The Complete Guide to "Discuss" Questions: Mastering Multi-Perspective Analysis at University

When you encounter the command word "discuss" in a university essay question, you're being set a specific intellectual challenge that many students misunderstand. Unlike questions that ask you to argue a single position from the outset, "discuss" questions require you to explore multiple perspectives thoughtfully before arriving at your own reasoned conclusion. This guide will show you exactly how to excel at this complex but rewarding type of academic writing.

What "Discuss" Really Means

The Core Purpose

When an essay question asks you to "discuss," you're being asked to:

1. Identify different perspectives on the topic or claim

2. Explore each perspective fairly and thoroughly

3. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each view

4. Reach your own informed position based on this exploration

Crucially, "discuss" does not mean:

• Simply describing different views without evaluation

• Presenting only the view you agree with

• Avoiding a conclusion because perspectives differ

• Giving equal weight to all views regardless of their merit

Why Discuss Questions Are Challenging

Discuss questions test several high-level academic skills simultaneously:

Intellectual open-mindedness: You must engage seriously with perspectives you might personally disagree with, presenting them fairly rather than creating strawman arguments.

Analytical balance: You need to evaluate multiple positions without prematurely committing to one, maintaining objectivity during your exploration.

Synthesis: After examining different views, you must synthesize this analysis into your own coherent position.

Nuanced judgment: Your conclusion should reflect the complexity you've explored, avoiding oversimplification.

These skills define university-level thinking, which is why "discuss" questions appear frequently in assessments.

The Architecture of a Discuss Essay

Before diving into specific strategies, let's understand the overall structure that works best for discuss questions.

The Four-Part Framework

Part 1: Introduction (10% of word count)

• Define key terms

• Acknowledge that multiple perspectives exist

• Preview the perspectives you'll explore

• Indicate (if appropriate) the direction of your eventual position

Part 2: Exploration of Perspectives (60-70% of word count)

• Present each major perspective systematically

• For each perspective, provide:

  • Its core claims and assumptions

  • Supporting evidence and reasoning

  • Strengths and advantages

  • Weaknesses and limitations

  • Key proponents or schools of thought (if relevant)

Part 3: Comparative Analysis (10-15% of word count)

• Compare perspectives directly

• Identify points of agreement and disagreement

• Evaluate which perspective(s) have stronger support

• Acknowledge areas of genuine uncertainty or ongoing debate

Part 4: Conclusion (10-15% of word count)

• State your position clearly

• Justify why this position is most persuasive given your analysis

• Acknowledge limitations or qualifications

• Consider implications

This structure ensures you genuinely discuss rather than simply argue from one viewpoint.

Step One: Identifying the Perspectives to Explore

The first challenge in any discuss question is determining which perspectives to examine. This requires careful analysis of the question itself.

Extract Perspectives from the Question

Some questions explicitly signal different perspectives:

"Discuss whether climate change is primarily caused by human activity or natural cycles."

Here, two clear perspectives are identified:

• Perspective A: Climate change is primarily anthropogenic

• Perspective B: Climate change results mainly from natural cycles

Your task is to explore both fairly before reaching a position.

Identify Implied Perspectives

Other discuss questions don't explicitly state different views but imply them:

"Discuss the impact of globalization on developing economies."

This question doesn't specify perspectives, but scholarly debate suggests several:

• Perspective A (Positive view): Globalization drives economic growth, technology transfer, and poverty reduction in developing economies

• Perspective B (Critical view): Globalization exploits developing economies, increases inequality, and creates dependency

• Perspective C (Nuanced view): Globalization's impact varies by context, with some countries benefiting while others face challenges

For implied perspectives, preliminary research helps identify the major positions in academic debate.

Consider Multiple Dimensions

Some topics have perspectives along different dimensions:

"Discuss the role of government in regulating artificial intelligence."

This could involve:

• Political spectrum: libertarian vs. interventionist views

• Prioritization dimension: innovation vs. safety, economic vs. ethical concerns

• Implementation dimension: self-regulation vs. legislation vs. international governance

Identify which dimensions are most relevant to answering the question effectively.

How Many Perspectives?

For a 2,000-word essay: Two to three major perspectives work best. More than three risks superficiality; fewer than two isn't really a discussion.

For longer essays (3,000+ words): You might explore three to four perspectives or examine two major perspectives with important sub-variants.

Quality over quantity: Better to explore two perspectives thoroughly than to mention five superficially.

Step Two: Researching Perspectives Fairly

To discuss effectively, you must understand each perspective deeply, not just know enough to critique it.

Adopt the "Steelman" Approach

The opposite of a strawman argument is a "steelman"—presenting the strongest version of each argument. For discuss questions, you should:

Find the best advocates: Read proponents of each view, not just critics describing that view.

Understand internal logic: Each perspective has assumptions and reasoning that make sense within its own framework. Understand this internal coherence before critiquing.

Identify strongest evidence: What evidence does each perspective cite? What makes this evidence compelling to its proponents?

Example: The Steelman Approach in Practice

Question: "Discuss whether free market capitalism or regulated capitalism better promotes social welfare."

Weak approach (strawman): "Free market advocates simply ignore the poor and only care about profit."

Strong approach (steelman): "Free market advocates argue that minimal regulation maximizes economic efficiency, innovation, and wealth creation. They contend that rising overall prosperity—including new technologies, products, and job opportunities—ultimately benefits all social classes more than redistribution would, pointing to historical correlations between economic freedom and living standards. Key proponents like Milton Friedman argued that competitive markets provide better price signals and resource allocation than government planning, even for social goods."

The steelman version shows you understand why intelligent people hold this view, even if you'll ultimately critique it.

Research Questions for Each Perspective

As you research, ask:

1. What problem is this perspective trying to solve? Understanding the motivating concerns helps you present the view fairly.
   
   

2. What assumptions underpin this perspective? About human nature, social organization, causation, etc.
   
   

3. What counts as evidence for this perspective? Different perspectives may value different types of evidence (empirical data vs. philosophical reasoning, quantitative vs. qualitative, etc.).
   
   

4. What are this perspective's criteria for success? One view might prioritize efficiency, another equity; one might value freedom, another security.
   
   

5. What intellectual tradition does this perspective belong to? Understanding the broader theoretical or ideological framework helps you situate the view.
   
   

Maintain an Evidence Log

As you research, create a table:

Perspective

Key Claims

Supporting Evidence

Strengths

Weaknesses

Key Scholars

This ensures you're collecting material for all perspectives, not just the one you favor.

Step Three: Structuring the Exploration

How you organize the exploration of different perspectives significantly impacts your essay's clarity and persuasiveness.

Three Organizational Approaches

Approach 1: Sequential Perspective Analysis (Most Common)

Examine each perspective in turn, giving each substantial treatment:

Introduction

Section 1: The Case for Perspective A

  - Core claims and assumptions

  - Supporting evidence

  - Strengths

  - Limitations

Section 2: The Case for Perspective B

  - Core claims and assumptions

  - Supporting evidence

  - Strengths

  - Limitations

[Section 3: Perspective C, if needed]

Comparative Analysis

Conclusion: My Position

Advantages: Clear structure, allows deep exploration of each view, easy for readers to follow.

Best for: Questions with distinct, well-developed perspectives.

Approach 2: Thematic Analysis

Examine different perspectives on specific themes or criteria:

Introduction

Section 1: Economic Efficiency Considerations

  - Perspective A's view

  - Perspective B's view

  - Evaluation

Section 2: Social Justice Considerations

  - Perspective A's view

  - Perspective B's view

  - Evaluation

Section 3: Implementation Feasibility

  - Perspective A's view

  - Perspective B's view

  - Evaluation

Conclusion: My Position

Advantages: Facilitates direct comparison, shows analytical sophistication, avoids repetition.

Best for: Questions where perspectives differ on specific dimensions or criteria.

Approach 3: Dialectical Development

Present perspectives in dialogue, building toward synthesis:

Introduction

Section 1: Initial Perspective (Thesis)

Section 2: Contrasting Perspective (Antithesis)

Section 3: Points of Engagement and Tension

Section 4: Toward Synthesis

Conclusion: Integrated Position

Advantages: Shows dynamic thinking, naturally builds toward your position, intellectually sophisticated.

Best for: Questions where perspectives can genuinely be integrated rather than choosing between them.

Example: Sequential Approach in Action

Question: "Discuss whether standardized testing improves or undermines educational quality."

Section 1: The Case That Standardized Testing Improves Educational Quality

"Proponents argue standardized testing provides objective measures of student learning and teacher effectiveness. This perspective emphasizes several strengths. First, standardization enables fair comparison across diverse contexts, preventing subjective bias in assessment. Hanushek and Raymond (2005) found states with accountability systems showed larger gains in National Assessment of Educational Progress scores. Second, testing identifies achievement gaps, making educational inequality visible and actionable. Third, the pressure of assessment motivates both students and educators, driving improvement through clear expectations.

However, this perspective faces important limitations. The assumption that tests measure educational quality rather than test-taking ability has been challenged. Moreover, Campbell's Law suggests that when measures become targets, they cease to be good measures—schools may optimize for test performance rather than genuine learning."

Section 2: The Case That Standardized Testing Undermines Educational Quality

"Critics argue standardized testing narrows curriculum, encourages teaching to the test, and misidentifies quality education. This perspective highlights several concerns. Research by Au (2007) documented how high-stakes testing leads to curriculum narrowing, with reduced time for arts, social studies, and creative work. Kohn (2000) argues tests measure socioeconomic status more than learning, perpetuating inequality. Additionally, the stress and anxiety associated with testing may actively harm student wellbeing and learning motivation.

This critical perspective has substantial support, but also limitations. Some claims about narrowing effects may be overstated, as Koretz (2017) notes that reform-minded teachers can maintain broad curricula despite testing. Moreover, this perspective sometimes lacks alternative proposals for ensuring accountability and identifying struggling students."

Notice how each section:

• Presents the perspective's core claims

• Provides scholarly support

• Identifies strengths

• Acknowledges limitations

This is the essence of discussing—fair, thorough exploration.

Step Four: Evaluating Perspectives Critically

Discussion requires more than presentation—you must evaluate each perspective's merits.

Evaluation Criteria

Empirical Support

• What evidence supports this perspective?

• How robust and reliable is this evidence?

• Are there contradictory findings?

Logical Coherence

• Are the perspective's claims internally consistent?

• Do conclusions follow from premises?

• Are there logical fallacies?

Explanatory Power

• How well does this perspective explain observed phenomena?

• Can it account for exceptions or contradictions?

• Does it make successful predictions?

Practical Implications

• Is this perspective's position practically implementable?

• What would be the consequences of adopting this view?

• Does it create new problems while solving others?

Scope and Limitations

• Under what conditions does this perspective apply?

• Are there important factors it overlooks?

• Does it overgeneralize from limited cases?

Analytical Language for Evaluation

Use precise language that shows evaluative thinking:

Acknowledging strengths:

• "This perspective offers a compelling explanation for..."

• "The empirical support for this view is substantial, particularly..."

• "This argument's strength lies in its ability to account for..."

• "There is considerable merit to the claim that..."

Identifying weaknesses:

• "However, this perspective struggles to explain..."

• "A significant limitation is the reliance on..."

• "This view becomes less persuasive when considering..."

• "Critics rightly point out that..."

• "While initially compelling, this argument falters when..."

Comparative evaluation:

• "Perspective A provides better empirical support, though Perspective B offers greater theoretical coherence"

• "While both perspectives identify genuine concerns, Perspective A addresses the more fundamental issue"

• "The evidence supports elements of both views, suggesting..."

Avoid False Balance

"Discussing" doesn't mean treating all perspectives as equally valid. Sometimes evidence clearly favors one view:

Weak (false balance): "Some people think climate change is human-caused, others think it's natural. Both views have supporters."

Strong (honest evaluation): "While some argue climate change results from natural cycles, the scientific consensus strongly supports the anthropogenic view. The natural cycles argument struggles to explain observed warming rates and cannot account for the correlation between CO2 increases and temperature rise. Though this minority perspective raises questions worth addressing, the weight of evidence decisively favors the anthropogenic explanation."

If the evidence clearly favors one perspective, say so. Genuine discussion means honestly evaluating relative merits, not pretending all views are equivalent.

Step Five: Reaching Your Position

After exploring perspectives, you must reach your own position. This is where students often stumble, either avoiding a conclusion or asserting one without justification.

Your Position Should Emerge from the Discussion

Your conclusion isn't separate from your discussion—it should grow organically from your analysis:

Poor approach: "Having discussed different views, I believe Perspective A is correct because I have always thought so."

Strong approach: "This analysis reveals that while Perspective B raises important concerns about implementation challenges, Perspective A offers more compelling empirical support and greater explanatory power. The evidence from developing economies (discussed in Section 2) particularly strengthens the case for Perspective A, while Perspective B's theoretical objections, though valid in principle, have not materialized in practice to the degree predicted."

Your position should reference specific points from your discussion, showing how your analysis led to this conclusion.

Four Types of Positions

Type 1: Endorsing One Perspective (With Qualifications)

"Despite the concerns raised by critics, this essay concludes that standardized testing, when properly designed and implemented, can improve educational quality. This position rests on the stronger empirical evidence for testing's diagnostic benefits and the lack of viable alternatives for ensuring accountability. However, this endorsement is qualified: testing improves education only when coupled with adequate resources and when used formatively rather than punitively."

Type 2: Partial Agreement With Multiple Perspectives

"Neither perspective provides a complete account. The evidence suggests globalization has mixed effects: it has promoted growth in some contexts (supporting the optimistic view) while exacerbating inequality in others (supporting the critical view). The key variable appears to be institutional quality—countries with strong governance have captured globalization's benefits, while those with weak institutions have experienced more negative outcomes."

Type 3: Synthesis Position

"Rather than choosing between market capitalism and regulated capitalism, this essay argues for a dynamic balance that adapts to specific contexts and challenges. Pure free markets fail where market failures exist (information asymmetries, externalities, public goods), while excessive regulation stifles innovation and efficiency. The optimal approach varies by sector: healthcare and environmental protection justify significant regulation given severe market failures, while consumer goods markets function well with minimal intervention."

Type 4: Recognizing Genuine Uncertainty

"This discussion reveals that current evidence cannot definitively resolve whether consciousness requires biological substrates or could emerge in artificial systems. Both perspectives identify genuine theoretical challenges in the opposing view, and empirical evidence remains limited. This uncertainty is itself significant, suggesting that confident predictions about artificial consciousness are premature. Further research specifically examining [specified areas] is needed before a more definitive position becomes justified."

Justify Your Position

Simply stating your position isn't enough—explain why your analysis leads to this conclusion:

Elements of strong justification:

1. Reference specific evidence: "The longitudinal studies cited in Section 2, particularly Johnson et al. (2019), provide compelling evidence that..."
   
   

2. Explain your reasoning: "Given that Perspective A better accounts for the variations observed across different contexts..."
   
   

3. Address counterarguments: "While Perspective B's concerns about equity are valid, the evidence suggests these can be mitigated through..."
   
   

4. Acknowledge limitations: "This position depends partly on valuing efficiency over other considerations; those who prioritize equity differently might reasonably reach different conclusions."
   
   

Step Six: Writing the Introduction

Now let's address how to actually write each section, starting with the introduction.

Components of a Strong Introduction for Discuss Questions

1. Context and Significance (2-3 sentences)

Establish why this topic matters and what's at stake:

"The rise of artificial intelligence has prompted urgent debate about technological unemployment. Some economists predict AI will displace millions of workers, while others foresee new job creation offsetting losses. These competing predictions have profound implications for education policy, social safety nets, and economic planning."

2. Define Key Terms (2-4 sentences)

Clarify how you'll use central concepts:

"This essay defines 'technological unemployment' as job displacement resulting from automation, distinct from cyclical or structural unemployment. 'Artificial intelligence' refers specifically to machine learning and related technologies capable of performing cognitive tasks previously requiring human intelligence. These definitions matter because definitional differences significantly shape the debate."

3. Acknowledge Multiple Perspectives (2-3 sentences)

Signal that you'll explore different views:

"Scholarly opinion divides between technological optimists who emphasize AI's potential for productivity growth and job creation, and technological pessimists who warn of widespread displacement without sufficient replacement. A third, more nuanced view suggests AI's impact will vary significantly by sector and skill level."

4. Preview Your Approach (2-3 sentences)

Outline how you'll proceed:

"This essay will first examine the optimistic perspective, evaluating evidence for AI-driven job creation and historical precedents of technological adaptation. It will then analyze the pessimistic view, considering whether AI differs fundamentally from previous technological shifts. Finally, it will evaluate the conditional perspective that AI's impact depends on policy responses and institutional adaptation."

5. Indicate Direction (Optional, 1-2 sentences)

You may hint at your eventual position without fully revealing it:

"While both perspectives identify genuine possibilities, this analysis will argue that the conditional view offers the most persuasive account, suggesting AI's ultimate impact remains partially determined by policy choices we have yet to make."

Full Introduction Example

Question: "Discuss whether universal basic income (UBI) would promote or undermine social welfare."

Introduction:

"Universal basic income—providing regular, unconditional cash payments to all citizens—has emerged as a contentious policy proposal amid concerns about automation, inequality, and welfare system effectiveness. Proponents argue UBI would eliminate poverty, increase freedom, and provide security in changing economic conditions. Critics contend it would reduce work incentives, prove fiscally unsustainable, and poorly target resources. These competing claims have significant implications for welfare policy redesign across developed economies.

This essay defines UBI as regular, unconditional payments to all citizens regardless of income or employment status, distinguishing it from means-tested welfare or basic income proposals limited to specific groups. The amount and funding mechanism remain debated within UBI proposals, but the core principle is universality and unconditionality.

Academic and policy debate broadly divides among three perspectives. Proponents emphasize UBI's potential to reduce poverty, eliminate welfare bureaucracy, and empower individuals with greater economic security and choice. Critics raise concerns about work disincentives, fiscal unsustainability, and the inefficiency of universal provision. A third, more conditional perspective suggests UBI's effects depend critically on design details—particularly payment levels, interaction with existing programs, and funding mechanisms.

This essay will first examine the case for UBI, analyzing evidence from pilot programs and theoretical arguments about poverty reduction and freedom. It will then critically assess concerns about work incentives and fiscal sustainability. Finally, it will evaluate the conditional perspective by examining how design variations affect outcomes. While recognizing genuine merit in concerns raised by critics, this analysis will argue that carefully designed UBI—funded through progressive taxation and replacing less efficient programs—could enhance social welfare in contexts with adequate state capacity, though significant implementation challenges remain."

This introduction successfully:

• Establishes significance

• Defines key terms

• Acknowledges multiple perspectives

• Previews the analytical approach

• Hints at the eventual position while maintaining openness

Step Seven: Writing the Perspective Sections

Each perspective section requires careful construction to ensure fair, thorough exploration.

Structure Within Each Perspective Section

Opening: Introduce the Perspective (1-2 paragraphs)

• State the core claim

• Identify key proponents or intellectual traditions

• Clarify underlying assumptions

Middle: Develop the Argument (3-5 paragraphs)

• Present main supporting arguments

• Provide evidence (empirical studies, theoretical reasoning, examples)

• Show internal logic and coherence

• Demonstrate why this perspective persuades its adherents

End: Evaluate Critically (1-2 paragraphs)

• Identify strengths

• Acknowledge limitations

• Note areas of uncertainty or debate within this perspective

Example: Complete Perspective Section

Question: "Discuss whether criminal punishment should focus on rehabilitation or retribution."

Section: The Rehabilitative Perspective

"The rehabilitative perspective argues that punishment should aim primarily at reforming offenders and reintegrating them into society as law-abiding citizens. This view has deep roots in Enlightenment thinking and was particularly influential in mid-20th century criminology. Rehabilitation proponents assume that most criminal behavior results from social, psychological, or economic factors that can be addressed through intervention rather than viewing criminals as inherently wicked individuals deserving suffering.

The case for rehabilitation rests on several arguments. First, rehabilitation proponents contend that reforming offenders better protects public safety than punishment alone. Cullen and Gendreau (2000) reviewed extensive research demonstrating that treatment programs—particularly cognitive-behavioral interventions—reduce recidivism more effectively than purely punitive approaches. If the goal of criminal justice is preventing future crime, rehabilitation shows superior outcomes. Norway's prison system, emphasizing rehabilitation and normalcy, achieves recidivism rates around 20% compared to 50-60% in more punitive systems (Pratt, 2008), suggesting this approach works in practice.

Second, this perspective argues that rehabilitation better serves justice than retribution. Many offenders come from disadvantaged backgrounds involving poverty, abuse, or inadequate education—circumstances for which they bear limited responsibility. Punishing without addressing these underlying factors seems unjust. As philosopher Herbert Morris argued, treating offenders as capable of change respects their dignity and agency more than viewing them as irredeemable wrongdoers to be made to suffer.

Third, rehabilitation proves more cost-effective than long incarceration. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006) found that treatment programs yield benefit-cost ratios exceeding 10:1 when accounting for reduced recidivism and associated savings. Given fiscal constraints, rehabilitation offers taxpayers better value than expensive incarceration that fails to prevent reoffending.

Fourth, the rehabilitative approach acknowledges that punishment often damages rather than deters. Prison environments frequently expose inmates to violence, abuse, and criminogenic influences that increase rather than decrease future offending. The 'school of crime' effect suggests that purely punitive responses may actively create the very threat they aim to prevent.

However, the rehabilitative perspective faces important challenges. Critics point out that rehabilitation programs show variable effectiveness—what works for some offenders fails with others, and treatment requires willing participation that cannot be guaranteed. The 'nothing works' critique, while overstated, identified genuine limitations in rehabilitation's track record, particularly with high-risk offenders (Martinson, 1974). Additionally, this perspective struggles with serious violent crimes where public anger demands accountability, not just treatment. Telling victims that their assailant needs therapy rather than punishment may seem to trivialize the harm suffered and fail to vindicate the victim's rights. The rehabilitative view also assumes treatability that may not exist for psychopathy or other intractable conditions.

Furthermore, focusing exclusively on rehabilitation potentially neglects deterrent effects. Even if rehabilitation reduces reoffending by treated individuals, the absence of meaningful punishment might fail to deter potential first-time offenders. The perspective's optimistic view of human changeability, while humanistic, may underestimate the role of free choice in criminal behavior.

Despite these limitations, the empirical evidence for rehabilitation's effectiveness in reducing recidivism provides substantial support for this perspective, particularly for non-violent and first-time offenders. The challenge lies in determining how much weight rehabilitation should receive relative to other justifications for punishment."

Notice how this section:

• Opens by clearly stating the perspective and its intellectual context

• Develops multiple arguments supporting the view, each with evidence

• Uses specific citations and examples (Norway, cost-benefit analysis)

• Shows why this perspective is persuasive to its proponents

• Critically evaluates by acknowledging significant limitations

• Maintains fairness by presenting the strongest version of the argument before critiquing

Transitioning Between Perspectives

Use transitional paragraphs to move smoothly between perspective sections:

"Having examined the rehabilitative case, we now turn to the contrasting retributive perspective, which fundamentally reconceptualizes punishment's purpose and moral foundation."

Or within a thematic structure:

"The previous section revealed significant disagreement on efficiency grounds. We now examine whether the perspectives also diverge on equity considerations."

Step Eight: The Comparative Analysis Section

After presenting perspectives individually, a dedicated comparative section strengthens your discussion by directly engaging the perspectives with each other.

What Comparative Analysis Accomplishes

• Identifies key points of contention: Where exactly do perspectives disagree, and why?

• Reveals common ground: Do perspectives share any assumptions or concerns despite different conclusions?

• Evaluates relative strengths: Which perspective offers better support on specific dimensions?

• Sets up your conclusion: By weighing perspectives against each other, you create a foundation for your position

Comparison Strategies

Strategy 1: Criteria-Based Comparison

"When evaluated on empirical support, Perspective A demonstrates stronger evidence from multiple longitudinal studies. However, on theoretical coherence, Perspective B offers a more internally consistent framework. The question becomes which criterion should weigh more heavily—empirical track record or theoretical elegance?"

Strategy 2: Conditional Comparison

"The analysis reveals that no single perspective succeeds universally. In cases where X conditions apply, Perspective A provides better guidance, explaining outcomes more accurately. However, when Y conditions exist, Perspective B's predictions prove more reliable. This suggests the debate may be poorly framed as a simple either/or choice."

Strategy 3: Level-of-Analysis Comparison

"Perspective A and B may not be incompatible but rather operate at different analytical levels. Perspective A explains individual-level behavior, while Perspective B addresses systemic patterns. Both may be simultaneously true, explaining why empirical evidence can be marshaled for each view—they're answering subtly different questions."

Strategy 4: Values-Based Comparison

"The fundamental disagreement between perspectives ultimately rests on differing value prioritizations rather than purely empirical disputes. Perspective A prioritizes efficiency and aggregate welfare, while Perspective B emphasizes equity and individual rights. Once this values divergence is recognized, the apparent factual disagreement becomes more intelligible—each perspective collects evidence supporting its underlying values."

Example: Comparative Analysis Section

Question: "Discuss whether economic development or environmental protection should take priority in developing nations."

Comparative Analysis Section:

"The preceding analysis reveals both genuine disagreements and potential common ground between developmental and environmental perspectives. Three key points of comparison emerge.

First, the perspectives differ sharply on temporal framing. The developmental priority view operates on a shorter time horizon, emphasizing immediate poverty reduction and industrial growth. Dasgupta (2001) argues developing nations face urgent needs that cannot wait for cleaner technology. In contrast, the environmental priority view takes a longer perspective, emphasizing that environmental degradation creates irreversible damage with compounding consequences. Rockström et al. (2009) demonstrate that exceeding planetary boundaries triggers tipping points, suggesting short-term gains may prove illusory.

When evaluated empirically, both temporal framings find support in different cases. China's rapid industrialization lifted hundreds of millions from poverty but created severe pollution requiring expensive remediation—supporting both perspectives simultaneously. This suggests the temporal question cannot be resolved purely empirically but involves value judgments about intergenerational equity.

Second, the perspectives make differing assumptions about the development-environment relationship. The developmental view often assumes an environmental Kuznets curve—environmental damage initially increases with development but eventually decreases as wealth enables investment in environmental protection. Some empirical support exists for this pattern in certain pollutants (Grossman and Krueger, 1995). However, the environmental view questions whether this historical pattern can repeat given accelerated climate change and biodiversity loss that operates on global scales unlike earlier localized pollution.

The empirical evidence here favors the environmental perspective's concern: greenhouse gases show no Kuznets curve pattern, and developing nations cannot follow the same carbon-intensive path as early industrializers without catastrophic climate consequences. Stern (2006) calculates that climate change's economic costs will vastly exceed the costs of prevention, undermining the developmental view's assumption that environmental protection is a luxury requiring prior wealth.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, both perspectives identify a real priority but may create a false dichotomy. The most persuasive position may lie in integration rather than prioritization. Recent research on 'green growth' (OECD, 2011) suggests that with appropriate technology transfer and international support, developing nations might pursue economic development through renewable energy and sustainable practices, avoiding the pollution path followed by early industrializers. Ethiopia's investment in renewable energy while maintaining growth demonstrates this possibility.

However, green growth requires precisely the international cooperation and technology transfer that has often proven elusive. The environmental perspective's emphasis on planetary boundaries is empirically well-founded, but the developmental perspective correctly identifies that expecting poor nations to forgo growth for global environmental benefits they didn't create raises profound justice questions.

This comparison reveals that framing the question as a simple priority choice may be misleading. The critical issue becomes whether institutions, technology, and international cooperation can enable simultaneous environmental protection and development—a conditional position that takes seriously both perspectives' core concerns."

This comparative section:

• Identifies specific points of difference and agreement

• Evaluates perspectives against evidence

• Recognizes where disagreements are empirical versus value-based

• Sets up a synthesis position in the conclusion

Step Nine: Writing the Conclusion

Your conclusion must deliver what the introduction promised: a clear position emerging from your discussion.

Conclusion Structure

1. Restate the Question's Core Issue (1-2 sentences)

"This essay has examined whether criminal punishment should prioritize rehabilitation or retribution, exploring the arguments, evidence, and limitations of each perspective."

2. State Your Position Clearly (2-3 sentences)

"The analysis supports a predominantly rehabilitative approach for most offenders, particularly non-violent and first-time criminals. The empirical evidence for rehabilitation's effectiveness in reducing recidivism, combined with its fiscal advantages and moral coherence, outweighs the concerns raised by retributive advocates. However, this position requires important qualifications."

3. Justify Your Position by Referencing the Discussion (3-5 sentences)

"This conclusion rests on three key findings from the preceding analysis. First, the evidence from both controlled studies and comparative international data demonstrates that rehabilitative programs reduce reoffending more effectively than purely punitive approaches. Second, while retributive concerns about justice and accountability remain important, these can be incorporated within a predominantly rehabilitative framework through proportionate sentencing that combines treatment with accountability. Third, the economic analysis clearly favors rehabilitation's superior cost-effectiveness, a significant consideration given public resource constraints."

4. Acknowledge Limitations and Qualifications (2-4 sentences)

"This endorsement of rehabilitation is qualified in several ways. For the most serious violent crimes, retributive concerns may appropriately receive greater weight, reflecting both the severity of harm and legitimate public demands for accountability. Additionally, rehabilitation's effectiveness depends on program quality and appropriate matching of offenders to interventions—poorly designed treatment proves no more effective than simple punishment. Finally, the position assumes adequate public resources for rehabilitation programs; in severely resource-constrained contexts, the practical feasibility of this approach diminishes."

5. Broader Implications (Optional, 1-3 sentences)

"These findings suggest that criminal justice policy reform should focus on expanding access to evidence-based treatment programs while maintaining proportionate accountability. This would require significant investment in corrections staff training, program development, and outcome evaluation—investments that would pay long-term dividends in both public safety and fiscal terms."

6. Areas for Further Research or Consideration (Optional, 1-2 sentences)

"Further research examining optimal treatment approaches for specific offender types, and comparative studies of rehabilitation effectiveness across different cultural and institutional contexts, would strengthen the evidence base for policy development."

Full Conclusion Example

Question: "Discuss whether social media platforms should be regulated as publishers or treated as neutral platforms."

Conclusion:

"This essay has examined whether social media companies should face publisher liability for user content or retain platform immunity. The analysis reveals merits in both the publisher and platform perspectives, but ultimately supports a third approach: context-dependent regulation that distinguishes between different types of content and company actions.

The platform perspective correctly identifies that traditional publisher liability would fundamentally undermine the user-generated content model that makes social media valuable, creating massive moderation burdens that would likely result in over-censorship. The evidence from Section 1 demonstrates that platforms host billions of pieces of content daily, making pre-publication review utterly infeasible. However, the publisher perspective persuasively argues that complete immunity enables platforms to profit from harmful content while avoiding responsibility, as evidenced by documented cases of radicalization, harassment, and misinformation spread.

The key insight from this analysis is that 'publisher or platform' represents a false binary. Modern social media companies don't fit neatly into either category—they neither simply host user content passively nor editorially control it like traditional publishers. Instead, they actively shape content visibility through algorithms, recommendation systems, and design choices that amplify certain content. This active role in content distribution suggests neither full immunity nor full publisher liability is appropriate.

A more nuanced regulatory framework would distinguish between content platforms simply host and content they actively promote through algorithmic recommendations. Platforms should retain immunity for user posts they merely host but face greater responsibility for content their algorithms actively recommend or amplify. This approach, advocated by scholars like Gillespie (2018) and gaining traction in European regulation, acknowledges both the practical impossibility of reviewing all user content and the legitimate concern about algorithmic amplification of harmful material.

This position requires important qualifications. Implementation challenges are substantial—determining when platforms 'actively promote' content involves technical complexity and potential for gaming. Additionally, this approach might advantage large platforms with resources to develop sophisticated content moderation systems while disadvantaging smaller competitors, potentially reducing competition. International coordination would be necessary to avoid fragmented regulatory regimes that companies could exploit through jurisdiction

shopping.

Furthermore, this regulatory approach must balance competing values that the discussion has revealed: free expression, user safety, platform innovation, and democratic discourse quality. Different societies may reasonably weight these values differently, suggesting that no single global regulatory model will prove optimal for all contexts.

The practical implications of this conclusion are significant. Policymakers should move away from attempting to fit social media into existing publisher/platform categories and instead develop new regulatory frameworks specifically designed for algorithmic content curation. This would require transparency requirements for recommendation algorithms, mandatory impact assessments for design changes that affect content distribution, and differentiated liability based on platform actions rather than blanket immunity or blanket responsibility.

Further research examining how algorithmic amplification specifically contributes to harmful outcomes, and comparative analysis of emerging regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions, would help refine these policy proposals. Additionally, empirical studies of how different liability regimes affect platform innovation and content diversity would address concerns about unintended consequences of regulation."

This conclusion successfully:

• States a clear position that emerged from the discussion

• Justifies the position by referencing specific analytical findings

• Acknowledges complexity and qualifications rather than oversimplifying

• Considers practical implications

• Suggests directions for further inquiry

Step Ten: Common Mistakes to Avoid

Understanding pitfalls helps you avoid them in your own discuss essays.

Mistake 1: Presenting Only One Perspective

The error: You argue for one position from the outset without genuinely exploring alternatives.

Why it's wrong: This isn't discussing—it's arguing. The command word matters. Your examiner explicitly asked for exploration of multiple perspectives.

How to fix it: Even if you have a strong opinion, discipline yourself to present alternative views fairly before reaching your conclusion. Consider setting a rule: no perspective section should be less than 30% the length of your longest perspective section.

Mistake 2: The Hollow "On One Hand, On the Other Hand" Approach

The error: You mechanically present View A, then View B, then say "both have merit" without genuine analysis or reaching a position.

Why it's wrong: This shows you can identify perspectives but not evaluate them. University-level discussion requires judgment, not just description.

How to fix it: Ensure every perspective section includes critical evaluation, not just presentation. Always reach a clear position in your conclusion, even if that position is "the evidence currently cannot resolve this question" (which is itself a substantive conclusion if justified).

Mistake 3: Strawman Arguments

The error: You present perspectives you disagree with in their weakest form, making them easy to dismiss.

Example: "Some naïve optimists believe technology will magically solve all problems without any effort or planning."

Why it's wrong: This doesn't demonstrate intellectual engagement with serious scholarly positions. Examiners recognize strawman arguments and view them as signs of weak critical thinking.

How to fix it: Use the steelman approach discussed earlier. Find the strongest advocates for each view and present their best arguments. If you can defeat a strong version of an argument, your analysis is far more persuasive than defeating a weak version.

Mistake 4: False Balance

The error: You treat all perspectives as equally valid even when evidence clearly favors one.

Why it's wrong: Academic discussion requires honest evaluation. Pretending all views are equivalent when they're not suggests inability to evaluate evidence or unwillingness to make informed judgments.

How to fix it: If evidence strongly supports one perspective, say so clearly while explaining why. Acknowledging this doesn't mean ignoring alternative views—you still explore them to show you understand the debate—but your conclusion should reflect the weight of evidence.

Example: "While climate change skeptics raise questions about measurement uncertainty, the overwhelming scientific consensus supports anthropogenic climate change. Over 97% of climate scientists agree on human causation (Cook et al., 2013), and predictions from models dating to the 1970s have proven remarkably accurate. This discussion has explored skeptical arguments to understand the debate comprehensively, but the evidence decisively favors the consensus position."

Mistake 5: Ignoring Your Own Analysis in the Conclusion

The error: Your conclusion contradicts or ignores points you made during the discussion.

Example: In your discussion, you showed that Perspective A has weak empirical support, but your conclusion endorses Perspective A without addressing this weakness.

Why it's wrong: This suggests your conclusion was predetermined rather than emerging from analysis, undermining the entire essay's credibility.

How to fix it: Write your conclusion last, after completing the discussion sections. Ensure your conclusion explicitly references and builds on analytical points made earlier.

Mistake 6: Getting Lost in Description

The error: You spend most of your word count describing what various scholars said without analyzing or evaluating these views.

Why it's wrong: University essays require analysis, not summary. Description is necessary but should serve analysis, not replace it.

How to fix it: Follow this ratio as a rough guide: For every paragraph describing a perspective, include at least half a paragraph analyzing or evaluating it. If you find yourself writing "Smith argues X. Jones argues Y. Brown argues Z" without analysis, stop and ask: "What do these different arguments tell us? How do they relate to each other? Which is more persuasive and why?"

Mistake 7: Scope Drift

The error: You expand beyond the question's specified boundaries while discussing different perspectives.

Example: The question asks about social media's impact on democracy in Western nations since 2010, but you spend significant space discussing impacts in authoritarian regimes or historical precedents from the 1990s.

Why it's wrong: Even in discuss questions, you must respect scope limitations. Interesting tangents waste word count that should be spent on relevant analysis.

How to fix it: Before including any example or point, ask: "Does this fall within the question's specified scope?" If not, exclude it regardless of how interesting it is.

Mistake 8: Inadequate Conclusion

The error: Your conclusion is one short paragraph that vaguely restates the question without taking a clear position.

Why it's wrong: The conclusion is where you prove you can synthesize analysis into judgment—the highest-level skill. A weak conclusion wastes the effort invested in discussion.

How to fix it: Allocate 10-15% of your word count to the conclusion. Ensure it includes: your clear position, justification referencing your discussion, acknowledgment of limitations, and (if appropriate) implications.

Mistake 9: Overcomplicating With Too Many Perspectives

The error: You identify five or six different perspectives and try to discuss all of them in a 2,500-word essay.

Why it's wrong: You'll inevitably treat each superficially rather than developing any thoroughly. Better to explore two or three perspectives deeply.

How to fix it: During planning, identify the most important perspectives—usually those with strongest scholarly support or most significant implications. Focus on these, mentioning others only briefly if necessary.

Mistake 10: Disconnected Sections

The error: Each perspective section stands alone without connections, transitions, or engagement between perspectives.

Why it's wrong: This reads like separate mini-essays rather than an integrated discussion. You miss opportunities to show sophisticated comparative analysis.

How to fix it: Use explicit transitions between sections. Include a dedicated comparative analysis section. Reference earlier points when discussing later perspectives: "Unlike the rehabilitative view discussed above, the retributive perspective rejects the assumption that criminal behavior results primarily from social circumstances..."

Advanced Techniques for Exceptional Discuss Essays

Once you've mastered the basics, these advanced techniques can elevate your essays further.

Technique 1: Engage With Scholarly Debates

Rather than just presenting different perspectives, situate them within actual academic debates:

"The discussion between developmental and environmental priorities reflects a deeper theoretical tension in welfare economics. Amartya Sen's capability approach emphasizes human development and freedom expansion, which seems to support prioritizing poverty reduction (Sen, 1999). However, Sen himself acknowledges environmental sustainability as a crucial capability dimension. Meanwhile, ecological economists like Herman Daly argue that conventional development economics ignores biophysical constraints, requiring fundamental reconceptualization of development itself (Daly, 1996). This essay's comparative analysis reveals that this isn't simply a policy disagreement but reflects competing paradigms about the relationship between human welfare and ecological systems."

This shows you understand the intellectual landscape, not just individual arguments.

Technique 2: Identify and Challenge Shared Assumptions

Sophisticated discussion sometimes reveals that apparently opposed perspectives share problematic assumptions:

"Despite their disagreements, both the free market and regulated market perspectives examined here share an assumption that economic growth is inherently desirable and that the debate concerns only how best to achieve it. Neither perspective seriously questions whether endless growth on a finite planet is sustainable or whether GDP growth reliably correlates with genuine welfare improvements. Ecological economists and happiness researchers challenge this shared assumption, suggesting that the entire debate may be poorly framed. While this essay has engaged with the regulation debate as asked, recognizing this shared blind spot is important for understanding the discussion's limitations."

This meta-level analysis demonstrates exceptional critical thinking.

Technique 3: Use Conceptual Analysis

Sometimes discussing different perspectives reveals that they're using key terms differently, and clarifying this advances understanding:

"Much of the disagreement about whether punishment should prioritize rehabilitation or retribution stems from different conceptions of 'justice' itself. Retributive theorists employ a desert-based conception: justice means people receiving what they deserve based on their actions. Rehabilitative theorists often employ a consequentialist conception: justice means producing the best outcomes for society. Once this conceptual divergence is recognized, the debate becomes more tractable. Rather than presenting incompatible factual claims, the perspectives often reflect different normative frameworks. This essay's position—favoring rehabilitation while incorporating proportionality—attempts to bridge these conceptions by acknowledging both desert considerations and consequentialist concerns."

This kind of conceptual clarification shows philosophical sophistication.

Technique 4: Consider Historical or Cultural Context

Analyzing how perspectives emerged from particular contexts deepens discussion:

"The contemporary emphasis on algorithmic transparency in platform regulation reflects specifically Western liberal concerns about free expression and individual rights. This perspective emerged from contexts where state censorship posed the primary threat to speech freedom. However, in contexts where misinformation or hate speech present more immediate threats than state censorship—as in Myanmar where Facebook allegedly facilitated genocide—the priorities may reasonably differ. This cultural-contextual analysis suggests that no universal answer to platform regulation exists; appropriate approaches may vary based on specific societal threats and values."

This shows awareness that intellectual perspectives are historically and culturally situated, not timeless truths.

Technique 5: Integrate Empirical and Normative Analysis

Sophisticated discussion recognizes that factual and value disagreements intertwine:

"The debate about universal basic income partially reflects factual disagreements about behavioral responses to unconditional income—will recipients work less? But empirical evidence alone cannot resolve the debate because it also involves normative questions about autonomy, dignity, and the proper relationship between individuals and the state. Even if UBI reduced work hours (an empirical question), whether this counts as problematic depends on whether one values paid employment intrinsically or instrumentally (a normative question). This essay's position recognizes both dimensions: empirical evidence suggests work reduction would be modest, but even larger reductions might be acceptable if they reflect genuine preference for leisure or caregiving rather than distorted incentives."

This integration shows you understand that evidence alone rarely settles complex policy questions.

Discipline-Specific Considerations

Different academic disciplines have somewhat different expectations for discuss essays.

Humanities (Philosophy, Literature, History)

Emphasis on: Textual analysis, interpretive debates, theoretical frameworks, normative arguments

Typical structure: More likely to use dialectical or thematic approaches than sequential perspective analysis

Evidence types: Primary texts, scholarly interpretations, philosophical arguments, historical sources

Example approach: Discussing different interpretations of a literary work or philosophical text, examining the textual evidence and theoretical assumptions underlying each interpretation

Social Sciences (Sociology, Politics, Psychology)

Emphasis on: Empirical evidence, theoretical perspectives, causal mechanisms, methodological considerations

Typical structure: Often uses sequential perspective analysis, with strong emphasis on evidence evaluation

Evidence types: Empirical studies, statistical data, case comparisons, theoretical models

Example approach: Discussing whether political polarization results from social media or other factors, examining empirical studies testing each explanation and evaluating methodology

Business and Economics

Emphasis on: Efficiency analysis, stakeholder impacts, practical implementation, cost-benefit considerations

Typical structure: Frequently uses criteria-based comparison (efficiency, equity, feasibility)

Evidence types: Economic models, market data, case studies, performance metrics

Example approach: Discussing whether stakeholder or shareholder capitalism better serves society, examining evidence on firm performance, social outcomes, and practical implementation challenges

Sciences (where essay questions appear)

Emphasis on: Empirical evidence, theoretical explanations, methodological rigor, predictive power

Typical structure: Often hypothesis-testing format: different explanations as competing hypotheses

Evidence types: Experimental results, observational data, theoretical predictions, replication studies

Example approach: Discussing whether a biological phenomenon results from genetic or environmental factors, examining evidence from studies controlling for each factor

Adapt your approach to your discipline's norms while maintaining the core principles of fair exploration and evaluative judgment.

Practice Exercise: Applying the Framework

Let's apply this complete framework to a sample question:

Question: "Discuss whether remote work improves or reduces workplace productivity."

Step 1: Identify Perspectives

• Perspective A (Pro-remote): Remote work improves productivity by eliminating commutes, reducing interruptions, and enabling flexible schedules matching individual rhythms

• Perspective B (Anti-remote): Remote work reduces productivity through communication difficulties, reduced collaboration, decreased oversight, and blurred work-life boundaries

• Perspective C (Conditional): Remote work's productivity effects depend on job type, individual characteristics, organizational support, and implementation quality

Step 2: Research Questions

For each perspective, investigate:

• What empirical studies support this view?

• What mechanisms explain the claimed productivity effects?

• What assumptions about work and productivity underlie this view?

• What are the methodological limitations of supporting evidence?

Step 3: Structure Choice

Given three clear perspectives, sequential perspective analysis works well, followed by comparative analysis.

Step 4: Draft Outline

I. Introduction

• Context: COVID-19 forced remote work experiment

• Significance: Major implications for workplace organization

• Define: Remote work, productivity measurement

• Preview: Three perspectives to examine

II. The Case That Remote Work Improves Productivity

• Elimination of commute time

• Reduced workplace interruptions and distractions

• Flexible scheduling matching individual productivity patterns

• Evidence from studies (cite specific research)

• Limitations: Selection bias, short-term vs. long-term effects

III. The Case That Remote Work Reduces Productivity

• Communication friction and coordination challenges

• Reduced spontaneous collaboration and innovation

• Difficulties with supervision and accountability

• Social isolation and motivation challenges

• Evidence from studies (cite specific research)

• Limitations: Assumes traditional organizational structures

IV. The Conditional Perspective

• Job characteristics matter (individual vs. collaborative, routine vs. creative)

• Individual differences (personality, home environment, self-discipline)

• Organizational factors (technology, management practices, culture)

• Evidence for heterogeneous effects

• Limitations: Complexity makes simple prescriptions difficult

V. Comparative Analysis

• Methodology comparison: How are perspectives measuring productivity?

• Time horizons: Short-term adjustment vs. long-term equilibrium

• Evaluation: Which perspective best explains the empirical pattern?

VI. Conclusion

• Position: Conditional view most persuasive

• Justification: Evidence shows highly variable effects

• Implications: Organizations need tailored approaches

• Qualifications and further research needs

This outline demonstrates the complete framework applied to a concrete question.

Final Thoughts: The Purpose of Discussion

Understanding why universities value discuss questions helps you approach them more effectively.

Discussion as Intellectual Training

Discuss questions train you to:

Suspend premature judgment: Rather than immediately committing to a position, you learn to explore thoroughly before deciding.

Engage charitably with opposing views: You develop the intellectual humility to recognize that intelligent people disagree, and understanding why strengthens your own thinking.

Evaluate evidence rigorously: By comparing perspectives, you learn to distinguish strong from weak evidence and recognize methodological limitations.

Construct nuanced positions: You learn that many important questions don't have simple yes/no answers but require qualified, conditional, or synthesized responses.

Communicate complex analysis clearly: You develop the ability to organize and present multifaceted arguments accessibly.

These skills extend far beyond essay writing—they're fundamental to professional expertise, informed citizenship, and intellectual life generally.

Moving Beyond the Essay

The analytical approach you've learned for discuss essays applies broadly:

In professional contexts: When evaluating business proposals, policy options, or strategic decisions, you'll need to consider multiple perspectives systematically before recommending action.

In research: Academic research often involves engaging with competing theoretical explanations or interpretive frameworks, requiring exactly the fair exploration and evaluation that discuss essays practice.

In public discourse: Productive engagement with political or social controversies requires understanding different perspectives genuinely rather than strawmanning opponents—skills discuss essays develop.

In personal decision-making: Major life decisions benefit from systematic consideration of different options' strengths and limitations before committing to a choice.

The Mark of Intellectual Maturity

Ultimately, excelling at discuss questions demonstrates intellectual maturity. It shows you can:

• Recognize complexity rather than seeking false simplicity

• Engage with ideas on their merits rather than tribally

• Change your mind based on evidence and argument

• Acknowledge uncertainty where it exists

• Reach justified conclusions without overconfidence

These qualities distinguish educated, critical thinkers from those who simply accumulate information. When your examiner reads a strong discuss essay, they see evidence of genuine intellectual development—not just someone who can memorize and regurgitate, but someone who can think.

Conclusion: Mastering the Art of Discussion

Discuss questions challenge you to demonstrate the highest level of academic thinking: the ability to explore multiple perspectives fairly, evaluate them critically, and reach your own informed, nuanced position. This isn't easy—it requires disciplined research, careful organization, critical analysis, and clear communication.

But mastering this form of essay writing pays enormous dividends. You'll write more sophisticated essays that earn higher marks. More importantly, you'll develop thinking skills that serve you throughout your academic career and beyond. The ability to discuss complex issues thoughtfully, rather than simply arguing for predetermined positions, distinguishes genuine experts from ideologues, careful thinkers from dogmatists, and educated minds from closed ones.

As you write your next discuss essay, remember:

• Identify perspectives systematically by analyzing the question carefully

• Research fairly by seeking out the strongest versions of each view

• Structure deliberately to ensure thorough exploration before judgment

• Evaluate critically using clear criteria rather than personal preference

• Reach a position that emerges from your analysis and acknowledges complexity

• Communicate clearly through organized prose and explicit signposting

Most importantly, approach discuss questions not as obstacles to overcome but as opportunities to develop your thinking. Each discuss essay is practice in the art of fair-minded, rigorous, sophisticated analysis—an art that will serve you throughout your intellectual life.

The command word "discuss" invites you into the great conversations that define academic inquiry. Accept that invitation seriously, engage those conversations thoughtfully, and contribute your own carefully reasoned voice. That's what university education is ultimately about: learning not just what to think, but how to think well about difficult questions that matter.