Creating a Defensible Thesis for Argument

The following subsections give some aid in creating effective theses that won't pigeon-hole you when writing timed essays.

When drafting a thesis, it is extremely important to be mindful of the assertions you make. Obviously, don't draft a thesis that states the obvious or argues points that have no direct correlation to the prompt at hand. On the contrary, don't try to support a thesis that is an extreme response to the prompt as it will be extremely difficult to support your prompt without holes in your reasoning. Your ideal thesis is one that effectively answers the prompt with a concrete qualifiers that make it easily supportable. It may be helpful to outline what questions you should be trying to answer in order to completely fulfill the prompt.

Should chess be considered a sport?

What does the prompt want?

• It wants a definition of a sport
• It needs to know how chess fits/doesn't fit the criteria.
• Propose whether or not it is a sport.

A good thesis should cover all three of the listed questions without being overbearing or biting off more you can chew in the timeslot given.

Chess should not be considered a sport because it is a terrible waste of time and there is nothing to gain from board games.

While obviously no one will write a thesis this stringent in practice, its clear that this thesis won't be easily supported without flaws in logic that are ultimately subjective. While this may be your gut feeling, avoid this if at all possible as you won't be able to cover all of your points effectively¹⁾. Plus, your reader will probably counter your point themselves as they read, which diminishes the effectiveness of your paper.

Despite being a more passive activity, chess should be considered a sport as it challenges its competitors in ways similar to traditional sports.

This thesis answers everything given in the outline and doesn't claim anything too overbearing or not effectively supportable. This is the best one of the examples and you should strive for theses like this one.

Chess should be considered a sport because it is a really hard game and requires alot of mathematic skills.

The issue with this thesis is that, while it does attempt to provide a claim, it fails to support why is should be considered a sport. Yes, the game is difficult and requires good mathematics and logical skill, however how are those necessarily required for a sport? The Moderate thesis answered this by comparing chess to other sports, drawing similarities. This one, however, does not. Honestly this type of claim is by far the worse as the too extreme thesis atleast has an argument you can write about, while with this thesis everything you can write about doesn't even support answering the prompt. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Your line of reasoning is how you will justify the claim you're making in your thesis. There are two types: Explicit and Implicit. Remember that both types can grant you the same level of sophistication, however one grants significantly more freedom which aids writing under time pressure.

An explicit line of reasoning is rigid, presenting your arguments one by one like prongs on a fork, with each argument building off what came before. This method helps with organization on your paper, as you practically have to structure it a certain way for it to flow well. The consequence, is that if you run out of time, your paper is fucking worthless as you didn't get to the damn point.

An implicit line of reasoning, by contrast, is much more open ended and can be freely structured. While this makes the arguments initially harder to generate, the freedom from the other arguments allows each individual one to hold greater weight against the claim of your thesis alongside being free from locking yourself in a specific argument or set of arguments that you can't complete for whatever reason. Try for this if at all possible for the freedom it grants you is priceless.

Qualifiers are words or phrases that let you limit the applicability of your thesis or claim, which helps you avoid creating blanket statements or trying to support against all cases which is simply not possible when writing on the spot. There are three main types.

Words like most, some, or few allow you, the rhetor, to avoid generalizing your claim to everyone or thing, which could be the downfall of your paper if sufficient evidence isn't provided to support ALL CASES, which obviously would never exist as there are infinite! Try to avoid blanketing entire populations of items or things in your claim by using these qualifiers.

There are sometimes exceptions or outliers too, phrases like unless, other than, with the exception of, etc. allow for you to keep your claim simplified as much as possible while still acknowledging the exceptions to your thesis.

Of course, solutions are also not perfect, and acknowledging flaws in your thesis or compromises that need to be made will show to the reader that you understand the limitations of your idea, but still believe it to be the most applicable solution. Particularly, you won't be seen as an idiot that forgot an obvious flaw in your reasoning. Phrases like even though, while it is true that, or despite are examples for this qualifier.