By design, most assignment titles give you a great deal of breadth or scope. The seeming bigness of an assignment can be daunting: you might panic and ask yourself, 'How in the world am I supposed to discuss ALL OF THIS in just 2,000 words?!
The short answer? You likely aren’t supposed to discuss all of it, so take a deep breath! When the essay title is broad, instructors generally expect you to narrow the scope of your response. This means you limit your evaluation in some manner, finding one angle of exploration amongst the many options that exist. Let's return to our old title friend:
'Critically evaluate whether the Magna Carta is still relevant today.'
Okay, the Magna Carta is a very long, significant document. So if you're responding to this title, your essay will lack depth and feel rushed if you try to evaluate whether EVERY aspect of the Magna Carta is relevant in EVERY way in EVERY place, today. Instead, you can narrow the scope by doing things like…
The way you choose to narrow the scope will vary according to the essay and field. Analysing a situation through one theoretical lens might sufficiently limit the scope: for example, analysing a poem using ecocritical theory rather than analysing the poem 'in general.' In other cases, the narrowing might relate to the evidence bank you choose to use, the demographic/population discussed, a tool or model used, etc.
Once you have found your angle, remember to use your introduction to clearly communicate your focus and argument (see our Crafting the Introduction guide for tips on thesis statements, aim statements, and essay maps).
Think of narrowing the scope as a way to demonstrate critical thinking. By limiting an essay's breadth, you can enhance its depth—and focused depth will earn better marks than unfocused breadth.
