The paragraph is a necessary element in argued prose in English. It corresponds to a grouping of ideas and, as such, will tend to coincide with a paragraph theme in your brainstorming. If, in your thinking about a particular matter, you decide that there are three clearly distinct arguments in favour of a particular course of action, then you may expect to devote a paragraph to each in the body of your text. During the writing process itself, however, it may become apparent that one of the three arguments is far more important than the other two: the most important argument would then call for treatment in two, or possibly three paragraphs, with the other arguments either occupying one paragraph each or being collapsed into one paragraph presenting ‘other arguments in favour'. The purpose of this section is not to help you to think, but rather to help you to transform your thinking into paragraph sequences that are clear and persuasive for your reader.

It is important to grasp that the construction of the body of a text is an active process: it is something that the writer does in anticipation of the reader's equally dynamic attempt to reconstruct the intended message. The moral to be drawn from this observation is that the body should have a clear direction and forward dynamics. The reader is, as it were, to be taken along on a journey, leading from the starting-point that was indicated in the introduction to the destination promised by the prospect of a conclusion. That journey may not follow a straight path, but the reader should never lose the feeling that he will ultimately arrive. At each turning-point on the journey, he should find a ‘signpost' informing him which direction is now to be taken. These signposts are linguistic signals, ranging from the repetition of words to the addition of adverbials such as Nevertheless,...or In contrast,... which show the reader that the writer is continuing on the same path or is turning off in another direction.

The direction taken in the body will in large part be dictated by the communicative ambitions of the writer; the vital thing is that there should be an identifiable pattern. An essay describing the history of the Trade Union movement in the Netherlands, for example, is likely to have a chronological structure, with each body paragraph dealing with a delimitable period in the annuals of that movement. The body will certainly be given extra dynamism if each paragraph centres around one event that was decisive in each period. However, if the essay is more oriented to identifying aspects of the contemporary Trade Union movement that have their origins in historical processes in the past, the body will almost certainly have a totally different internal organization, even if the events described are the same. Now the structure will be imposed by a synchronic analysis of the current situation, with each paragraph dealing with an element taken from that analysis and its historical foundations. Thus not every text that presents historical information need have a chronological structure; but if you do choose to adopt a chronological presentation, be sure that yu do so consistently - the 1,000-word text does not offer much scope for flashbacks.

Note that chronological order is frequently applicable in texts that are designed to offer an analysis of some current problem. After a general statement and placement of the problem in the introduction, the first half of the body can be used for historical background, the second half for a (historically informed) presentation of more detail about the present situation, leading to a conclusion that sketches possible future developments. Thus an essay on the third wave of feminism (if that is indeed a valid description of the current state of affairs) could contain body paragraphs that provide information about the first and second waves in such a way that the characteristic traits of the third wave emerge more forcefully.

Not all subjects will lend themselves to this rather straightforward, narrative mode of presentation. Very often, the organizing principle is more abstract, having to do with relationships between ideas and concepts. A frequently encountered organizing principle is that of opposition, as when a writer presents the advantages and disadvantages of a particular proposal. Here it will generally be possible to divide the body of the text into two major section, one presenting the arguments for and the other the arguments against. The ordering of the sections will be dictated by your own preferences and ultimate conclusion. If you are for the proposal, say for the legalization of soft drugs, you might deal with the drawbacks first, then show that these are less significant than might be believed, and finally present the advantages, in this way preparing your reader for the positive conclusion that will follow; and vice versa if you are against the proposal. This is normally clearer and more dynamic than another thinkable technique, which is to alternate within the body between pro and con: this latter technique is probably appropriate only where you yourself can honestly not decide which course of action is preferable.

The approach discussed in the previous paragraph, using the opposition principle, is often encouraged because both sides of the argument get an equal hearing; it is apparent that the conclusion is reached on the basis of a fair and considered weighing-up of the benefits and drawbacks of a particular proposal. In actual practice, writers are much more frequently called upon (by themselves or by others who contract them to write) to present only one side of an argument. In this case, it will be necessary for you to put together your evidence in a structured and effective manner. A first step is to evaluate the persuasive power of each of the pieces of evidence and to order these from one to five (or whatever) in terms of relative strength.

The question now arises of how to arrange these in the body of the text. It may well be tempting to begin with the best argument and to present the less forceful ones in what remains of the body; the drawback of this procedure is that the body will make an anticlimactic impression and will lose those very forward dynamics that keep the reader involved. The opposite approach is usually also ineffective, since beginning with the weakest argument, even if it is explicitly introduced as such, will probably undermine the reader's confidence in your ability to persuade him. What is generally the most effective policy is to start with the second-strongest argument, then continue with the weaker ones, but end with the very strongest. In this way your chances of winning over your reader to your viewpoint are increased by the impression made by the first-presented argument, and the final argument should then carry the day, with a very natural lead-in to a conclusion that calls for implementation of the case you have made.

One last arrangement of the body paragraphs to be discussed here arises where the proposal is to be supported from various viewpoints, but where the various ideas do not group into one united argument. Consider the proposition that ‘au-pair work should be encouraged'. The writer, brainstorming, comes up with arguments from various ‘disciplines': from psychology he derives the proposition that it is good for the child to be confronted with a range of care-takers and for the au pair to learn indirectly about parenthood; from economics he takes the idea that au-pair arrangements liberate parents to (re)enter the workplace and provide employment and experience of responsibility for young people: and from education theory he draws the notion that au-pair experience increases linguistic and cultural skills.

There are clearly many ways in which this motley collection of ideas could be structured, the most obvious being the ‘discipline-based' approach shown in the last paragraph. There is of course also the ‘beneficiary' approach, which separates out the benefits for the child, the au pair, and the parents/hosts. If you yourself have experience of au pair work, then it would seem appropriate to choose the latter strategy and devote the final, high point of the body to the advantages for the au pair: this could then lead into a concluding paragraph in which the personal gain for the au pair is brought out as what you feel, on the basis of your own experience, to be truly important.