Learn More about Explanatory Essay Writing

It is crucial to find out what an explanatory essay is. This essay requires an author to present a point of view on a particular event, topic or situation. It is not necessary for an author to agree with the presented point of view, but to make it feasible, he has to conduct research and present it logically.
This type of essay is aimed at showing the views of other people or report particular situations or events. An explanatory essay is assigned to students whose major is journalism or history. Students are tasked to explore various facts and study life situations. Then they have to present an objective explanation grounded on evidence and real facts.

Word count difference + 1st-time order
We have a GREAT 25%OFF

GET A PRICE QUOTE:

In most cases, an author decides on the topic. After the topic is chosen, you have to look at the issue from a certain perspective. Typically, this perspective is complex and you have to make room for discussion where you present the viewpoint you chose. It also has to explain why the result was reached in a particular way.
A popular mistake that many non-experienced writers make is defending one side of the argument or criticizing a certain perspective.
Remember that an explanatory paper is about showing an unbiased view on a chosen topic by analyzing research and creating a logical self-theory. The main objective is to get rid of any confusion and make a clear explanation of why certain events occurred in this particular way. When the reader finishes reading the paper, he/she has to comprehend the author’s idea even in case of total disagreement with it.

Topics for Explanatory Essay Writing

In most cases, instructors give topics to students. For instance, a student can be tasked to write about the events that caused WWI or simply provide an explanation of how a cell phone works.
In case you are free to choose the topic, remember that you should be objective and base your essay on real evidence and facts. That is why it is advisable to select a non-controversial and neutral topic, which can be researched and explained in detail. The less neutral the topic, the more points of view you will have to research, thus the paper will be more difficult to comprehend.
It is possible to describe every situation, point of view, or idea via explanation. Below you may find a few topics for your explanatory paper:

  • What were the reasons for the Civil War?

Slavery and rights of states, loss of power, and unanswered questions. Lots to discuss and find real reasons for the Civil War outbreak.

  • Children and teenagers suffering from depression. How does it impact their development?

Depression influences people of all ages and its impact varies greatly. Mental jumps and physical alterations presented by mood swings are among the major effects of depression.

  • How do schools change because of technology development?

despite the fact that technology made life easier, it also made people lazier and more relaxed. Is it possible to consider these changes negative for schoolchildren?

  • Pros and cons of social media for modern society.

Nowadays, everyone has become a keyboard warrior due to social media use. From one side, people are given an opportunity to share their thoughts freely, but what about the negative consequences of social media?
We have writers who have developed an interesting list of topics so that you could read it through and choose the most suitable one.

Expository Essay Topics

  • Why do people admire a certain celebrity?
  • If you could be a bird, which one would you be? Why?
  • What country would you choose to live in? Why?
  • What would you change in your college or university building?
  • Why do I want to become an engineer (journalist, doctor)?
  • Is the family still important for modern society? Explain in detail.
  • Has pop music changed in the 21st century? Why?
  • Is it possible to improve the life span of people due to science?
  • Leadership skills and their fast development.
  • What steps you take to make a decision?
  • There is no Planet B for us, so how can we save this one?
  • Studying Physics, Biology or Chemistry. Non-academic advantages.
  • How to coexist with art and science in life?
  • Dancing as a new way to get rid of stress.
  • Foreign languages and their benefits for the brain.
  • Smoking and alcohol consumption among teenagers. Speak about the main reasons.
  • US and EU fashion trends in the 21st century.
  • Pros and cons of school uniforms.
  • Private house or apartment. Benefits of living.
  • What is the perfect pet (cat, horse, dog)?
  • Sphere of perfect volunteering. Why?
  • Is it true that libraries are less popular among modern students?
  • Would you like to live a day of another person? Whom would you choose?
  • Sports games. Pros and cons.

Essay Topics for Medium College Essays

  • How to manage major stress factors?
  • Reasons for teenage depression.
  • What makes people feel happiness?
  • Reasons to avoid meat-eating.
  • What were your best years? Why?
  • Would you like to live forever?
  • What would you do in your next life?
  • Is it possible to provoke violence by listening to a certain kind of music?
  • Budget issues and how to deal with them.
  • Inventions of the 21st century.
  • Will there be life on the Earth in 100 years?
  • Pros of a school job.
  • Emotions expression and its effects.
  • Overweight and self-acceptance.
  • Bullying and how to deal with it?
  • Active sex life and STD.
  • Do you believe in life “out there”?
  • Communication changes due to the Internet.
  • Reasons for divorces in Europe.
  • Positive effects of volunteering

Complex Essay Topics

  • Effective ways of spending free time.
  • How to spend quality time with children?
  • Procrastination and how to avoid it?
  • Can video games teach something good?
  • Time management and its effects on work.
  • An issue that is poorly studied. Dwell on it.
  • Consumerism of the 21st century. Pros and cons.
  • Social media detox. Effects in real life.
  • How do we perceive time?
  • Memory and emotional state.
  • Invention of a new religion. Do we need it?
  • Will we ever overcome racism?
  • Overpopulation on our planet. Is it real?
  • Will artificial intelligence ruin our civilization?
  • How can you catch the liar?
  • Symbolism in your culture.
  • Is it possible to change our world for the better?
  • Effect of obesity on the economy.
  • Pros of the technological era.
  • Ways to alter a lifestyle.

Explanatory Essay Sample

Introduction
The Entebbe operation dating back as far as 1976 could be seen as one of Israel’s records of emerging victorious with an eye on enforcing its perceived relative property rights and bargaining leverage. In fact, largely the same might hold for the US ‘soft’ power, as a matter of extending its range of waging proxy wars or exercising political pressure without engaging the implied counterparts in direct stand-off or deadly escalation. That said, the present analysis points out how the same incident may have established some troubling precedence which may from way back have been manipulated in ways that undermined the shaky premises of international law, or its select pillars’ legitimacy as a matter of revealed acceptance.
Discussion
The entire plot showcases how disputes over territorial (external as well as internal) sovereignty had ushered in insurgency and blackmailing that at one point would took on the degenerate or extreme forms of state-sponsored terrorism. The latter refers to how Uganda’s government and military (alongside the bulk of the Gulf and African states amid the unfolding commodities crisis) signaled unqualified support for the would-be act of terrorism with a total of 248 international flight passengers, having Israeli or dual citizenship by and large, taken hostage. Irrespective of whether the pressuring of Israel on the part of the PFLP insurgents and their accomplices did border on any ethical title (of the violent pro-Palestinian paramilitary to represent the Palestinian populace with reference to its self-determination and full-fledged sovereignty as a nation), the means deployed clearly made no room for any bargaining or due course of arbitration.
On second thought, it would be premature to maintain Israel’s uncontested sovereignty over its occupied territories as sufficient immunity not subject to any further dispute or beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, Israel could not possibly have been in a position to presume full legitimacy of any particular re-distribution of the relative property rights to an extent that would make the ‘reasonable person’ expect no such conflict in the foreseeable future. This appears to be consistent with Knisbacher’s point characterizing the ‘forcible action’ as the weaker supplement to waging war or intruding along the lines of self-defense or ‘self-help’—with both these alternate means to be kept to a reasonable minimum, if only insofar as the reasonable domain of the rights in question is difficult to delineate. However, these provisions become all the more questionable for practical purposes whenever the right to self-defense pertains to interests that have mounted unduly or indefinitely. Among other things, an ongoing land grab would be a fact of aggression rather than a case for defense. In passing, much the same would go for the allies’ interests, if these were to be safeguarded against ‘aggressors’ by extending the hegemonic extraterritoriality as effective jurisdiction.
For one, deciding whether the Arabic or Islamic expansion had at one point gone too far in claiming other nation’s lands (thereby abusing their historic rights, to put it in common-law terms), or if the Palestinian case stood out as an instance of autochthonous standing, is up to the historians to decide. In fact, each of the parties involved might have upheld their own presumptions, irrespective of whether they were making a case in good faith versus as a matter of rationally maximizing their undue benefits. It is as early as at this stage that the competing paradigms of IR posit that nations will in any event tend to full-blown sovereignty and will likely see their negotiations prone to conflict (realism), no matter the leeway for cooperations and integration or weak coexistence (liberalism). The rational perspective would strike a balance, suggesting that they could arrange contractual rights distribution in an ad-hoc manner, while securing partial sovereignty one way or the other.
In a sense, this is what occurred in any event, as Israel may have embarked on considerable Western support amid the Cold War as a matter of external sovereignty or ‘legitimacy’; but that may not have sufficed to override Palestine’s right to self-determination—much less given that it was fully backed by popular vote as one mode of [irrelevant] legitimacy.
It should come as little surprise that the setup converged to arguing for contested sovereignty on both ends. For one thing, the pro-Palestinian forces had been vocal about threatening Israel’s mainland integrity on a permanent basis, over and above the peripheral rule which could tentatively be posited as undue or excessive extraterritoriality extending so far as to violate basic human rights. On the other hand, this intransigence may have led Israel to have no scruple about going to great lengths in questioning the rival’s sovereignty in an ad-hoc and partial manner, when it came to planning an incursion into Uganda’s inland as a last resort.
Although it has yet to be seen whether Israel had proceeded in due course by exhausting the UNSC means and remedies (bearing in mind the ongoing negotiations prior to the assault and the prohibitively lingering UN routine amid zeitnot), the ultimate moral hazard is about whether a troubling precedent was created of extraterritoriality being extended indefinitely and exercised arbitrarily. In other words, the biggest danger lies in the manipulative nature of a landmark decision (or its acceptance as legitimate in one way or another) which may or may not be acted upon when making choices or urging collective action in similar setups.
For instance, either belligerent party could have embarked on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter on the use of force by states arguing it should be interpreted as unqualified ban on any ill-substantiated deployment unless major atrocities or sheer and systemic violation of human rights had been detected. However, they would do so in cherry-picking response to the other party’s assault (to be held as aggression calling for collective action). Otherwise, each would rather plead not guilty while pointing to the R2P provision as applying to the selfsame basic rights, be it the Palestinian minority having been suppressed politically or the Jewish hostage group being threatened in response. In order to avoid manipulation, neither point ought to be treated in isolation, nor should the respective clauses be applied as if set in stone. More generally, this could be a starting point of questioning an absolute nature of sovereignty—and possibly of challenging the binding nature of international conventions or comities as one side effect or externality.
Ironically, then, it is that operation’s very success as well as subsequent support that may have cost the international system (be it post-Westphalian or UN) an arm and a leg. Anything could from then on be construed in manipulable terms as a matter of political satisficing or exerting soft power wherever direct collective action was hard to garner. In this light, an internationalist stance a la Kantian liberalism would be awkward to take, as the reciprocity principle (or the equivalent of the imperative whereby no choice was to be made unless pending mass replication) would be costly to maintain on the upside, or with an eye toward peaceful cooperation. More realistically, it would collapse to securing maximum sovereignty (along the Westphalian lines of own reinforcement rather than recognizing others integrity or immunity) amid the setup turning opportunistic and litigant. In other words, it is the Hobbesian legacy favoring centralized authority (and duress on conceptual grounds as one way of fostering peace) that would—and possibly did—prevail in the end.
On second thought, a behavioralist retrospect would have allowed for a more proactive rather than weakly responsive plot. In effect, unconditional resolve stopping little short of violating any of the aggressor’s rights was likely to have aimed at deterring that sort of infringement in the first place—indeed in line with how signaling and threats amount to effective reinforcers likely to modify the rivals behavior. However, the exact same rationale could apply to the manipulative or unscrupulous plaintiff’s opportunism or delinquency, or otherwise propensity to bypass the rule of law and collective action. In any case, even if reduced to ‘instant forcible action,’ this can hardly be legitimized as a self-serving means. What is more, ironically, instantaneous yet more frequent intrusions (as opposed to large-scale or lingering incursion) might come even closer to a historic usus or habitat to be overlooked—e.g. as has been the case with the US soft power leverage ever since. Disproportionality or concentration of the Israeli response, if any, could be the flip-side of instantaneity.
In a well-defined sense, the aforementioned scenarios could amount to the worst case of constructivism, in that the reality of either construing law or creating legal precedence would compromise its binding power, as no procedural decisions would be seen as set forth beyond reasonable doubt. By the same token, the UNSC Resolutions would eventually come to be perceived as just that—adhockery whose irrelevance has been institutionalized by a history of similar past overlooking. The legacy of Grotius’, stressing the rule of law (and its symmetric application) over force and possibly underlying the Westphalian program would eventually be seen to be at odds with the ‘realistic’ environmental parameters or realpolitik thriving on the harsher forms of asymmetric soft power as counter-productive hegemonic [in]stability. Worse yet, his original opinion on natural law lending itself to Divine rule might seem an outdated notion of legitimacy, as nowadays defined and imposed by the global sovereign (asymmetric or hegemonic player) and its coalescing rationale or agenda setting. Needless to say, a cynical or pragmatic world-view would be harder to enforce—which is only likely to call for even more pressuring or soft power aided clash.
Incidentally, Margo’s coverage of the incident might suggest that, making the release of Israeli hostages contingent on Israel’s ability to talk some of the Western allies into releasing the Popular Front militant activists, might be reduced to coordination failures or opinionated stances within the other party’s coalition under symmetric circumstances allowing for reciprocity. The rationale is that those paramilitary were symmetrically maintained to be ‘hostages’ on the grounds they were no regular army operatives, which was to be redirected onto the humanitarian domain no matter the means deployed. Again, it would appear Israel availed itself of a similar vision for ‘means invariant’ symmetry or reciprocity, in resorting to an adequate infringement on the aggressors’ relative property rights, albeit without detracting from these irrevocably (save for the KIA toll as a collateral damage that could not have been minimized at Israel’s discretion). However, going into the detail of ICAO drafts on hijacking would appear too much of a narrowing-down on the broader jurisdiction pertaining to violent insurgency as means, and the range of responses it might justify. Suffice it to maintain, as does Margo, that Uganda violated the very basic human rights—even though this statement amounts to little unless tied in to the prior context of mutual violation (perhaps indirectly on behest of the third parties).
To rehash on the grand agenda, it would be of interest to focus on Gordon’s account of the tentative nature of a state’s de facto prerogative (possibly a pillar of sovereignty) to violate other states’ sovereignty in line with a collective sentiment or interest. For one thing, the traditional legacy has been to treat sovereignty as the state’s sole prerogative to abuse its own nationals’ rights—with the “injured state’s” interests prevailing upon the incumbent states maximum sovereignty in case of major violation of the former state’s nationals’ rights. However, it is unclear whether the same rationale may span basic rights and the more advanced layers alike. Along similar lines, the traditional view was superseded by a recognition of largely the same holding for material dissent or gaps of interpretation within the global or UN community (jus gentium jurisdiction). Again, the latter would mount all the sooner in case of arbitrarily defined deprivation—of third parties included. Finally, it has dust-settled around the ends rather than causes, i.e. whenever violence can usher in collective benefits. However, this might be abused to justify any rent seeking or coalition interests in hindsight—while overriding the lex prospecit (“no backward application”) premise. Even if lawful collective response is not an option, it can hardly be held that forcible action other than by regular military could be a lawful bypassing modality—if only because this would manipulate the captive’s status as ‘civilian hostage’ much the way the insurgents would insist, as if to mimic and mock the question-begging.
One other point of criticism along the lines of Gordon’s exposition would be to deem the proposed trade-off between [inherently public or collective] peace versus justice as a partial and rarely relevant dichotomy, because for the most part, it is the involved or implicated parties’ relative private interests as put on the bargaining power wheels that matter and prevail as the cause. The manipulative side of the partial agenda is most pronounced in just how it shines through the UN’s historic and practical or de facto failure to define and enforce either of the two, which has far less to do with law-making than with interpreting and enforcement. Nor can the other extreme of Gordon’s case be taken at face value pending future efficacy or scrupulous attempts at inferring the extent of relative violation. The interim limbo will inevitably be filled in with proxy law or fudge and satisficing means that might further question the status and premises of international [customary] law.
Conclusion
The standardized notions and theories of IR have been rethought and applied to a particular incident of Entebbe hijacking. It has been argued, among other things, that manipulative practices should be sterilized early on, if international law is to retain staying power beyond each individual state’s abuse of the ‘soft’ and military power leverage. Failure on the part of supranational bodies to enforce collective action or bridge the conceptual and political gaps cannot in and of itself be reason enough to leave extreme substitute means at the interested parties’ sole discretion. On the one hand, this will usher in the bias of keeping the [allegedly] less ‘legitimate’ or potent players unduly accountable, with the very legitimacy as well as rights violation being decided by the manipulative or abusive parties. Not least, neither collective action nor proportionality of response may possibly suffice as alternate criteria amidst utter disregard for the reasonable and immediate rights yet to be secured by a particular legal arrangement.