These three versions of the same topic sentence have the same message, but the emphasis in each is slightly different. The first one gives equal emphasis to the two main clauses but goes on to add a third clause at the end.
Lending guidelines complied with regulatory requirements, but some enhancements are needed to ensure they remain effective in controlling risk in lending operations.
The second one is similar to the first but is more effective because it is more concise. Longer sentences invariably lose focus and emphasis as more and more words are added.
Lending guidelines complied with regulatory requirements, but some enhancements are needed.
Sentence 3 delivers the same message, but by placing the opening material in a subordinate clause, the writer throws the emphasis to the second clause: “some enhancements are needed.”
Although lending guidelines complied with regulatory requirements, some enhancements are needed.
What would you expect to read about in a paragraph that has this as its topic sentence?
The FCA should develop an outreach educational and technical assistance program to selected foreign countries.
Wouldn’t you expect the paragraph to discuss why FCA should develop such a program and in which foreign countries?
And for this topic sentence?
In two cases, the use of administrative extensions masked severe loan performance problems.
We would expect to read about case one and case two and how extensions covered up problems.
Given this topic sentence, what would you expect the ensuing paragraph to cover?
The association’s credit review was objective and reliable.
Are objective and reliable the same concept? No, an audit could be objective and still not be reliable. So we would expect the paragraph to substantiate both parts of the controlling idea—objectivity and reliability.
Here is the actual paragraph.
The association’s credit review was objective and reliable. The association contracted with an external party to perform the internal credit review. That review was conducted as of September 30 and delivered to the Board. The review did not report any significant issues in loan classification, loan administration, or collateral evaluations. The association received the highest ratings in all areas.
Are both parts of the controlling idea supported?
No, reliability is not addressed. To correct this situation, we would need to either narrow the topic sentence to cover only objectivity or to include information concerning the reliability of the review. Since reliability is an essential feature, the latter solution would be better. When we draft a topic sentence, we have to be certain that it covers the content of the entire paragraph.
Given this opening sentence, what would you expect the ensuing paragraph to cover?
To limit exposure, the bank established in-house lending limits, market segment capacity limits, and hold positions.
Here is the actual paragraph.
To limit exposure, the bank established in-house lending limits, market segment capacity limits, and hold positions. Nevertheless, certain loans and loan complexes represented material concentrations of credit risk. The exposure to capital from large borrowers represented a concern that the board and management should continue to address through capital and business planning.
Does it fulfill the readers’ expectations? No. In fact, the second sentence comes as a surprise since we were expecting to read about procedures specifically designed to limit exposure. The paragraph isn’t unified—that is, it doesn’t discuss only one topic.
Readers expect the first sentence of a paragraph to be the topic sentence. Then they expect the following sentences to support and substantiate the generalization stated in the topic sentence. Our responsibility is to deliver on that expectation.
Financial review agencies like FCA collect and summarize data in workpapers. When it comes time to develop a final report, staff use the work papers as the basis of the draft document.
Keep in mind most procedural work will not have topic sentences. Workpaper procedures contain facts and figures but generally will not, in and of themselves, have a conclusion.
So when drafting topic-level conclusions (e.g., Portfolio Quality and Composition, Allowance for Losses), you will need to stand back from the procedural results and ask: “What does my procedural work add up to?” Similarly, when moving up to the category-level (e.g., Capital, Assets, Management), you will need to step back and ask, “What do the topic-level conclusions add up to?”
In either case, select the topic to be discussed and create the controlling idea – the evaluative statement- about the topic. That’s your topic sentence!
