If we have been careful in the clarity and verifiability aspects so far, we have already done a lot to ensure our credibility. But there are also opportunities to be highlighted in this respect.

When citing authority, let us be critical. Let us make explicit why the authorities and types of sources on which we base our arguments are relevant. Do not quote at length and unnecessarily. The author quoted may have a nice style, but try to keep the quotation brief and focused on the aspects of your chosen topic. If the quoted author unfortunately wanders off in his sentences, we can even cut these sentences, preserving their integrity. In this case, we mark the omitted part with a bracketed triangle "(...)", or we add our own punctuation between square brackets [xyz], as in the example below:

"Since the second half of the 1930s, Carnap has been trying to answer the "central question" of the logic of science, the problem of the relation between science and the process of experience, using the yardstick of "success" rather than "truth". He argued that the form of language we adopt is not a cognitive but a practical question, i.e. it is only 'the ends that will determine which factors are relevant to the decision for which language is intended (...).

It also increases credibility to highlight the most salient and relevant lines of write my paper for me authority. The informed reader will sooner or later understand and recognise the steady hand.

Good, consistent argumentation is a general guarantee of credibility. The direct links between the paragraphs show that the author has thought through the subject matter in a distilled and carefully considered way. This kind of text can be developed by stretching: the text of your working copy is stretched (i.e. parts of it are deleted) without losing any essential information. The effect of the rewriting is to make the text decidedly more concise and to make the presence of the rationale more apparent.

It is also important that the assumptions guiding the treatment of the subject are not left to the reader to work out. We should try to formulate, evaluate and defend them beforehand. A justification for the validity of our assumptions can be found in the section on reconstructing the 'position of the profession' discussed above. If we have shown that it at least does not exclude our presuppositions (our intuitions to be defended), we have certainly made our approach more credible.

We need to find the right level of generality in the discussion of our topic. Over-generalisation gives the reader the impression that he is reading a series of trivialities. And an over-detailed presentation makes it difficult to follow the argument, and thus harder to follow the growth of the plausibility of our position. In rigorous, even formal argumentation, one can wander off the subject. Pre-planning can, of course, help to find a level at which the presentation finds a compromise between simplification and precise elaboration.

The first stage of essay writing is to find the idea, the message. But this is always an answer to some preliminary question. It helps if we do not repeat what we have to say when we draft it, but formulate the questions behind it and try to critique writing a research paper. Are these really the best questions? If not, what should we ask instead? If we change our question, what change does that make to the formulation of the item that answers it. The textual representation of a self-critical inquiry into a good question and approach increases the author's credibility. The harmful and avoidable exaggeration here is in being too relativistic, changing the question on the fly, and not standing up, at least temporarily, for a problem formulation in one's essay.

Certainly, there are some things that cannot be emphasised and stressed enough, but it is still worth avoiding tautologies and redundant restatements in the essay. If the reader feels that the same thing is being said for pages and pages, he or she may not get to the end of the essay. Don't bombard the reader with more information than necessary, thereby burdening him with the task of evaluating the source. It should be clear what thematic stakes make a (particularly lengthy) reconstruction plausible. If we do not make these clear, we may be taken to believe that we do not know what we want to say with our essay, which obviously undermines our credibility and forces us into a more distant starting box even when we have something to say.