[happy_doughnut]

Ah, you know what, meryl? When I read your first post... and then your second post... I laughed. You're so fannay.

Anyways, onto your questions.

I must say that I'm slightly confused. Are these questions supposed to be answered in your introduction or is this a separate exercise?

In my english class we spent quite a while on introductions and how to write good, proficient ones. I have a handout, so I'll list the points (I'm not entirely certain, but I think we probably have the same english class level, so his may help you out):

++ Qualities of a Stimulating Introduction

• Establishes a context
• Engages the reader's interest
• Suggests the importance of your subject
• Implies your own competence to deal with the material
• Indicates your purpose with a purpose indicator:
  A. Statement of purpose or
  B. Thesis - Sufficiently narrow and with a sharp focus, or
  C. Controlling Question... in which case your thesis will be in the conclusion
• Option: Forecasts your organization, if the paper is complicated

These are, according to my prof., the things an introduction should have in them to make it good.

As for your questions, here's what I think:

1. I think you got this one. I think that before this you are to state your arguement and your position. Then you follow up by telling the readers what exactly is at stake.

2. I think this questions follows up the first one. Your answers also seem to complement each other on these 2 questions. I think that after answering the first one by stating the things that are at risk, you need to state why these things are important. Since this is a position paper, when you take a side you're going to be arguing about why this should or shouldn't be, so naturally, you need to explain why this argument in itself is significant and why the things you mentioned as being "at stake" are significant/important, as well.

3. Hmm. Actually, if I were doing this, for this question I would state my arguments as well as opposing arguments. Aren't you supposed to address opposing arguments in your paper, too? I think that here you are suppposed to state the controversies of this topic. Like, why some are in favor of cosmetics surgery and why others are against it and what controversies these create. For example:

I'm doing a paper on global warming. The controversies I would state that are associated with this topic are that there are people that think that the earth is on the brink of a gigantic climate change and there are others that think that the earth is actually cooling down.

I think that you're just supposed to write about the disputes, both the pros and the cons and explain why these arguments are relevant (their relations to the matter at hand and their importance/significance).

4. I think this question is a summary. I think that here you are supposed to tell why this topic is an important issue overall; why it is significant that we know about this; why this is relevant to people.

I think that here you are supposed to present parts of your discourse that will allow you to explain "why" your topic is a significant, important and relelvant one to the people AND present data/fats/cases/controversies to "show" your "why's."

Overall, I think that you're supposed to state your argument and position; explain why your topic is significant and important and give reasons why; give your arguments as well as oppsoing ones and explain why they are relevant to your subject; and just establish these grounds so that the reader will know why your subject (and position) is significant, important, and relevant, no?

Anyway, that's what I think... If this were my assignment, this is how I would answer these questions.

Sorry for the late reply. I hope this gets to you in time, and most importantly, helps you out at least a little bit.

Good luck, meryl!