Quote:
Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates
I disagee. All papers are different, but generally I think showing the other side(s) when you can't sufficiently argue against them makes your paper look weak. You don't always have time to explore every aspect of the topic and give a good arguement against all competitive theories. It creates the feeling that you are undecided and not confident if you do that in a half-ass way. A paper SHOULD be one sided IMO because you need to show that you're making an arguement, not just exploring all angles.
|
Personally, what I like to do is list at least two sides of the argument at the start of the paper -- at least a brief summary -- and then go on to show why I believe my position to be the strongest. I don't think ignoring one side of the argument is a good strategy, but that's my opinion. I think acknowledging the opposition point of view and showing why your side is stronger is the way to go. I did this for my social 30 exam anyway... I don't remember what the topic was, it was so long ago, but I do remember I got a perfect score on the social diploma exam.
Edit: I think the reverse can be equally effective -- ie stating your opinion first and contrary opinions afterwards, but its hard to make a concrete rule to say which to do when. I just go with whatever I think will sound the best. I would say the key is just making a good case for why your opinion is the best solution under the given circumstances, not why its the only solution.