What I have gathered from my analysis and sources is that the only acceptable pattern of essay that gets your exam cleared is this: simple and relevant. Even if you start with an incident, the examiner should get the impression of "relevance". The only thing he is keen to look for is whether you grasped the topic--he wants to see whether you have understood what he tried to elicit from you. In this essay, the examiner tried to elicit from the candidates as how they see W.O.T contributing to the growing abuse of human rights.

I disagree with Loveu Bartowski. Cause-impact-remedial analysis or any other generalized pattern can never suffice. Every title has its own demands. You cannot start writing about the roots and histories of topics, you just have to take what he has asked and proceed from there. In this essay, he didn't ask you to tell him how W.O.T started or the history of Soviet-Afghan war; he only asked you to comment on how W.O.T contributed to growing abuse of human rights.

There is no problem to start the essay by quoting any incident (but it should be relevant as you wrote), overall you will pass this essay paper inshallah if you wrote as you mentioned (be optimist). Most of the essays continue in this pattern:

Introduction

Current scenario

Aetiology

Consequences

Remedies

Conclusion

But it is not necessary that every essay remain on this pattern like if you have to write an essay on "Materialism is the death of spirituality" then you cannot write current scenario or etc. There is no clear cut fix rule to write an essay, but it should be in proper way and relevant. In modern style of essay writing you don't need to give definitions and history, just stick on that what is happening around us.

__________________
مجھے ہے حکمِ اذاں

Bro you have to prove that there is growing abuse due to war on terror no solution is needed .What they want prove it

__________________
I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination.