In this first sentence I present my argument. Note the three different parts of this argument: a) T.
does act in a way that might be construed as disloyal; b) these actions are actually not decisive of the question, because of certain circumstances that explain them; c) T. is in fact a loyal adviser. In the second and third sentences I develop a): I provide a quotation that demonstrates T’s evasiveness, and I explain how it does so. Notice two other things that I do here: I begin to establish what makes a person a loyal adviser, i.e. a lack of evasiveness; and I use the word “seem” twice, a word that suggests that T’s disloyalty is not real but only apparent—this helps me set up b) and c). In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences I develop b). I show how Teiresias’ evasiveness is excusable due to his religious convictions and the sheer awkwardness of the situation. b) is absolutely necessary because it shows how the argument that Teiresias is a disloyal adviser is a simplistic and incomplete argument. Note how the “however” at the beginning of the fourth sentence helps me to transition into this point. The sixth and seventh sentences, in particular, help to show that a lack of evasiveness by Teiresias in this situation would go above and beyond what we usually think of as “loyalty.” It’s important to keep wrestling with the crucial terms in the question like this. In the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh sentences I develop c) and clinch my argument. I provide a quotation that shows how Teiresias finally provides Oedipus with truthful counsel, and I emphasize how brave and loyal this counsel is, given the situation.