Develop a coherent paragraph through point, explanation, reasoning and link, so that each argument is fully reasoned rather than merely asserted

What this dot point is asking

Once you have a thesis, the body of the essay must defend it through paragraphs that are fully reasoned, not merely asserted. This skill is about the internal craft of a paragraph: stating a point, explaining the reasoning behind it, supporting it with evidence, and linking it back to the question. The central insight is that General Paper content marks reward the quality of your thinking, so a developed argument that shows why a claim is true and why it matters will always beat a string of confident assertions.

The answer

The anatomy of a body paragraph

A reliable structure for a GP paragraph is point, explanation, evidence, link, sometimes shortened to PEEL:

• Point. A topic sentence stating the single claim this paragraph defends. It should connect visibly to the thesis.
• Explanation. The reasoning: why is the point true? What is the mechanism, the cause-and-effect, the principle? This is the part weak essays skip.
• Evidence. A specific, accurate example that illustrates the reasoning in action.
• Link. A sentence returning to the question, showing how the paragraph advances or qualifies your stand.

One point per paragraph. If you find yourself defending two claims, split them.

Assertion versus reasoning

The most important distinction in the whole subject is between asserting and reasoning. Assertion says that something is so; reasoning explains why. Compare:

• Assertion: "Automation will cause unemployment."
• Reasoning: "Automation will cause unemployment because machines can now perform routine cognitive as well as manual tasks more cheaply than workers, so firms have a direct incentive to replace labour in those roles faster than displaced workers can retrain."

The second names a mechanism. Markers reward the "because". An essay that never explains why its claims hold reads as a list of opinions, not an argument.

Depth over breadth

Students often fear they have "not enough points". In fact, three or four arguments developed in depth score far higher than seven touched on lightly. Each underdeveloped point is a missed opportunity to show reasoning. When planning, prefer fewer paragraphs that you can take all the way through the explain-evidence-link chain.

Anticipate the "so what"

After every point, ask "so what?" If the answer is not obvious, you have not finished developing it. Pushing a point one step further, to its consequence or its significance, is what separates a competent paragraph from a strong one.

Examples in context

Example 1. Turning a slogan into an argument. "Technology isolates us" is a slogan. Developed, it becomes an argument: technology isolates us because frictionless digital contact can substitute for higher-effort face-to-face interaction, and the brain treats the two differently, so heavy reliance on mediated contact can leave people more networked yet lonelier. The reasoning, not the slogan, earns the marks; an example such as the documented rise in self-reported loneliness among heavy social-media users then illustrates the stated mechanism.

Example 2. Depth winning over breadth. Two candidates answer "Should the state fund the arts?" One lists six reasons in single sentences; the other develops three, including a full paragraph explaining why market provision alone underfunds non-commercial art forms, using the way Singapore's public funding sustains its theatre and visual-arts scene. The second scores higher because each point is reasoned through to its significance, demonstrating the thinking the content marks reward.

Try this

Q1. Identify the missing element in this paragraph: "Globalisation harms local cultures. For instance, global brands are everywhere in Asian cities." [2 marks]

• Cue. The explanation is missing; it asserts harm and gives an example but never explains the mechanism (why and how global brands displace or dilute local cultural forms).

Q2. Write a "because" sentence developing the point that fake news threatens democracy. [2 marks]

• Cue. Something like: because democratic choice depends on shared, accurate information, and fake news corrodes the common factual ground citizens need to deliberate and hold leaders accountable.

Q3. Explain why three well-developed arguments usually beat seven brief ones. [3 marks]

• Cue. Content marks reward reasoning, and each underdeveloped point shows little thinking; depth lets you build the explain-evidence-link chain that demonstrates the analytical quality the top bands require.