Oh, it’s surprising to me that you feel that way because that’s where the dialectic starts; everything up to that was a sort of introduction and apology to give context before stating the thesis as way of setting up for the dialectic.
What didn’t you like about the later parts of the piece?
You start the discussion with a very practical frame: “Here is some advice I intend to give you.”. You give caveats, then you give the advice, and you give some justification. The advice sounds plausible. Then you continue to a very philosophical discussion on what fear is and what people think about it that does not appear to tie in with the practical frame. While your article would appear very lopsided with so much caveat and so little content, I don’t see how the later parts help. Alternately, you can remove everything up to the 10th paragraph and write a very different sort of essay.
Oh, it’s surprising to me that you feel that way because that’s where the dialectic starts; everything up to that was a sort of introduction and apology to give context before stating the thesis as way of setting up for the dialectic.
What didn’t you like about the later parts of the piece?
You start the discussion with a very practical frame: “Here is some advice I intend to give you.”. You give caveats, then you give the advice, and you give some justification. The advice sounds plausible. Then you continue to a very philosophical discussion on what fear is and what people think about it that does not appear to tie in with the practical frame. While your article would appear very lopsided with so much caveat and so little content, I don’t see how the later parts help. Alternately, you can remove everything up to the 10th paragraph and write a very different sort of essay.