Structuring the Report Around an Argument
A student's draft inquiry report has these sections: a 400-word biography of the artist, a 500-word history of the genre, a 300-word description of the song, and a 300-word conclusion saying the song is 'important'. The task requires an inquiry question, analysis of musical elements, and a justified conclusion, within 1,500 words. The teacher notes the draft never states a question and never analyses a specific musical element in detail.
1. Diagnose why the draft fails the task requirements, referring to specific word counts.
Read the worked answer
The draft spends 900 of 1,500 words (biography plus genre history) on background that does not answer an inquiry question. Background can contextualise, but here it dominates.
The 300-word description is descriptive rather than analytical: it presumably says what happens without explaining how musical elements create an effect. The task requires analysis of elements such as rhythm, harmony, texture, or form.
The conclusion asserts importance without justification, so it is an opinion, not a reasoned judgement.
Crucially, no inquiry question is stated, so the reader cannot judge whether the analysis answers anything. A strong diagnosis names the missing question, the imbalance of word allocation, and the gap between description and analysis.
2. Propose a revised structure with approximate word counts that meets the requirements.
Read the worked answer
A workable structure:
- Inquiry question and scope (100 words): state the question and the material examined.
- Context (200 words): only background needed to understand the analysis.
- Analysis (800 words): two or three musical elements, each with specific evidence (timestamps, transcriptions, score references) tied back to the question.
- Evaluation of evidence and limitations (200 words): what the evidence supports and where it is thin.
- Justified conclusion (200 words): answer the question directly, acknowledging limits.
This keeps background to about 13 per cent of the report and gives analysis the majority, which matches the task's emphasis. The conclusion now answers a stated question rather than asserting importance.