Your introduction is the most heavily weighted 10% of your essay. It is the only part your marker is guaranteed to read with full attention, and it is where they form the judgement — “this student knows what they’re doing” or “this is going to be hard work” — that quietly colours every mark that follows. The good news is that introductions are formulaic in the best sense: they do five jobs, in a predictable order, and once you can see those jobs being done you can do them for any question, in any subject. This guide gives you the formula, then shows it working in three full example introductions — including a weak one, annotated honestly, so you can see exactly what separates the two. For the full architecture your introduction must set up, see our essay writing page; for worked examples of complete academic writing, see our samples page.
The formula: five jobs, in order
A strong undergraduate or Masters introduction does these five things, usually in this sequence:
1. Context — place the topic in its setting. One or two sentences that locate your question in the bigger picture: why this issue exists, why it matters, what has changed or what is at stake. This is the wide-angle opening — but it must stay close to your question, not begin with the dawn of time.
2. Definitions and scope — pin down the key terms. If the question turns on a contested term (“social media marketing”, “productivity”, “justice”), say briefly how you are using it, and state the boundaries of your essay: which period, which context, which aspects are in and out. Markers reward this because most weak essays never establish what they are actually about.
3. The debate — show there is something to argue about. Identify the tension your essay will work on: scholars disagree about X; the evidence points both ways on Y; the traditional view has been challenged by Z. An essay with no tension is a summary waiting to happen; naming the debate tells your marker an argument is coming.
4. Your position — the thesis statement. One clear sentence stating what you will argue, answering the question directly, including any qualification (“largely”, “to a significant extent”, “in the short term but not the long term”). Vague theses (“this essay will discuss…”) announce description. Precise theses (“this essay argues that… because…”) announce analysis — and the rest of the essay simply has to deliver what this sentence promises.
5. The roadmap — signpost the route. One sentence outlining the order of your main sections. It feels mechanical to write; to a marker it is pure relief, because it proves the essay has a plan. Keep it brief and do not list every sub-point.
Budget roughly 10% of your word count: 200 words for a 2,000-word essay, 100 for a 1,000-word one. If your introduction is running to a fifth of the essay, you are writing body material in the wrong place.
Example 1 — A strong introduction (Business)
Question: “To what extent has social media marketing changed the way small businesses compete?”
Social media has altered the economics of small business marketing more fundamentally than any development since the arrival of the commercial internet. Where a local firm once depended on costly print advertising and passing trade, it can now reach a defined audience of thousands for a fraction of that cost. Yet reach is not the same as competitive advantage, and scholars disagree about whether social media has genuinely levelled the playing field or merely moved the contest to new ground, where advantages of scale reassert themselves in different forms. This essay argues that social media marketing has substantially changed how small businesses compete — shifting competition from advertising budget towards content quality, responsiveness and community — but that it has not eliminated the advantages of larger rivals, who can professionalise the same channels. It first examines the cost and targeting changes social media introduced, then considers the new capabilities it demands, before evaluating the limits of the “levelling” thesis.
Why it works: Context is specific (cost of reaching customers, not “social media is popular nowadays”). The debate is named in the third sentence (“levelled… or moved the contest”). The thesis answers “to what extent” with a qualified, two-part position — changed substantially, not completely — which gives the essay something real to prove. The roadmap matches the thesis, in the same order. At around 190 words it would suit a 2,000-word essay exactly.
Example 2 — A weak introduction, and its repair (same question)
Weak introductions are more instructive than perfect ones. Here is a typical first draft for the same question:
In today’s modern world, social media has become very popular and many people use it every day. Social media marketing is when businesses use websites like Facebook and Instagram to promote their products. This essay will discuss social media marketing and small businesses. There are many advantages and disadvantages of social media marketing. Firstly this essay will talk about what social media marketing is, then it will look at some advantages, then some disadvantages, and finally a conclusion will be given.
What is wrong with it: It opens with a cliché that says nothing (“in today’s modern world”). It defines the obvious — markers know what social media is — while never defining anything contested, such as what “compete” or “changed” will mean. There is no debate and no position: “advantages and disadvantages” is a structure for describing, not arguing, and the essay that follows this introduction can only ever be a list. The roadmap restates the assignment (“then a conclusion will be given”) rather than revealing an argument’s logic. Nothing here is factually wrong; it simply makes no promise the essay can keep beyond covering the topic.
The repair is not more words — it is the formula applied: replace the cliché with the specific change (advertising costs collapsed), replace the dictionary definition with the contestable issue (did competition actually level?), replace “will discuss” with “argues that… but…”, and make the roadmap track the argument rather than the contents page. Example 1 above is exactly that repair, sentence by sentence, at almost the same length.
Example 3 — A strong introduction in a different register (Nursing / Health)
Question: “Critically discuss the role of reflective practice in maintaining safe nursing care.”
Reflection is embedded in contemporary nursing practice to a degree unusual among the professions: it is required by the NMC Code, built into revalidation, and taught from the first year of pre-registration programmes. This emphasis reflects a plausible claim — that practitioners who systematically examine their own practice identify risks and correct errors earlier than those who do not. Plausible, however, is not the same as demonstrated. Critics note that much reflective writing is produced for assessment rather than learning, that its quality is rarely evaluated against patient outcomes, and that reflection can become a ritual of self-justification as easily as a discipline of self-scrutiny. This essay argues that reflective practice supports safe care only under specific conditions: when it follows a structured model, when it engages honestly with error, and when its conclusions are converted into changed behaviour. It examines the regulatory and educational case for reflection, evaluates the evidence linking reflection to safety outcomes, considers the principal criticisms, and identifies the conditions under which the link between reflecting and safer care is strongest.
Why it works: The context is professional and precise (the NMC, revalidation), the tension is genuine (policy enthusiasm versus thin outcome evidence), and the thesis names three conditions — which the essay’s three main sections then test one by one. Note also the register: formal, sourced in orientation, and including the word “critically” from the question in its very design. Different subject, same five jobs.
Mistakes that cost marks
Starting with a dictionary definition. “The Oxford Dictionary defines marketing as…” wastes your strongest lines on something your marker knows, and signals a school-level approach. Define contested terms in your own words, in context, or not at all.
Writing the essay in the introduction. Dragging evidence, citations and detailed points into the opening makes it bloated and leaves the body with nothing to do. Introductions promise; body paragraphs deliver. A citation or two for the debate is fine at Masters level, but a wall of references in paragraph one is a structural error.
Announcing instead of arguing. “This essay will discuss/explore/look at…” commits you to nothing. Every question at degree level expects a position, even a cautious one. If you genuinely cannot tell what your position is yet, that is diagnostic: you have not finished planning, and the introduction is telling you so.
Promising what the essay does not deliver. If the introduction announces three arguments and the body makes two, markers notice — the introduction is read again at the end, against the conclusion. Write your introduction last, or at least revise it last, once you know what the essay actually argues.
The funnel that starts in ancient history. “Since the beginning of time, humans have communicated…” Context should begin one step wider than your question, not ten. If your first sentence could open an essay on any topic, it opens this one badly.
Forgetting the question’s exact words. If the question says “to what extent”, “critically evaluate” or “in the UK since 2010”, those words must visibly shape your thesis. Restating or directly echoing the question’s key terms in your introduction proves relevance in the cheapest possible way.
A five-minute checklist before you submit
Read your introduction alone, away from the rest of the essay, and ask: Could a stranger state my argument after reading this? Does it answer the question as set — including any qualification the question demands? Does the roadmap match the body’s actual order? Is it roughly 10% of my word count? Is there any sentence that could be cut without loss (there usually is — cut it)? Do my conclusion and introduction agree with each other? If all six answers are yes, your essay begins the way high-scoring essays begin.
If introductions keep going wrong
A stubbornly weak introduction usually means the problem is upstream: an unplanned essay, an unfocused question, or reading that has not yet become an argument. Those are exactly the problems structured help solves. Our specialists write model essays for your own question — introduction included, built on the formula above, fully referenced and delivered with a plagiarism report — from £20 per 1,000 words, so you can study a strong worked example of your actual assignment rather than generic examples like the ones in this guide. See our essay writing service and pricing, or message us on WhatsApp with your question for a free quote. And if you are writing the whole essay yourself, our guide to dissertation structure and reflective writing with Gibbs’ cycle cover the neighbouring skills.
Chat on WhatsApp for your free quote · Or email team@unitedacademichelp.uk