Example body paragraph (with annotations):

(1) While the life conditions of slums can often be appalling when compared to those in the
western world, they can also be an indicator of economic growth of a country or of the
communities themselves. (2) As mentioned in the document from Bloomberg, writer Karl
Lester M. Yap notes that while the infrastructure is lacking to deal with this influx of
migrants, the existence of the slums themselves are "proof that the economy is growing and
the opportunities are often in cities." (3) Many of the world's fastest-growing economies are in
developing countries in East Asia, and many of these countries, including in China, Indonesia,
and the Philippines, also support a slum population of at least 20 percent of their total urban
population. (4) One specific instance, Dharavi in Mumbai, India, has exemplified this
phenomenon to the point where it is sometimes known as the "Slum of Hope." (5) The
prospects of possible economic success have driven the surrounding rural population into
Mumbai, with the construction of slums as the result. (6) However, in addition to the
economic hope aspect of the slum, its inhabitants have created their own systems of
infrastructure, including schools, recycling centers, and even its own small manufacturing
industry. 
1. Establishment of the argument about some of the positives of the existence of slums,
despite the fact that they are, well, slums.
2. Expansion on that idea from the topic sentence to provide a bit more general information,
while at the same time incorporating elements of the document to help shape my
argument.
3. Expansion of the document and linking the point that made in the topic sentence (slums as
a possible indicator of economic growth) with examples; in this case, directly from the
document. 
4. Introduction of a larger example (to expand on for 2-3 sentences) which supports the topic
sentence, and the claims that made in sentences 2 & 3. 
5. (and 6) Continued expansion of the larger example.
 Clemenceau once famously stated that it was “easier to make war than make peace.”

Western history in the 20th century would eventually prove him correct, as nations moved

from one world war to another, from a world centered around traditional European empires to

one centered around emerging superpowers, with one winning out at the end to win control of

the world moving into the 21st century. The entirety of this progression occurred in the

context of armed conflict between nation states. Indeed, Clemenceau turned out to be right—

peace proved impossible to achieve without war, and lasting peace in the past 100 years never

really took shape without the specter of looming destruction. War shaped the 20th century in

terms of society, changing the way that civilians lived throughout the period, as well as in

terms of geopolitics, with great powers vying for control of the world, willing to destroy

others—as well as themselves—in order to obtain it.

World War One, intended to be “the war to end all wars,” was one of the most

significant in terms of military technical advances with the intent of causing vast destruction.

New inventions such as machine guns and longer-ranged and more accurate artillery

combined with outdated or inadaptive tactics led to massive casualties among the combatants.

On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British lost 50,000 men, and would eventually

amass 420,000 casualties over the course of the five-month battle, with the Germans losing

500,000 and the French another 200,000 in support of the British. Changes to tactics were

made, such as the use of trenches and tanks, but they were often not used effectively enough

to significantly reduce battle losses. Artillery and the use of poison gas often left the landscape

of the French countryside barren and, in some areas that still exist today as “red zones,”

inhospitable to humans, as is demonstrated in the Paul Nash painting We Are Making a New

World, with its grim depiction of a former battlefield. With these new advancements, it was

truly believed that “The Great War” would be a war to end all wars, as further military conflict

would certainly destroy both nature and humanity in the pursuit of fickle political goals of

individual countries.