From “Too Descriptive” to a Defensible Claim: A Worked Paragraph Repair

By Alex Whitmore, writing for GetCustomEssayHelp. Prepared with AI assistance.

Feedback such as “too descriptive” can be difficult to act on. A paragraph may accurately report several findings yet leave the reader to work out whether they answer the question. Adding “however” or a sentence saying “the sample was small” does not necessarily supply that reasoning.

This worked example shows one way to diagnose the gap. It is a practice activity for an evaluative essay, not a required paragraph formula for every subject or genre. Follow your actual assignment and marking criteria.

The invented task and evidence

Everything in this example—the brief, evidence cards and draft paragraphs—is invented teaching material. These are not real study results and must not be turned into fabricated references.

Invented brief: Evaluate whether later library opening improved access for commuting students.

Card A: A door counter recorded 200 entries during the new late-opening hours in one week. The record does not identify unique people, commuter status or the purpose of each visit. There is no comparable earlier-period access measure in this card.

Card B: Of 20 volunteer respondents who had used the late-opening hours, 12 said the change made it easier to find study time. The card contains no commuter-status information and no responses from people who did not use the new hours. It does not report what the other eight respondents said.

A paragraph that describes, then overclaims

“The library recorded 200 entries during its new late-opening hours in one week. Of 20 volunteer respondents who had used those hours, 12 said that the change made it easier to find study time. Therefore, later opening improved access for all commuting students.”

The first two sentences report the cards. The conclusion goes further. It substitutes a claim about all commuting students for records about entries and a particular set of users. It also treats use and reported convenience as enough to establish the improvement the brief asks about.

The missing step is an evaluation of what these records can answer. More description would not fix it. Nor would a longer list of references unless the additional material addressed the missing evidence.

A repaired paragraph

“The new late-opening hours were used: Card A records 200 entries in one week, although these are entries rather than unique visitors. Card B also identifies a perceived benefit for 12 of its 20 volunteer respondents, who said that the change made it easier to find study time. Together, these records support a limited judgement that the new hours were used and were perceived as helpful by some participating users. They do not establish improved access for commuting students specifically. Neither card identifies commuters, and the feedback excludes people who did not use the new hours. Assessing commuter access would require evidence about that group, including barriers that might prevent attendance, alongside an appropriate basis for comparing access before and after the change.”

What makes the repair analytical?

It gives the evidence a job. The entry count supports a statement about use of the new hours. The responses support a statement about the reported experience of particular respondents. The paragraph recognises those contributions rather than dismissing everything because the evidence is incomplete.

It tests the connection to the question. The brief concerns commuting students and improved access. Neither card identifies that group or provides the comparison needed to assess a change in access. That mismatch directly limits the conclusion.

It identifies a consequential limitation. Asking only people who used the new hours leaves out people whose transport timetable, other commitments or other circumstances might prevent attendance. Those are possible questions for a real evaluation, not explanations established by these invented cards.

It changes the judgement. “All commuting students benefited” becomes a narrower account of use and perceived benefit, followed by a clear statement of what remains unresolved. This is more than attaching a caution to the original conclusion.

Why a token limitation is not enough

“The sample was small, so more research is needed” gives the reader little help here. A larger survey of unidentified existing users would still not reveal which respondents commute or why nonusers did not attend. The important question is how a particular feature of the evidence affects the particular claim.

Do not invent the missing information to make the paragraph seem complete. For example, Card B does not tell us that the other eight respondents disliked the new hours. Unreported responses remain unreported.

A repair worksheet for your own paragraph

Complete these lines after selecting one passage the feedback concerns:

• My paragraph's main claim:
• What the evidence actually supports:
• What it does not establish, and why that matters to this question:
• The judgement or explanation I will revise:
• What I will recheck against the sources, brief and feedback:

Then read the revised paragraph without the worksheet. Can the reader see how you reached the judgement, rather than only which findings you collected? Your task may require a different balance of interpretation, comparison or evaluation; use its criteria to decide what belongs.

For the wider task of deciding which feedback to tackle first and turning comments into a revision plan, our guide How to Improve Essay Quality Through Editing and Feedback provides a broader workflow.

GetCustomEssayHelp is the commercial writing-support business publishing this educational example and the companion guide. The invented case is practice material; your submitted work should use the sources you actually read and your own reasoning.