.

Another benefit of having a dog as a pet is the health benefits they offer. Studies have shown that owning a dog can help lower blood pressure, reduce stress, and improve overall health. Dogs require daily exercise, which encourages their owners to be more active and can lead to a healthier lifestyle. Additionally, having a dog can boost the immune system and reduce the risk of allergies and asthma in children.

Dogs are also great for families with children. They can help teach children about responsibility, compassion, and empathy. Children can learn to care for and nurture their pets, which can be beneficial for their emotional development. Dogs are also great playmates for children and can provide hours of entertainment and fun.

Training and caring for a dog can also be a rewarding experience. Dogs can be trained to perform a variety of tasks, such as fetching, obedience, and even therapy work. The process of training a dog can help strengthen the bond between the owner and the dog and can be a fulfilling experience. Additionally, caring for a dog requires daily attention and can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment for the owner.

In conclusion, having a dog as a pet can be a wonderful experience. Dogs offer companionship, health benefits, and can be great for families with children. Caring for a dog can also be a rewarding experience and can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment for the owner. Owning a dog is a big responsibility, but the rewards far outweigh the effort required.

Example of an explanatory paragraph, generated with AI:

A few subtypes of explanatory essays:

Description or definition essay example

‍ Perhaps the most basic, this subtype does the deceptively simple work of, well, describing or defining a concept, place, person, etc.

Example: How Suspension Bridges Work

This essay explains: The way suspension bridges are constructed and how their design enables them to carry such immense weight.

Cause-and-effect essay example

This type of essay hones in on a particular phenomenon to show what caused it (i.e., where it came from) and how it influences other things.

Example: How Federally Funded Highways Transformed the United States

This essay explains: The history of federally funded highways in the U.S., when federal programs to fund highway construction started, why politicians and others thought highways were important, and what the effect has been on the landscapes, communities, economies, and ecosystems of the country.

Compare-and-contrast essay example

Take two or more things, gather the facts about them, and then write about their similarities and differences.

Example: Hybrid vs. Electric Cars

This essay explains: The various features of hybrid and electric cars, and shows how they are either different or similar in terms of: cost, energy consumption, size, drive time, ease of use, and so on.

‍ How-to essay example

Walk your reader step-by-step through a procedure so they can do it for themselves. (We’re doing this later!)

Example: How to Prepare for an Intercontinental Bike Trip

This essay explains: How to get ready for a bike trip between nations and continents. Readers learn how to research their route, find out what travel documents they need, choose the right gear, and determine how much training they should do before leaving.

Problem and solution essay example

Explain a problem (along with its causes and effects) and then describe one or more potential solutions to that problem. This subtype could also be combined with compare-and-contrast to determine the most effective solution.

Example: How Bike Infrastructure Could Solve American Obesity

This essay explains: How American reliance on motorized vehicles promotes a sedentary lifestyle that drives obesity, whereas building bike lanes and trails could encourage Americans to be more active and improve their health one pedal at a time.

‍ Chronology essay example

Explain the history or backstory of a person, place, thing, or idea in chronological order.

Example: The Evolution of the Bicycle

This essay explains: The initial invention of the bicycle and how its shape, frame, and size changed over the years.

What type of explanatory essay are you writing? Hopefully, this list helped you hone in. Now, let’s start the writing process.

5 Steps to Write Your Essay

Whether you’re writing an explanatory/expository essay or a persuasive essay, the process of researching and writing is pretty much the same. Both genres require research, organization, and thought . But with expository essays, the thought focuses on making sure you understand your topic inside-out and determining the best way to explain it, while with persuasive essays, you’re focused on crafting a convincing argument.

Follow these steps to turn that blank page into a final manuscript:

1. Choose topic and angle. 

Do you have free rein to write about the topic of your choice? Make the most of it.

In college, my public speaking professor let us choose all of our own speech topics. A classmate gave an explanatory presentation on how to survive the zombie apocalypse . She brought props and had the class totally enchanted. Our professor encouraged creativity, so I’m sure she earned a winning grade—and had fun in the process.

You can’t use props or sound in a written essay, but you can still work some creative magic. That magic starts with choosing your topic and angle.

To choose well, first make sure you understand the assignment: 

• What exactly has your professor asked you to write? Which of the subtypes should your piece be?
• Are there any parameters for what type of topic you can write about?
• What kind of class is this? An English composition class will offer more freedom than, say, a history class focused on the French Revolution.

If you’re allowed to write about anything, brainstorm a list of topics you’re curious about. Then think of smaller topics within that area.

Example: Transportation

• Electric cars
• The highway system
• Engineering

Any of these topics you could easily write volumes about, so next, narrow down to your specific angle. One way I like to come up with angles is to think of how two or three different topics intersect.

Example 1: electric cars + the highway system 

Angle: How Much Will It Cost to Update Federal Highways with Charging Stations for Electric Cars

Notice that this angle includes a third element: cost

Example 2: bicycles + bridges

Angle: The Safest Bridges for Bicycles Have One Thing in Common: No Cars

Third element: safety

Example 3: electric cars + buses

Angle: Electric Cars vs. Buses: Which Is Better for the Environment?

Third element: environment

Your turn: Make a list of topics you’re interested in. Then, identify some intersecting topics. Based on your assignment parameters, develop an angle that narrows your focus to an intersection that interests you.

Not sure what angle to go with? Do some broad research on your topics and then return to this step.

2. Research, research, research.

Explanatory essays require solid research. These essays exist to lay out the facts for the reader so they can clearly understand the topic. Your opinion—what you think about electric cars or suspension bridges or transportation infrastructure—doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t belong here.

Where you should start your research depends on how much knowledge you already have.

If you’re writing about suspension bridges and you already know the Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge are suspension bridges, you probably don’t need to start with the encyclopedic entry for “suspension bridges”. But if you don’t know the basic facts about your topic, encyclopedias are a great place to start.

Thanks to the advances of technology—and this marvelous thing called the internet—you don’t have to go to a research library to gain that ground-level knowledge of your topic. But you do still need to make sure you’re drawing from credible sources.

For encyclopedias, try these to start:

• Encyclopedia.com

Dictionaries can be helpful too:

• Merriam-Webster
• Dictionary.com

Once you know your topics’ basic facts, focus on researching those topics in the context of your angle . It may help to make a list of questions you’re trying to answer so you can keep your research focused.

Example: Electric Cars vs. Buses: Which Is Better for the Environment?

• Are most buses gas-powered or electric?
• What’s the average emissions of greenhouse gas from gas-powered buses?
• How much energy do electric cars use? What’s the lifespan of their batteries? Are they just using electricity that was produced in a polluting way somewhere else? What about electric buses?
• How many people can ride a bus? How many people typically are transported by one car? 
• What would be the average energy consumption per person in an electric car versus a bus?

Once you know the questions you need to answer, look for sources that address those questions. For an academic essay, you’ll probably want to stick with academic sources : peer-reviewed studies and research papers published by academic journals. But official government databases can also be useful. And news stories from reputable publications can provide some direction as well (check with your professor to see whether or not you can use news publications as sources for your essay). Your educational institution likely provides access to all of these kinds of sources through the university library.

Your turn: Think through your angle and make a list of questions your piece needs to answer. Next, start searching academic databases for the information you need. Take notes as you research, and be sure to save any links, titles, author names, page numbers, and publication information you’ll need to properly cite your sources.

3. Outline your essay.

Call me crazy, but I actually think this is the fun part. I hated writing outlines when I was in school, but since making my living as a professional writer, they’ve become the #1 way I beat writer’s block.

First: Throw out the idea that your outline should be a series of bullet points neatly organized into sections and subsections. Your outline only needs to make sense to you , so play around to find an approach that works with your brain. The idea here is simply to make a map you’ll follow when you sit down to write.

Here’s what I do:

• Identify the specific hook I’m going to use to start things off.
• List the different examples and details I need to include.
• Use the main focus or idea of my piece to order everything in a natural, logical way.

A lot of times, my outline becomes a combination of bullet points and sentences or paragraphs I write as I’m sketching out the piece. I’m basically just thinking the piece through, from beginning to end. Instead of getting stuck while I’m writing, I work through the tough spots in the outlining stage.

This is what my outline looked like for this piece:

Okay, that’s kind of long, so I cut it off early—but you get the point. 

A lot of times, my outline starts as bare-bones bullets. As I work on it, ideas pop up that I stick in where they make sense. But when I write, those elements might move around ( notice how the examples of transportation essays got bumped up to the section on subtypes of essays ).

Your outline is just a guide. It’s not an architect’s blueprint that needs to be followed to the exact millimeter. There’s room for things to change. 

But an outline keeps you on-track when you’re writing . If you find yourself stuck (or lost) in the writing step, reference your map. You might need to backtrack, move what you’ve written around, or adjust your route. 

Your turn: Take a few minutes and sketch out your essay. Where does it start? What points does it hit? Are there any ways you see the different points connecting that should inform how you order them? As you think it through, scribble out any lines or paragraphs that come to you and stick them in the outline where they make the most sense. Even if you don’t use these exact words later, they’ll help prevent that deer-in-the-headlights stare that hits when you see a blank page.

Time to put everything together! 

With your outline and research ready, start your intro and set up your piece. Your opening should briefly introduce your readers to the topic(s) you’re writing about and the questions you’re going to answer—but don’t give everything away. You want to stir up readers’ curiosity and give them a reason to keep reading.

Depending on the length of your essay, your intro may be one to three paragraphs long (longer pieces get longer intros). But it should be concise and to the point, and smoothly transition into the body of your essay.

The body is the meat and potatoes of your piece. Answer those questions, flesh out your explanation, and give readers a thorough understanding of your topic. Show off your research! Include those bizarre and fascinating facts you learned along the way. Use a tasteful metaphor or compelling anecdote to explain some of the more difficult aspects of your topic. 

As you write, be sure to follow a consistent logic throughout your piece: 

• If you’re detailing a history or an event, use chronological order: start at the beginning and write about the events in the order that they happened.
• Are you explaining how a machine or other invention works? Start with where the movement starts—the pedals of a bicycle, the wind turning the turbines—or with the feature doing the most significant work (e.g., the wires of the suspension bridge). 
• Other logics include: size (small to large, large to small), significance (greatest to least), or space (left to right, right to left, outside to center, center to outside).

You don’t need to label everything you write about as the “next biggest” or “least significant”, but sticking to a logic helps your readers orient themselves—and helps you determine which paragraph or subtopic should go where. This way, your thoughts clearly flow from one paragraph to the next. 

‍ Quick note: If you can’t name the logic that’s guiding your piece, don’t worry. As long as your paragraphs naturally follow each other and all questions raised in the intro are answered by the end, your essay probably follows a logic just fine. But if you feel like your piece bounces around willy-nilly, play with a couple different logics and see if one smoothly orders your sentences and paragraphs.

Your turn: Get writing! If you’re stuck on the intro, try writing a working title for your piece to focus your attention. Then, follow your outline to work all the way from the beginning to a conclusion that sums everything up.

If you can, let your piece sit for at least a day. Then, for the editing process , open up that document and read through with these questions in mind:

• Does the essay fulfill the assignment? Review the assignment description from your professor. Does your essay tick all the boxes? If not, what’s missing? Can you weave that element into what you’ve already written? Revise as necessary.
• Are the sentences and paragraphs ordered in a way that makes logical sense? If your essay feels clunky in places, you might have switched logics (as explained above) or you might need to insert some more explanation that clearly ties the sentences or paragraphs together. Make sure your essay doesn’t just list facts, but also shows how they relate to each other.
• Does the hook catch your eye? The beginning of your piece should grab your reader’s attention. Check out our advice for prize-winning hooks here .
• Does the conclusion effectively sum things up? Instead of repeating everything your essay says, your conclusion should briefly distill the main takeaway or core idea for your reader. It should show that you’ve fulfilled the promise made in your intro, without being unnecessarily repetitive or redundant.
• Have you cited all your sources? Make sure to cross this off before hitting “submit.” Follow the citation style specified by your professor.
• Is spelling and grammar clean and correct? You are writing, after all, and these things matter. A bonus tip to help you catch those sneaky typos: Read your piece backwards. You might be surprised what you spot.

Did We Explain That Well Enough?

This blog was basically a long, non-academic explanatory essay, so hopefully, you’ve learned something new and are feeling less overwhelmed about your essay on medieval literature, transportation infrastructure, Persian history—or whatever you’re writing about.

Share This Article:

8 Tips for E-commerce Copywriting Success (with Examples!)

The Brand Strategy Deck You Need to Drive Social Media Results + 5 Examples

Grammarly Alternatives: Which Writing Assistant is the Best Choice for You?

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.