When a student brings a teacher the introduction of a diploma, pre-defense usually remains not so much time. But the supervisor sends for improvement one, two, three … Many students believe that the introduction is the most difficult part of the structure of the diploma.
№1. The structure of introduction does not comply with the standard. Remember the main life when writing the introduction to the diploma: the introduction is written according to the model You do not need to reinvent the wheel. Take the methodology of the department and the diploma of the guy before (better than an excellent student). Focusing on the template, a good introduction can be written by a medium student.
№2. The introduction is completely or partially written off from someone’s monograph.
It is now difficult to find a student who would “borrow” the introduction from the foundation in the network of someone else’s diploma. The risk that you can be caught is obvious. But everybody takes from monographs.
First of all the jobs that you used can also be posted on the Internet. Secondly, even if we change the introduction so that the anti-plagiarism does not understand. The main problem will remain an completly unsuitable structure for the diploma’s introduction. Introductions in monographs and diplomas/dissertations are written in different ways. We can say that the introduction to the monograph is more artistic.
One of the mandatory elements you forgot: the hypothesis, the problem, the goal, the tasks, the object, the object … The mistake is not so terrible, because you simply enter the missing element into the introduction and bring to the scientific supervisor to the next test. The main thing, do not write wrong things on enthusiasm. Not in all specialties, for example, you need to form a hypothesis, and on some object and object leave without attention
№4. Ignored the methodical instructions of the department.
Also the introduction is extremely old, there are “rattles” at different faculties and even departments. They concept of individual elements in the structure of the introduction. Somewhere, a hypothesis you may not, but analysis of sources and literature you need. Somewhere, by the way, the works of the guy you use can be mentioned casually, but the hypothesis must necessarily be put forward. In many respects, it depends on the type of research. And about the practical part.
As you can I am not reinventing wheel about writing this. But these mistakes are very common.