Get your reader hooked: introductions

Rapports de jury say that the main mistake made by candidates in the written exam is to resort to generalities or platitudes, or not answering the question in order to include as many of the words, expressions or statistics learnt by heart. Everything becomes a hot topic or a burning issue. The worst candidates just repeat the essay subject instead of actually saying what their essay is going to be about. CCIP / Ina subjects are linked to a text so you can jump right in but with Ecricome subjects youll need to provide some context, an explanation, clarification or even a definition. In both cases, your introduction should present the subject and give a problmatique which is specific to your ideas. Here are some tips for tailoring your hook or accroche to your arguments: Immigration is a difficult problem. Uncontrolled immigration poses the thorny problem of integration. Nowadays global warming is a hot topic. Once the terrain of scientists and a few die-hard greens, climate change and what to do about it now regularly make the headlines. Today technology affects everyone. Advances in technology have transformed our everyday lives. Cloning is a debatable issue. Whether to regulate cloning and, indeed, how to do this is the most controversial debate over scientific research in our day and age. Education is very important. In an age when job mobility is increasingly the norm, educating youngsters to acquire transferable skills is crucial. Women and men should be equal. In spite of womens lib, feminism and changing attitudes, there is still much progress to be made. Globalisation is currently a topical issue. Globalisation, the increasingly free flow of goods, ideas and people across national borders, has come under harsh criticism in recent years. Homosexual marriage is hotly debated. In some cultures, like France and the US, samesex marriage is still a divisive topic of conversation.

Presenting an idea (be careful: dont go overboard on these!)

It all boils down to saying that () is (really) the only credible option. (Quite simply) what this amounts to is the need to make drastic changes in our lifestyles. What is needed, then, is no less than a moral revolution. What they suggested was to do away with prejudices in as civil way as could be imagined. What this suggests is that we can no longer afford to ignore the consequences of our actions. What matters is (brains), not (looks). What is at stake here is the kind of balance that ought to be set between civil liberties and security. What stops them is not governments / fines / the police but the desire to live a more moral life. What it lacks in originality, it makes up for in effectiveness / by having a widespread effect. Why people should think so at all is somewhat of a mystery. There is no denying / question that we must all strive to improve our knowledge of events in the Middle East. Most troubling of all (to some social scientists) is the message men get that being a good father means learning how to mother. The reason why they made this decision is a total mystery to me. Small wonder, then, that women do not even bother applying for high-ranking positions. Of equal importance is how we can balance the need to deal with increasing demand for air travel against environmental concerns. What (totally) infuriates me is that more people vote in TV reality shows than they do for their political leaders.

Of the many predictions in the hi-tech world that have turned out to be spectacularly wrong, none has been so far off the mark as Apples announced demise. The question we (really) must ask is not whether we can afford to be green but whether we can afford not to. The most one can do is be true to oneself. The risk is that we may do more damage by not taking action than by attempting to solve the problem. One might have thought that politicians would have learnt their lesson by now. It is because pro-lifers are so adamant that they are dangerous. The answer is that each person must be left to make their own decision/ There is something unconvincing about the way in which tobacco companies profess to care about peoples health. Far from being the greatest cause of poverty, globalization is the only feasible cure. The issue at stake here is a total rethink of what we eat and when. It behoves us to ask / wonder whether there is still time to make these changes. Not only does this contradict mainstream values, it goes against every rule in the book. Never before has / had it been realized that melting ice-caps are / were changing the flow of ocean currents. True as it may be that these measures have had very little effect, this does not mean that we should stop trying. Little do they know that their fashionable trainers were made by six-year-old children working in Indian sweatshops.

Rhetorical questions are also very elegant but be careful not to simply repeat the essay question!
Against this backdrop, is it really surprising that ordinary, decent US marines may have committed atrocities? Does it matter? Does that make it morally wrong? Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? Are we ready to reject another constitutional treaty, if it comes to that? What if private schools were eliminated? Would poor performers be any worse off than they are now?

Add adverbs or adjectives for a touch of fluidity

This is totally (and utterly) unacceptable. I completely disagree. I find this utterly impossible to believe. (These three words are synonyms) Some would argue that this is quite unreasonable. One may consider this to be rather strange. Also try: Actually, En vrit, en ralit, Oddly, / Ironically, / Paradoxically (enough) Curieusement, Ironie de la chose est que Cest paradoxal Admittedly, Il faut bien reconnatre que Naturally (enough), Cest bien naturel Ultimately, En fin de compte, Significantly, Il est significatif que