AP Style Conclusions
Background: We have all read and, maybe, written the standard ending to an essay which begins, "In conclusion . . ." and is followed by a recapitulation of the points previously mentioned and developed by the writer in the first and body paragraphs. The writer then, usually, finishes with the reasons and, at the very end, restates the thesis now as a proven fact. An example:
In conclusion, the United States should not have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki becasue it was a cruel punishment for insurgency, because it was an inhumane act against civilians, and because it had all the trappings of a racist act of genocide. It is clear from my discussion that, indeed, the US should not have used atomic weapons against the Japanese.
There is nothing wrong with this, BUT there is nothing exciting or expansive about it either. Not only is it formulaic and dull, it lacks the human element essential to compelling writing.
What do avoid: Avoid simply restating your main points. Do more. Avoid, by all means, the use of "in conclusion" and other overuse, hackneyed phrases which have lost their force.
What to do instead: Combine a restatement of your main points AS YOU OPEN the discussion for the reader to new avenues. WIDEN the view of the topic and the reader by indicating FOOD FOR FURTHER THOUGHT. Make the claim that your thesis is right ONLY as an incidental item ON THE WAY to globalizing the importance of the topic.
An example: The fall out from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was at first invisible and included much, much more than radioactivity at the sites. Certainly the bombing was a cruel punishment, an inhumane treatment of civilians and, certainly, can be seen as racist, but, more than all that it was an opening of the nuclear door of danger and distruction. Had the bombing been withheld, the world might not have witnessed the huge buildup of nuclear arsenals in the Soviet Union and China as well as in England and the United States during which the world lived in fear of anaihilation. Too, the current tricky situation with North Korea, the tension between India and Pakistan and the concern, real concern over terrorist's possessing nuclear material would all have been greatly attenuated. The jinni is out of the bottle now. What can we possibly do to stuff him back in? That is the question Mr. Truman's heirs must answer.
