Structuring an argumentative essay — the editorial method

The argumentative essay is the workhorse format of UAE undergraduate coursework. The brief sounds simple — pick a position, defend it — but the essays that come back in the 50s have a recurring failure: the structure doesn’t serve the argument. Each paragraph reads as a fact-dump rather than as a step in a sequence that the reader follows to a conclusion.

Here is how the editors approach argumentative essay structure when we draft, and how we coach students drafting their own.

The shape of a working argumentative essay

A strong argumentative essay has four structural moves, in this order:

1. Introduction — sets up the question, declares the position, and previews the argument.
2. Body paragraphs — each paragraph makes one claim, evidences it, and warrants the connection between evidence and claim.
3. Counter-argument and refutation — at least one paragraph anticipating an opposing view and addressing it.
4. Conclusion — restates the position with the weight of the accumulated argument behind it.

This is not the only working structure. But it is the structure your marker is expecting, and deviating from it requires a stronger justification than most undergraduate essays manage.

The introduction — three sentences that earn the rest

Most argumentative introductions are too long. The reader is on page one of a 2,500-word essay; they don’t want a half-page warmup. Three sentences are usually enough:

1. The question or problem. The question of whether UAE corporate tax should apply to free-zone entities has divided policy commentators since the 2023 reform.

2. Your position. This essay argues that free-zone exemption should be retained, on the grounds that the economic-substance rules already provide sufficient anti-avoidance protection.

3. The structural preview. The argument proceeds in three steps: first considering the case for full integration; second, the case for partial exemption; third, the comparative evidence from similar jurisdictions.

The reader now knows what you’re arguing, where you’re going, and how long it’ll take. Most undergraduate introductions deliver none of this clarity. The mark allocation for “clarity of argument” usually gets locked in by the end of the first paragraph.

Body paragraphs — the claim-evidence-warrant pattern

Every paragraph in the body should do three things:

1. Make a claim in the topic sentence. Free-zone exemption has functioned as an economic-development tool rather than a tax-avoidance loophole.

2. Present the evidence that supports the claim. MOF data from 2024 shows that 78% of free-zone entities exceed the substance requirements introduced under the 2019 ESR regulations.

3. Warrant the connection — explain why this evidence supports this claim. This indicates that the exemption applies to entities with genuine economic activity in the UAE, rather than the paper-thin holding structures the policy critics describe.

Each paragraph should do all three. The most common undergraduate failure mode is making a claim, citing a statistic, and leaving the reader to infer the warrant. The warrant has to be on the page. The marker will not infer it for you, and your evidence becomes inert without it.

Counter-arguments — the move most undergraduates skip

The single most reliable move to lift a grade from B to A is to include a serious counter-argument and refutation. Most undergraduate essays argue one side as if the other doesn’t exist. The marker — who has read the literature — knows the other side exists and is waiting for you to show that you do too.

Structure the counter-argument as its own paragraph (or two):

1. State the opposing view fairly. Don’t strawman. Critics of free-zone exemption, including the IMF’s 2024 Article IV consultation, argue that the regime undermines the revenue-raising purpose of corporate tax and creates regulatory arbitrage.

2. Acknowledge what’s correct in it. This is the move that signals intellectual seriousness. This concern is substantively correct in cases where free-zone entities serve as conduit vehicles with minimal local employment.

3. Refute the parts that don’t hold. However, the ESR framework introduced in 2019 already targets these conduit structures specifically, and the IMF’s broader critique conflates the genuine-activity entities (which form the majority) with the conduit entities (which form a small minority).

A marker who reads this kind of paragraph knows that the writer has read the field, has thought about the strongest objections, and has formed a position despite them. That’s an A-grade signal.

Conclusion — restate the position with accumulated weight

Don’t introduce new arguments in the conclusion. Don’t apologise or hedge. The conclusion has one job: state, with the weight of the argument now behind it, the position the essay has defended.

A useful structural move is to acknowledge the limits of your argument in one sentence at the end. The economic-substance argument for free-zone exemption is contingent on continued enforcement of the ESR framework; if enforcement weakens, the case for the exemption weakens with it. This signals to the marker that you understand your own argument’s boundaries.

What we do at the studio

For argumentative essays, our editors structure the argument before the writer drafts a word. The shape of the essay is agreed first — the claim, the body paragraph topics, the counter-argument, the conclusion — and then the writer fills in the prose. This sequence is faster than drafting and restructuring, and produces tighter arguments.

If you’re sitting down to draft an argumentative essay and want a second opinion on the shape of your argument before you write, send the editors your introduction and a list of body paragraph topics. Ten minutes from us saves you ten hours.