Your rough draft should be a readable and complete essay which you will look at critically and try to improve upon.

For example:

Jack Kerouac was born to french Canadian Catholic parents in Lowell Massachusetts. [facts] His religious upbringing contributes greatly to the vision he expounds through his novels. [opinion] Because he had roots outside the United States, he was able to see American society from an outsider's point of view. [opinion]

Perhaps the essay is not so formulaic but the concluding paragraph should be some kind of summation of the materials presented in the body of the essay. You need to make sure your conclusion refers back to your thesis. For example if I was comparing the Canadian and American systems of government and my thesis was that the US system was superior because of the fixed election dates, I might conclude as follows.

Canadian politicians can more easily be removed from office during a crisis of confidence in their office. This avoids the political quagmires in which the US presidency has become mired such as the Watergate scandal and the Clinton sex scandals. However, the American system shows its superiority when the calendar, not political considerations dictates the dates of elections.

This could also be an opening statement. You see they are very much alike. Maybe you can look at your opening paragraph and remembering that now you have presented all the evidence supporting your thesis, you can bring back your initial assertions with the sense of "Aha, I told you so!"

A very general outline:

1. Introduction: Gun control is an important issue because.... [# of people shot/criminals with guns/political implications/ right to bear arms/etc]
2. Thesis: gun control is (good/bad) because...
3. Facts which back up your thesis. [Compare to other countries/what do experts say/etc]
4. Opponents say... but....[refute opponents' arguments]
5. Therefore gun control should be (more/less) rigid.

"Reincarnation is a subject some people either reject, or think plausible."

I'd start the essay with a statement which supports one side of the argument. In a persuasive essay, a common tactic is to begin the introduction with evidence against the position we intend to take and then move toward a thesis statement which refutes the initial evidence following with the body of the essay which makes the case.

See the answer above.

First you need a thesis: do you support or oppose reality TV?
Is it simply entertainment and up to the viewer to decide or do they exploit people? You can use some of the arguments above to support a thesis against reality TV or you can support reality and oppose the statements above.

Here's how I would argue for poetry. Poetry is the artistic use of language. Poets must have a more thorough knowledge of language than most people. By studying poetry, students gain a greater appreciation of language and its role in culture.

There are those who liken artists to the proverbial canaries in coal mines. Artists provide an early warning as to when society is in trouble. Artists make us uncomfortable. Hopefully artists make us think about issues that don't normally rise to the surface as we struggle individually to earn livings and live our lives on the material plane. Artists are the conscience and soul of our secular society. Religion used to play a greater role in both the public and the individual's consciousness but today we don't teach religious values in public institutions. The teaching of poetry is one way to introduce ways of thinking about issues which are greater than the immediately practical ones of earning a living.

The early development of democracy is associated with the Romantic poets who moved poetry from being a tool of the ruling classes to celebrate their own excesses to being a vehicle for appreciation of life for all. Before that, most art was sponsored by rich patrons for their own purposes. Nonetheless, art prior to the Romantics had political overtones. Pope's Rape of the Lock is a satirical verse lampooning the egocentric posturing of a rich bimbo and it was written at a time when there was very little opportunity for social criticism.

Post Modern poetry, while often byzantine and difficult to find meaning in, reflects an artist's vision of the world and provides the student with ample food for thought if taught well. The essence of democracy is that citizens must think and make decisions. The function of schools should be to encourage students to become good citizens in a democracy. By studying poetry students are encouraged to sample various world views, express new ideas and think for themselves. I think it is to be encouraged. But then again, I just like poetry.

Now for the opposing arguments. Poetry is impractical. Schools need to focus on the basics. Poetry often breaks rules of grammar, but students need to practice good grammar. Students should be learning business communication, so they can become good employees.

However, if I was Joe Chevron and you were proposing hydrogen power I would have some objections because it is in my interest to continue to sell gasoline. So you have to imagine what objections I might have. Here are some:

• It's going to be too expensive to develop the infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to the consumer. The only way you can sell vehicles is if the re-fueling facilities are available and the only way you can develop re-fueling facilities is if there are consumers ready to begin to make purchases.
• Hydrogen is generated by electrolysis of water which takes electricity. Electricity is often generated by burning coal or by nuclear power. Either way you just shift the pollution problem to another place.
• Remember the Hindenberg? Hydrogen is too dangerous!

The curious thing I see about your topic is that it asks "Is the price of fame too high." I guess this refers to the fame that a researcher might get from discovering a cure for some disease. Usually the issue juxtaposed with the animal suffering is the benefits to suffering people. In any case it comes down to the question of how much right do we have as humans to impose suffering on animals for our own benefit.

You should be able to use the internet to locate websites providing arguments on both sides of this issue. In particular search for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for arguments against using animals in research (also called vivisection.) I believe they would argue that computer models and tissue cultures can provide means to test drugs and other products without suffering. They would also cite cases where different biochemical pathways result in different toxicity in different species. This means you can't tell what is going to happen in a human by what happens in a guinea pig.

Proponents of animal research might use the biblical argument that God gave us dominion over the animals to use for our needs. I can't see very many scientists using this argument, however, as it conflicts with their basic belief system in terms of understanding the world.

I think the basic argument in favor of using animals in research is based on the fact that we already use animals for many purposes. Some of us keep pets and our dogs bark at strangers and our cats catch mice. People ride horses. Others eat dairy products. Some eat meat. We all benefit from the research which was done in the past involving animals. We use vaccines for polio, smallpox and measles. We go for surgery. We take drugs to cure ailments. Can one say it's OK for me to benefit from the past animal experimentation but deny others the benefit if further research might cure other conditions? Where does one draw the line for the use of animals?

You might be able to find some arguments justifying the use of animals in research by looking at the websites of drug manufacturers, or university medical research departments.

What evidence are you going to cite in support?

Teens who date while living with their parents have a chance to practice some dating behaviors while they can still be corrected by their parents if they start to make mistakes.

Dating does not mean having sex. Dating could mean double dates. Dating could mean loosely supervised activities. Dating is a means for individuals to explore their feelings for other individuals without getting into deep levels of intimacy.

Preventing teens from dating can make all those activities more tempting and when they finally get the freedom to go out they might go overboard and not have anyone to help them to put on the brakes.

You can look to social service agencies or parenting support groups for more information on the pros and cons so you can incorporate them into your arguments.