Academic Writing Structure and Argumentation

What does "too descriptive" mean in feedback, and how do I fix it?

It means most of your sentences report what sources said, what you did or what you found, rather than saying what it means and why it matters. Mark two pages of your own draft as reporting, analysis or positioning and count them. The fix is structural: give each paragraph a claim in its first sentence, and add the warrant, the sentence or two explaining why your evidence supports that claim.

How should a paragraph be structured in academic writing?

Claim, evidence, warrant, link. State the paragraph's point first, in your own words. Give the evidence with citations. Explain why that evidence supports the claim, which is the step almost everyone omits. Then close with a sentence that makes the next paragraph necessary. Test it by deleting everything but the first and last sentences: if those two do not carry a claim and a consequence, the paragraph is a container rather than a step in an argument.

Why does my literature review read like a list?

Because it is organised by source. If each paragraph begins with an author's name, you have twenty-two summaries rather than a review. Reorganise by claim, theme or position, so each paragraph makes a point about the literature and cites several sources inside it. Put each source on a card with its claim, population, measure and design, and sort the cards; the sort that produces the most uneven groups is usually the one that reveals your argument.

How do I be more critical without just being negative?

Critical means assessing what the evidence supports, which often means agreeing with reasons. When you do disagree, represent the author's position at its strongest first, aim at a specific claim rather than the whole paper, and give a recognised ground: the design cannot support the inference, the sample does not extend to the population claimed, the construct is measured differently from how it is defined, or an alternative explanation is unaddressed. Criticising a limitation the author already acknowledged is weak.

How much should I hedge?

In proportion to your evidence, and once. A well-evidenced finding is stated plainly, because hedging a strong claim is miscommunication rather than modesty. A supported but contestable reading takes a single hedge plus its alternative explanation in the same passage. A speculation is labelled as one, with what would test it. Stacked hedges say nothing and signal defensive writing.

How do I make my methodology chapter more than a description?

Apply the test: would this chapter be equally true of a different project on a different question? If yes, it is a textbook account. After each methodological statement, add why it suited this particular question, and name at least one alternative you rejected and why. Justification requires a comparison; a decision with no alternative stated has not been justified.

My discussion just repeats my results. What should go in it?

Results state what was observed; the discussion states what it means. Each discussion paragraph works well as: the finding, how it relates to prior work, your interpretation, an alternative explanation, and the limit on it. A discussion paragraph with no citation and no interpretive move is a results paragraph in the wrong chapter.

What is a reverse outline?

Write out the first sentence of every paragraph, in order, and read only those. If they are topics rather than claims, the section is a container. If they could be reordered without loss, there is no argument. It takes ten minutes for a chapter and tells you more than reading the chapter through, because reading through is generous to your own intentions.

Should I edit for wording or for structure first?

Structure, always. Reverse outline, check each chapter has one controlling claim, delete paragraphs that report without arguing, and only then work on sentences. Students reliably do this in reverse and spend an editing week polishing paragraphs that should be cut. If you are over the word count, cut description rather than argument.