How to Write a Term Paper and Article Review: A Student’s Step-by-Step Guide
A section-by-section guide for students navigating a term paper (7–10 pages, 8 peer-reviewed sources, APA format, literature review, policy implications) or an article review (6–8 pages, 6 scholarly sources, critical analysis, not a summary) — covering topic selection, structure, source standards, plagiarism avoidance, and how to write a conclusion that actually satisfies the grader.
Two assignment types routinely appear in social science, public policy, political science, criminology, and sociology courses: the term paper and the article review. Students lose marks on both for the same predictable reasons — writing a summary instead of an analysis, failing to meet the peer-reviewed source minimum, misunderstanding what the literature review section requires, producing a conclusion that only restates the introduction, or submitting work that does not conform to APA formatting rules. This guide addresses all of those problems directly. It tells you how to structure each assignment, how to select and use sources, what each required section must contain, and what the specific requirements in your brief actually mean in practice.
This guide does not write your paper for you. The argument, the evidence selection, and the analysis must come from your own engagement with the material. What this guide does is prevent the structural and procedural errors that cause submissions to fall short of the grade they could otherwise earn.
What This Guide Covers
Term Paper vs. Article Review: What Each Requires
The two assignments are fundamentally different in purpose, even though they share formatting rules and a minimum source count. Conflating them is the first structural mistake students make.
The Term Paper
The term paper makes an original argument about a topic in your course’s subject area. It requires you to synthesize multiple peer-reviewed sources into a structured argument, identify what the literature says about a problem, and draw conclusions with policy implications. It is not a report. It is not a summary of what researchers have said. It develops a position and supports it with evidence from the literature.
- 7–10 pages, double-spaced, APA format
- Minimum 8 peer-reviewed journal articles
- Format: Title page → Introduction → Literature review → Conclusion with policy implications → Reference page
- Topic should be specific enough to argue, not so broad it becomes a textbook chapter
- Policy implications required in the conclusion — this is not optional
The Article Review
The article review critically analyzes one scholarly article. It does not summarize the article — that is explicitly stated as the wrong approach in your brief. It evaluates the article’s argument, methodology, evidence, limitations, and contribution to the field, supported by outside sources that contextualize or challenge the article’s claims. Your own reasoned position on the article is required.
- 6–8 pages, double-spaced, APA format
- Minimum 6 scholarly sources (can include the article itself, your textbook, and other sources)
- Format: Title page → Introduction → Literature review (thematic or paragraph) → Conclusion → Reference page
- Your argument must be explicit: what is your position on the article’s claims?
- Conclusion connects your analysis to the course content
Your brief explicitly states: “The review should be a critical analysis and not just a summary of the article.” This is the standard on which most article review submissions fail. A summary describes what the author said. A critical analysis evaluates whether what the author said is well-argued, methodologically sound, supported by evidence, consistent with the broader literature, and free from significant limitations. Your job is to take a position on the article’s quality and claims — not to report them neutrally. Every paragraph of your article review should advance your evaluative argument, not describe the article’s content for its own sake.
How to Select and Narrow a Term Paper Topic
The most common structural problem at the topic-selection stage is choosing a topic so broad that it cannot be argued in 7–10 pages. “Immigration policy in the United States” is not a topic — it is a research field. “The effect of mandatory minimum sentencing policy on racial disparities in federal drug convictions, 2000–2020” is a topic. The narrower the scope, the deeper the analysis can go, and depth is what earns marks.
Narrowing by Population
Restrict your topic to a specific group, community, or demographic. Instead of “juvenile crime,” write about “recidivism rates among first-time juvenile offenders in restorative justice programs.” The narrower population requires you to engage with a more specific literature, which produces more precise analysis.
Narrowing by Geography or Policy Context
Restrict your topic to a jurisdiction, policy regime, or institutional context. Instead of “environmental regulation,” write about “enforcement gaps in EPA air quality standards in low-income urban census tracts.” A geographic or policy anchor creates a concrete analytical boundary.
Narrowing by Time Period or Policy Change
Restrict your analysis to a defined period, especially one framed by a specific legislative change, court ruling, or policy shift. This gives you a before/after structure that makes the argument easier to organize and the evidence easier to select.
A Practical Topic Test Before You Begin Writing
Before committing to a topic, run this test: Can you state in one sentence what your paper will argue — not what it will discuss, but what position it will take? If the answer is “my paper will discuss X,” the topic is not focused enough. If the answer is “my paper will argue that X causes Y under conditions Z, with implications for policy P,” you have a workable topic. That one-sentence argument becomes your thesis statement and governs every decision you make about what evidence to include.
What Counts as a Peer-Reviewed Source
Your term paper requires at least eight peer-reviewed articles. Your article review requires at least six scholarly sources. These are not interchangeable with any source that appears academic. The distinction matters because graders check, and Turnitin upload does not catch source quality — but the instructor does during grading.
Google Scholar is the fastest starting point. Enter your topic keywords, click “Cited by” on any highly relevant result to find related work, and use the date filter to prioritize recent publications (typically within the last 10–15 years unless your argument requires older foundational work). For access to full-text articles, your institution’s library database (JSTOR, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Sage Journals) will have institutional access to most journals. The APA Style quick guide on references provides current formatting rules for every source type you are likely to cite.
APA Title Page: What Goes Where
Both assignments require a title page. Under APA 7th edition — which is the current standard — a student title page (as opposed to a professional manuscript page) contains specific required elements in a specific format. The most common errors are using the wrong running head format, omitting the institutional affiliation, or misformatting the author note.
| Element | APA 7th Edition Student Format | Common Error |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Bold, centered, in title case, positioned in the upper half of the page. 12 words or fewer if possible. No italics, no quotation marks, no period at end. | All caps title, period after title, or title not bolded |
| Author Name | First name, middle initial (if used), last name. Centered below the title, not bolded. No academic titles (Dr., Prof.) or degree designations. | Including degree (BA, MSc) after name |
| Institutional Affiliation | Department and institution name, centered below author name | Omitting the department or using abbreviations |
| Course Information | Course number and name (e.g., POLS 4420: Public Policy Analysis), centered below affiliation | Omitting course number or using informal course name |
| Instructor Name | Instructor’s name with appropriate title (e.g., Professor Smith), centered below course info | Using first name only or omitting title |
| Due Date | Month Day, Year format (e.g., May 15, 2025), centered, at the bottom of the title block | Using numeric format (05/15/25) or omitting the date |
| Page Number | Page 1 in the upper right header. No running head required for student papers in APA 7th edition (running head is for professional manuscripts). | Including “Running head:” label — that is APA 6th edition, now incorrect |
How to Write the Introduction
The introduction has three jobs: establish what the problem is and why it matters, narrow the scope to what your paper will specifically address, and state the thesis — the argument the paper will make. In a 7–10 page term paper, the introduction should be approximately one to one and a half pages. In a 6–8 page article review, it should be shorter — roughly half a page to three-quarters of a page.
Introduction That Does Not Work
“This paper will discuss public policy. Public policy is important in society. Many scholars have written about it. This paper will look at different aspects of public policy and draw conclusions.” Provides no topic, no scope, no argument, no rationale, and no direction. A grader reading this has no idea what the paper is about or what it will argue. This introduction does not satisfy any of the three functions listed above.
Introduction That Works
“Despite decades of reform efforts, racial disparities in pretrial detention decisions persist across U.S. jurisdictions, with Black defendants detained at rates disproportionate to their share of arrests (Stevenson, 2018). This paper examines the role of algorithmic risk assessment tools in pretrial decision-making, arguing that while these tools are designed to eliminate individual judicial bias, their reliance on socioeconomic proxies reproduces structural racial inequality. Implications for pretrial reform policy are discussed in the conclusion.” Topic stated, scope bounded, thesis declared, policy relevance signaled — in three sentences.
Beginning an academic paper with “According to Merriam-Webster, policy is defined as…” is widely flagged by graders as a sign of underdeveloped academic writing. If you need to define a contested term, define it using a scholarly source that reflects how the field uses it — not a general dictionary. If the term is uncontested, define it concisely in your own words and move on.
How to Write the Literature Review
The literature review is the largest section of both the term paper and the article review. It is also the section most frequently misunderstood. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography. It does not describe each source one at a time in sequence. It synthesizes what multiple sources say about the same question, identifying agreement, contradiction, and gaps. The organizing principle is the argument — not the sources.
In practical terms, this means you group sources by what they say, not by who said it. If five of your eight sources all agree that a policy has had a negative effect on a particular population, you synthesize that consensus in one or two paragraphs and cite all five together. You do not write five separate paragraphs, one per source. Then you move to the sources that complicate or challenge that consensus, explain the nature of the disagreement, and position your argument in relation to both.
What the Literature Agrees On
Identify the areas of scholarly consensus relevant to your argument. Synthesize these into coherent paragraphs where multiple sources are cited together. Consensus establishes the established knowledge base your argument builds on or departs from.
Where the Literature Disagrees
Identify genuine debates in the scholarly literature — not just different takes, but substantive disagreements about causes, mechanisms, or policy effects. Explain the nature of the disagreement and what is at stake. Your argument should take a position in relation to this debate.
What the Literature Leaves Unresolved
Identify the gap your paper addresses — the question the existing literature has not fully answered, the population that has not been studied, the mechanism that has been described but not explained. This gap is the justification for your paper’s existence.
Organizing the Literature Review by Themes vs. Paragraphs
Your brief specifies that the literature review should be organized “in themes or paragraphs.” This is not a choice between two equally informal options — it is guidance about the two acceptable organizational structures. Understanding the difference helps you decide which one fits your argument.
Thematic Organization (Recommended for Most Papers)
In thematic organization, each section of the literature review addresses one major theme or analytical dimension of your topic. Each theme typically requires a subheading. This structure works best when your topic has multiple distinct dimensions — for example, a paper on housing policy might have themes for affordability, displacement, zoning regulation, and racial equity in housing outcomes.
- Use subheadings to label each theme clearly
- Each theme section synthesizes multiple sources, not just one
- The sequence of themes should build logically toward your argument’s conclusion
- Each theme ends with a sentence that connects it to the next theme or to the paper’s central argument
- Best for papers with 3–5 distinct analytical dimensions and 8+ sources
Paragraph-Based Organization
In paragraph-based organization, the literature review flows as connected prose without subheadings, moving from one aspect of the topic to the next through transitions. This structure works best for tightly focused papers where the analytical dimensions are closely related and separating them under subheadings would feel artificial. It requires stronger transitional writing because the organizational structure is implicit rather than labeled.
- Each paragraph addresses one aspect or debate within the literature
- Transitions between paragraphs must make the logical connection explicit
- Works best for focused arguments with fewer than four distinct analytical dimensions
- Sources are still synthesized within paragraphs — not one source per paragraph
- Common in shorter papers (7–8 pages) where thematic subheadings would feel over-structured
How to Decide Which Structure to Use
Before writing the literature review, list the major questions your paper needs to answer on the way to its conclusion. If those questions fall into two or three clearly distinct clusters — each of which requires its own body of evidence — use thematic organization with subheadings. If the questions flow naturally from one to the next as steps in a single logical progression, use paragraph-based organization. If you are unsure, thematic organization is safer for longer papers (9–10 pages) because it makes the organizational logic visible to the grader.
How to Write the Conclusion and Policy Implications
The conclusion section of the term paper has two required components: a summary of what the paper argued and demonstrated, and policy implications — specific recommendations or observations about what the findings mean for policy design, implementation, or reform. Many students write the summary adequately and then produce a policy implications paragraph that is so vague it says nothing. “Policymakers should take this issue seriously” is not a policy implication. It is filler.
Vague Policy Implication
“Based on the findings of this paper, it is clear that policymakers need to do more to address the problem. Future research is needed to better understand the issue. If action is taken, outcomes may improve.” Contains three sentences that collectively say nothing. No specific policy, no mechanism, no actor, no change. This is a placeholder, not a policy implication, and it will be graded accordingly.
Specific Policy Implication
“The evidence reviewed suggests two actionable policy responses. First, jurisdictions using algorithmic risk assessment tools in pretrial decisions should mandate regular disparate impact audits, with results reported publicly and reviewed by independent oversight bodies. Second, legislatures should prohibit the use of socioeconomic variables — employment status, residential stability, financial resources — as inputs to risk scores, given the documented correlation between these variables and race in stratified housing markets.”
A policy implication names a specific change — to legislation, regulation, institutional practice, funding allocation, enforcement priority, or program design — and explains why the paper’s evidence supports that change. It identifies who has the authority to make the change (federal agency, state legislature, municipal government, institutional administrator) and what the expected mechanism of impact is. If your paper’s argument does not clearly lead to any policy recommendation, that is a signal to revisit the argument itself, not the conclusion.
How to Structure the Article Review
The article review follows the same four-section structure as the term paper: title page, introduction, literature review, conclusion. But the content of each section is oriented around the single article you are reviewing, not around an original argument of your own construction. Your argument is your evaluative position on the article — whether its claims are convincing, its methodology appropriate, its conclusions warranted, and its contribution to the field significant.
-
Title Page: Standard APA 7th Edition Student Format
Same format as the term paper title page. The title of your review should indicate the article under review — for example, “A Critical Review of [Author’s Last Name] ([Year]): [Article Title]” or a descriptive title that reflects your evaluative position. Do not use the article’s original title as your paper’s title without modification.
-
Introduction: Identify the Article and State Your Evaluative Position
In the first paragraph, identify the article by full citation: author(s), year, title, journal. In one to two sentences, describe what the article argues. Then state your evaluative position — the argument your review will make. This is the thesis of the review: not “this paper will summarize the article” but “this review argues that while [Author] makes a compelling case for X, the methodology used to support that claim has significant limitations, particularly in its failure to account for Y.” That evaluative thesis governs everything that follows.
-
Literature Review: Contextualize the Article and Develop Your Evaluation
The literature review section of the article review does two things simultaneously. It situates the article within the scholarly conversation — what debates is the article responding to, where does it agree or disagree with the existing literature, what gap does it claim to fill? And it advances your critical evaluation — using other scholarly sources to support or complicate the article’s claims, identify where the article’s evidence aligns or conflicts with established research, and assess the quality of its methodology. Every evaluative claim you make should be supported by either evidence from the article itself or by comparison with outside sources.
-
Conclusion: Summarize Your Position and Connect to the Course
Your brief specifies that the conclusion should “summarize your position regarding the article relating it to what you learned in this course or other courses.” This means your conclusion does two things: first, it restates your evaluative argument concisely — what you found convincing and unconvincing in the article, and why. Second, it connects the article’s contribution, limitations, or implications to a concept, debate, or framework you encountered in the course. Name the course concept explicitly. This connection demonstrates that you are reading the article as a course-relevant text, not as a free-standing piece of scholarship.
What Critical Analysis Means in an Article Review
Your brief is explicit: the review should be a critical analysis, not a summary. Students consistently confuse these two activities because both require reading the article carefully. The difference is in what you do with what you read.
Five Dimensions of Critical Analysis in an Article Review
- Argument evaluation: Is the article’s central claim clearly stated? Is it specific enough to be testable or evaluable? Does the argument have logical consistency — do the conclusions follow from the evidence, or does the author over-reach beyond what the data supports?
- Methodology assessment: What method did the author use to gather and analyze evidence (literature review, case study, regression analysis, ethnography, content analysis, survey)? Is the method appropriate for the question being asked? What are the method’s inherent limitations, and does the author acknowledge them?
- Evidence quality: Is the evidence the author cites current? Is it drawn from peer-reviewed sources? Are there obvious gaps — populations not studied, time periods excluded, counter-evidence not addressed? Does the author engage with scholarly work that challenges their position?
- Conceptual framework: What theoretical framework does the article use? Is it the most appropriate framework for the question, or does a different theoretical lens produce different — or more illuminating — conclusions? Compare the article’s framework to the frameworks covered in your course materials.
- Contribution to the field: Does the article make a genuine contribution? Does it answer a question that was not previously answered, challenge an assumption that was previously accepted, or provide evidence where previously only theory existed? Or does it largely replicate existing findings without adding significant new knowledge?
You do not need to address all five dimensions with equal depth. Select the two or three that produce the most substantive evaluation of this particular article, and develop those with specificity and evidence. A shallow evaluation of all five dimensions is weaker than a thorough evaluation of two.
APA Formatting: Specific Rules You Must Follow
Both assignments require APA style and double-spacing. APA 7th edition is the current version. The most frequently violated formatting rules in student papers — and the most straightforward to correct before submission — are listed below.
| Formatting Element | APA 7th Edition Rule | What Students Often Do Wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Spacing | Double-spaced throughout, including the reference list. No extra space between paragraphs. | Adding extra spacing between paragraphs or single-spacing the reference list |
| Font | 12-point Times New Roman, 11-point Calibri, or 11-point Arial (APA 7th permits these). Consistent throughout. | Mixing fonts, using 11pt Times New Roman, or using decorative fonts |
| Margins | 1-inch on all sides | Using default Word margins (1.25 inches) without adjusting |
| In-Text Citations — Paraphrase | (Author Last Name, Year) — e.g., (Weaver, 2019). No page number required for paraphrases. | Omitting the year, adding a page number where not required, or using first name |
| In-Text Citations — Direct Quote | (Author Last Name, Year, p. X) — e.g., (Weaver, 2019, p. 45). Page number required for all direct quotes. | Omitting page number for direct quotes, or using “pp.” for a single page |
| Reference List — Journal Article | Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article in sentence case. Journal Name in Title Case and Italics, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx | Capitalizing all words in the article title, omitting the DOI, or not italicizing the journal name |
| Hanging Indent | Reference list entries use a hanging indent: first line flush left, subsequent lines indented 0.5 inch. | Using a regular indent (indenting the first line) or no indent at all |
| Heading Levels | Level 1 (centered, bold, title case). Level 2 (left-aligned, bold, title case). Level 3 (left-aligned, bold italic, title case). | Using all-caps headings, underlining headings, or using inconsistent heading levels |
Avoiding Plagiarism and Turnitin
Your brief states explicitly that the paper will be uploaded to Turnitin for plagiarism checking. Turnitin measures textual similarity — the percentage of your submission that matches text in its database of previously submitted papers, published articles, and internet sources. A high similarity score is not automatic evidence of plagiarism, but it flags your paper for instructor review, which creates additional scrutiny you do not want.
Paraphrase — Do Not Copy
Restating a source’s idea in your own sentence structure and vocabulary is both ethically required and academically preferable to direct quotation in most cases. A paraphrase must genuinely restate the idea — changing a few words in the original sentence is not paraphrasing, it is patchwriting, which Turnitin detects and which most academic integrity policies treat as plagiarism.
Quote Sparingly and Correctly
Direct quotation is appropriate when the author’s exact wording is what matters — a definition, a technical term, a policy language excerpt. All direct quotes require quotation marks and a page number in the citation. Direct quotes should be rare in a social science paper — aim for no more than one or two per section, and only when paraphrase would lose something essential.
Cite Everything You Did Not Originate
Any idea, argument, data point, or interpretation that came from a source requires a citation — whether you quote it or paraphrase it. Omitting a citation for a paraphrased idea is plagiarism under academic integrity policies, even if your wording is different. If you are unsure whether something needs a citation, cite it.
Submitting your own work from another course without disclosure is self-plagiarism and is treated as an academic integrity violation at most institutions. Submitting AI-generated text as your own work is treated as a form of academic dishonesty. Turnitin now includes AI detection alongside plagiarism detection. If AI tools are not permitted on this assignment, do not use them to generate text — use them only for tasks explicitly authorized by your instructor (grammar checking, source searching, formatting help). If AI tools are permitted, your institution’s policy on disclosure almost certainly requires you to note their use. Confirm what is permitted before submission.
Where Most Submissions Lose Marks
Literature Review That Lists Sources Instead of Synthesizing Them
“Smith (2018) found that… Jones (2020) argued that… Williams (2019) stated that… Brown (2021) concluded that…” Each sentence introduces one source and describes it in isolation. There is no synthesis, no connection between sources, no identification of agreement or disagreement, and no analytical momentum. This is an annotated bibliography formatted as prose — not a literature review.
Literature Review That Synthesizes
“There is broad agreement in the literature that mandatory sentencing policies increased incarceration rates without producing corresponding reductions in violent crime (Smith, 2018; Jones, 2020; Brown, 2021). Where scholars diverge is on the mechanism: Smith attributes this failure to the deterrence theory assumptions embedded in mandatory minimums, while Brown argues the policies were effective in principle but applied unevenly across racial lines, undermining both their deterrent and rehabilitative functions.”
Article Review That Summarizes the Article
“The article begins by introducing the topic. The author then reviews the existing literature. Next, the methodology is described. The findings show that… The author concludes by suggesting future research.” This is a table of contents description. It contains no evaluation, no position, no critical engagement with the argument or evidence. It satisfies nothing in the article review rubric.
Article Review That Evaluates
“The article’s central claim — that participatory budgeting increases civic trust in municipal government — is plausible given the prior literature on deliberative democracy (Fung & Wright, 2003), but the evidence presented does not support it. The author uses a single-city case study with no control group and a 12-month observation window. Cross-sectional trust data measured at one point does not establish causal direction, and the literature on civic trust is consistent that measurable shifts require longitudinal observation across multiple electoral cycles (Dalton, 2017).”
Conclusion That Restates the Introduction
Copying or closely paraphrasing the introduction text in the conclusion is one of the most common marks-losing patterns in student submissions. The conclusion should synthesize what the paper demonstrated — the argument’s arrival point, not its departure point. The reader should finish the conclusion with a clearer picture of what the paper proved than they had at the end of the introduction.
Conclusion That Synthesizes and Advances
The conclusion restates the central argument in light of the evidence reviewed — not just as a restatement of the thesis, but as a summary of what the paper proved. It answers the question: given everything demonstrated in the literature review, what do we now know that we did not know (or could not confidently claim) before this analysis? Then it draws out the policy implications that follow directly from that demonstrated knowledge.
- Topic is narrow enough to argue in 7–10 pages — one clear thesis statement formulated before writing began
- Title page follows APA 7th edition student format — no running head, page 1 in header, all required elements present
- Introduction states the problem, narrows the scope, and declares the thesis — in that order
- Literature review synthesizes sources by theme or logical sequence — not source-by-source description
- At least eight peer-reviewed journal articles cited — not blogs, government websites, or textbooks substituted for the minimum
- Every paraphrase and direct quote has an in-text citation with author and year
- All direct quotes include page numbers in the citation
- Conclusion summarizes the argument and states specific, actionable policy implications
- Reference list uses APA 7th edition journal article format — sentence case article titles, italicized journal name, DOI included
- Entire paper is double-spaced with 1-inch margins and consistent 12-point font
- Paper runs 7–10 pages of body text, not counting the title page or reference list
- The article under review is fully identified in the introduction (author, year, title, journal)
- The introduction states a clear evaluative thesis — what position the review takes on the article
- The literature review contextualizes the article in the scholarly conversation and develops the critical evaluation using outside sources
- At least six scholarly sources cited — can include the article itself, the course textbook, and peer-reviewed articles
- The review evaluates the article’s argument, methodology, or evidence — not just describes it
- The conclusion summarizes the evaluative position and connects the article to course content explicitly
- No paragraph exists that is purely descriptive of the article’s content without evaluative commentary
- APA 7th edition formatting applied throughout — citations, reference list, spacing, margins, font
- Paper runs 6–8 pages of body text, not counting title page or reference list
Frequently Asked Questions
Why These Two Assignments Exist and What They Are Designed to Develop
The term paper and article review are not interchangeable exercises. They train different academic competencies, and understanding which competency each targets helps you write it more effectively.
The term paper trains independent scholarly argument — the ability to identify a problem, survey what is known about it, construct an original analytical position, support it with evidence, and draw conclusions with practical implications. This is the competency that underpins original research at the graduate level and policy analysis in professional settings. At the undergraduate level, the eight-source minimum exists not to create busywork but because a genuine argument about a complex social or policy problem cannot be responsibly made without engaging with the breadth of the relevant literature. Fewer sources usually means a narrower evidence base and a less defensible argument.
The article review trains critical reading and evaluation — the ability to assess the quality of scholarly work produced by others. This competency is essential for anyone who will need to use research evidence professionally: policy analysts, administrators, practitioners in health, education, social work, and law enforcement all need to be able to read a published study and determine whether its findings are trustworthy enough to act on. The six-source minimum for the article review reflects the necessity of engaging with the scholarly context around the article — you cannot evaluate a contribution without understanding the conversation it is contributing to.
The Purdue Online Writing Lab’s APA formatting and style guide remains the most widely used free reference for APA 7th edition rules — covering general format, in-text citation formats, and reference list entries for every source type. Cross-check your citations and reference list against it before submitting.
Both assignments share the same structural backbone — title page, introduction, literature review, conclusion — because both require you to enter a scholarly conversation with an argument and exit it with a demonstrated position. The argument differs (an original claim vs. an evaluative position on one article), the evidence base differs (8 peer-reviewed articles across a topic vs. 6 sources organized around one article), and the conclusion differs (policy implications vs. course connection). But the underlying academic activity is the same: read, analyze, argue, and demonstrate the argument with evidence. That is what your instructor is assessing, and that is what earns marks.
Continue with: term paper writing services · article review help · literature review services · APA citation guide · proofreading and editing · paper formatting service.