Structuring an Extended Written Response: Question 6

Syllabus W1, W2

Structured 7 marks

You are writing a discursive essay in answer to the question: "Should cafes and restaurants in town centres be banned from using single-use plastic straws?"

(a) Write the concluding paragraph of your essay (50–80 words). Assume the essay has already argued that a ban would meaningfully reduce local plastic waste, that biodegradable alternatives already exist at a similar cost, and that a small number of customers with medical needs could be exempted. Your conclusion should draw these points together and close the essay with a clear final position, without simply repeating the opening paragraph. [5]

(b) Briefly explain two techniques you used in your conclusion to avoid it reading as a repeat of your opening, referring to your own wording. [2]

Show worked solution Hide worked solution

Worked solution

Assessment focus

This question tests the higher-level structuring skill of closing an extended response effectively: synthesising the essay’s key points into a clear final position, rather than either repeating the opening or simply summarising what has already been said.

Model conclusion (a) (approx. 72 words)

Taken together, the evidence points firmly towards a ban: biodegradable straws already cost cafes little more than plastic ones, and the modest inconvenience to most customers is easily outweighed by the waste it would prevent each year. A small, clearly signposted exemption for customers who need a straw for medical reasons would keep the policy fair. Town centres do not need to keep choosing convenience over consequence. This is a change worth making now.

Explaining the techniques (b)

  1. Moving from evidence to recommendation: the conclusion does not repeat the essay’s evidence in detail but compresses it into a single synthesising sentence (“biodegradable straws already cost… waste it would prevent”) before pivoting to a recommendation, which an opening paragraph would not yet be in a position to do.
  2. A closing sentence that acts, rather than describes: “This is a change worth making now” states a position directly rather than describing what the essay has covered, giving the conclusion a decisive final beat that an opening (which exists to raise the question, not answer it) could not use.

Common pitfalls specific to this task

  • Opening the conclusion with “In conclusion, this essay has looked at whether plastic straws should be banned,” which announces structure rather than synthesising the argument.
  • Ending on the medical exemption rather than the essay’s main position, so the final impression is a qualification rather than a clear stance.
  • In part (b), describing the conclusion’s content (“I mentioned the cost of alternatives”) rather than naming a structural technique and explaining why it differs from an opening.