The introduction is the first thing the examiner reads, and it sets the tone for your entire GP essay. A strong introduction does three things: it shows you understand the question, it stakes out a clear position, and it signals the direction of your argument. A weak introduction rambles, restates the question, or hedges so much that the examiner cannot tell what you actually think.
Below are five model introductions across the most commonly tested GP topics. For each, we break down the technique used and explain why it earns marks. At A-Worthy, students learn to deploy these patterns under exam conditions via the SHARP Method — See the question type, Hit the right framework, Apply, Refine, Practise — with paper-matched frameworks like P-E-E-L doing the structural work at step H.
1. Technology: The concession-pivot opening
Question
"Technology does more harm than good." Discuss.
Model introduction
It is tempting to view technology as an unqualified force for progress. Smartphones have democratised information, artificial intelligence has accelerated medical research, and digital platforms have connected communities separated by geography. Yet this narrative of progress obscures a more troubling reality: the same technologies that empower individuals also erode privacy, amplify misinformation, and deepen inequality. While technology has undeniably improved material conditions for many, its uncritical adoption — particularly in surveillance and social media — inflicts harms that societies have been too slow to address.
Why it works
This introduction uses the concession-pivot technique. It opens by acknowledging the opposing view (technology is good) with specific examples, then pivots with "yet" to present the writer's actual position. The examiner sees three things immediately: the student knows the counterargument, has a clear thesis, and will argue a nuanced position rather than a one-sided rant. The final sentence functions as a thesis statement that signals exactly what the body paragraphs will cover — surveillance and social media.
The concession-pivot is the most versatile GP opening. It works for almost any "discuss" or "to what extent" question because it naturally demonstrates balanced thinking before committing to a position.
2. Environment: The striking-statistic opening
Question
"Environmental protection and economic growth cannot coexist." Do you agree?
Model introduction
In 2024, the global renewable energy sector generated over 13.7 million jobs worldwide, a figure that has tripled in the past decade. This statistic challenges the persistent assumption that protecting the environment necessarily comes at the expense of economic growth. While tensions between conservation and development remain real — particularly for developing nations dependent on extractive industries — the binary framing of this question increasingly fails to reflect economic reality. Environmental protection and economic growth are not inherently contradictory; the question is whether governments possess the political will to pursue both simultaneously.
Why it works
The striking-statistic opening grabs attention with a concrete data point that directly challenges the premise of the question. The examiner immediately sees that the student has real-world knowledge, not just generic reasoning. The statistic is then unpacked: the student explains what it means for the debate, acknowledges where the tension does exist (developing nations), and ends with a clear thesis that reframes the question from "can they coexist?" to "do governments have the will?"
Use this technique when you have a strong, specific piece of evidence that undercuts the question's assumption. Avoid made-up statistics — examiners can tell. If you cannot remember the exact figure, use approximate language: "studies estimate," "according to recent data."
3. Media: The anecdotal-hook opening
Question
"The media shapes public opinion more than it reflects it." Comment.
Model introduction
When a photograph of a drowned Syrian toddler on a Turkish beach circulated in 2015, European public opinion on the refugee crisis shifted overnight. Polls showed a sudden surge in support for accepting refugees — not because the crisis itself had changed, but because a single image, amplified by media coverage, reframed the debate from politics to humanity. This episode illustrates a broader truth: the media does not merely mirror what the public already thinks. Through selection, framing, and repetition, media organisations actively construct the lens through which audiences interpret events. While audiences are not passive recipients, the media's power to set the agenda — to determine which issues matter and how they are discussed — gives it an outsized role in shaping, not just reflecting, public opinion.
Why it works
The anecdotal-hook technique opens with a vivid, specific real-world event that illustrates the essay's central argument. The examiner is drawn in by narrative before encountering the analytical framework. The key is that the anecdote is not decorative — it directly demonstrates the thesis. The student then extracts the principle from the example ("the media does not merely mirror") and states a clear position.
This opening works especially well for Media, Society, and Politics questions where real events can powerfully illustrate abstract claims. Keep the anecdote to two or three sentences; any longer and it begins to feel like a narrative essay rather than a discursive one.
4. Globalisation: The definition-reframe opening
Question
"Globalisation benefits only the wealthy." How far do you agree?
Model introduction
The answer depends on what we mean by "wealthy." If we define wealth in purely financial terms, globalisation has indeed concentrated gains disproportionately: the richest 1% captured 38% of all new wealth generated between 1995 and 2021, while the bottom 50% captured less than 2%. Yet if we adopt a broader definition of wealth — one that includes access to information, healthcare innovations, and cultural exchange — the picture shifts considerably. Hundreds of millions have been lifted above extreme poverty lines through global trade, and technologies born of globalisation have extended life expectancy across the developing world. Globalisation does not benefit only the wealthy, but its financial rewards are distributed so unevenly that the perception is both understandable and, in many contexts, justified.
Why it works
The definition-reframe technique interrogates a key term in the question before answering it. By asking "what do we mean by wealthy?", the student demonstrates critical thinking at the highest level — they are not just answering the question but questioning its assumptions. The two definitions (financial wealth vs. broader well-being) create a natural framework for the body paragraphs. The thesis at the end is precisely calibrated: it disagrees with the absolute claim while conceding the underlying concern.
Use this technique when the question contains a term that can be interpreted in multiple ways — "success," "progress," "freedom," "culture." It signals sophistication and gives your essay a built-in structure.
5. Arts: The provocative-claim opening
Question
"Funding the arts is a luxury that developing countries cannot afford." Discuss.
Model introduction
The opposite is true: it is developing countries that can least afford to neglect the arts. When Rwanda invested in its national film industry and cultural festivals in the decade following the 1994 genocide, it was not indulging in luxury — it was rebuilding national identity, processing collective trauma, and generating a creative economy that now contributes meaningfully to GDP. The assumption that arts funding competes with essential services like healthcare and infrastructure rests on a false dichotomy. The arts are infrastructure — they build social cohesion, attract tourism revenue, and create employment. Developing countries that treat the arts as expendable do not save money; they lose one of the most cost-effective tools for economic and social development.
Why it works
The provocative-claim opening begins by directly contradicting the question's premise in a single bold sentence. This immediately signals confidence and a clear position. The Rwanda example provides concrete evidence that is specific and unexpected — the examiner has likely not seen this example from other students, which makes the essay memorable. The student then dismantles the underlying assumption (arts vs. essential services) and reframes arts as infrastructure rather than luxury.
This technique works when you have strong conviction and a surprising example to back it up. It is riskier than the concession-pivot because it takes a firm stance from the first sentence, but when executed well, it is the most compelling opening style. Use it for questions where the premise contains an assumption you can convincingly challenge.
Choosing the right technique
There is no single "best" introduction technique. The right choice depends on the question type and your available material:
- Concession-pivot: Best for "discuss" and "to what extent" questions. Safe, versatile, always appropriate.
- Striking-statistic: Best when you have a strong data point that directly challenges the premise.
- Anecdotal-hook: Best when a real-world event perfectly illustrates your thesis.
- Definition-reframe: Best when the question contains an ambiguous key term.
- Provocative-claim: Best when you have a strong position and a surprising piece of evidence.
At A-Worthy, we train students to master all five techniques so they can select the most effective one for any question on sight. The SHARP Method (See, Hit, Apply, Refine, Practise) and the paper-matched frameworks it deploys build this flexibility through weekly timed practice — students write introductions for six to eight questions per session until choosing and executing a technique becomes automatic.