The Key Difficulties of Writing a Research Paper on Abortions
In the world of academic writing, difficulties lurk in every corner. Make the wrong step and you are doomed.
A little dramatic, yes, but it’s true that you can make mistakes that will lead you in the wrong direction – mistakes like mixing up facts and opinions and using the wrong kind of sources.
What are the mistakes that you can make while working on a research paper on abortions? Bad news is, there are LOTS. Good news is, the more attention you pay to writing and structuring your argumentation, the fewer chances you have to do something wrong.
In our experience, there are a few main types of mistakes a person writing about abortions can make. We’ll address them here, along with recommendations on how to avoid or fix them.
Table of Contents
Mistake 1: Letting your own beliefs cloud your judgement of facts
It’s perfectly acceptable to think that abortion is bad and should be condemned, but don’t let it prevent you from examining all the opposing facts with the required degree of objectivity. Both parties make strong points, which means that if your paper doesn’t at least mention the opposing arguments worth noting, you must be doing something wrong. Look at your paper as if it was a pros and cons essay – don’t keep all the “pros”, while dropping all the “cons” and vice versa.
For the same reason, don’t let your personal views interfere with how you select and present facts that (could) refute your statement.
Mistake 2: Getting information from the wrong sources
An academic paper is, well, academic. In even its simplest form it is supposed to contribute to the body of knowledge making good use of scientific methods and unbiased facts. And yet when it comes to this ambiguous and controversial topic, students tend to resort to various kinds of non-conventional sources. It’s fine to showcase opinion pieces in the appropriate places in your paper, but building your entire argumentation strategy on emotion-oriented, opinion-biased sources is not a good way to go.
Are the sources you are using diverse enough? Sure enough, medical journals provide the best kind of information – factual only, free of emotions – but you can use other sources, too, provided they satisfy the minimal objectivity threshold.
Mistake 3: Appealing to your reader’s worldviews and opinions, trying to identify with them
It works once out of a hundred times, and only if you are an established writer already. There is no way you can predict the views of your professor on certain subjects. Even if you know her well, a true professional keeps personal views separately from professional activity, which means you will be shooting in the dark.
Do not assume anything about the person who will be reading your paper. Bare facts can convince them to change their mind (which is ideally what a good persuasive paper should do) while assuming they agree with the writer’s beliefs usually hurts the above-mentioned writer and causes bias in readers. Sometimes it’s worse than assuming the gender.
Mistake 4: Taking too broad a stand
This one applies not only to abortion-themed papers but to virtually any academic paper. If the thesis statement you make is too vague or broad, the scope of your research will be significant, to say the least. It will also limit your possibilities for creativity. The key is in the specifics. Choose a more narrow approach to your statement and the paper in general, and you will be able to identify the scope of work beforehand and plan it accordingly.
Of course, these are not ALL mistakes you could make while working on this paper. They are, however, the most common ones. When writing on controversial topics, it’s important to keep a cool head and a sharp mind. With pure facts and research as your firearms, you could win an argument with even the most stubborn of opponents. And when it comes to abortions, it seems there is no in-between. You either radically for or radically against – your job as the writer is to carefully maneuver in between those extremities and extract the scientifically supported truth. Sounds easy, doesn’t it?