Supporting paragraphs are the paragraphs between the introduction and conclusion of your essay. The body of an essay is where you develop your main idea or argument.
It is important to build paragraphs that follow a logical order as this helps readers to understand the development of your argument. This just means that you should group ideas together and discuss them in order of importance to your essay. Common kinds of logical order are:
To build a logical paragraph you should use transitions that show the relationship between ideas:
A simple way to think about structuring a body paragraph is to view it as a block made up of three parts: the topic sentence, that identifies what the paragraph is about; some supporting sentences that flesh out the identified topic of the paragraph through explanation, examples and evidence; and a concluding sentence that summarizes the paragraph and links logically to the next paragraph. These parts are represented by the anagram TEEL.
| Topic Sentence (T) | The first sentence should tell the reader what the paragraph is about. |
|---|---|
| Explanation (E) | The second sentence should explain your idea or thought. |
| Evidence (E) | The next few sentences should provide evidence that supports your idea or claim. This is where you will reflect on your research from sources such as journals, books, and case studies. Don’t just mention your research, make a comment on it—reflect on the strength and/or weakness of your evidence. Is your evidence limited in some way? How does your evidence prove your idea or claim? |
| Link (L) | The final sentence should summarize the main idea of the paragraph in a way that connects to the thesis statement of your essay. This final sentence should also link your paragraph idea to the next body paragraph. |
Following the TEEL sequence as you write, will help to keep your discussion clear and concise.
One of the main obstacles of reaching international consensus on climate change action is the ongoing debate over which countries should shoulder the burden. As the developed world has historically been responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, it has been argued that they should reduce emissions, and allow developing nations to prioritize development over environmental concerns (Vinuales, 2011). The notion of "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) was formalized in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (UNFCCC, 1992). Article 3.1 explicitly states: "Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof" (p.4). However, as CBDR outlines a principle and not an actionable plan, it has remained problematic; for example, it does not stipulate the extent to which, under the principles of CBDR, developing nations should be exempt from specific emissions targets. This has continued to be a point of contention in global negotiations on climate change, with developed countries such as the United States arguing that developed nations should do more to reduce emissions (Klein et. al., 2017). Fairness and equity need to be pursued in reaching a global agreement on climate change, however, transforming this pursuit into an actionable strategy is problematic.
| Topic sentence | One of the main obstacles of reaching international consensus on climate change action is the ongoing debate over which countries should shoulder the burden. |
|---|---|
| Explanation | As the developed world has historically been responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, it has been argued that they should reduce emissions, and allow developing nations to prioritize development over environmental concerns (Vinuales, 2011). |
| Evidence/Examples | The notion of "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) was formalized in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (UNFCCC, 1992). Article 3.1 explicitly states: "Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof" (p.4). |
| Comment | However, as CBDR outlines a principle and not an actionable plan, it has remained problematic; for example, it does not stipulate the extent to which, under the principles of CBDR, developing nations should be exempt from specific emissions targets. This has continued to be a point of contention in global negotiations on climate change, with developed countries such as the United States arguing that developed nations should do more to reduce emissions (Klein et. al., 2017). |
| Link | Fairness and equity need to be pursued in reaching a global agreement on climate change, however, transforming this pursuit into an actionable strategy is problematic. |