Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| ap_lang:argument_thesis [2021/01/20 21:01] – created epix | ap_lang:argument_thesis [2021/01/21 02:40] (current) – Added rest of presentation epix | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| 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' | 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' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Implicit vs Explicit Line of Reasoning ===== | ||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Explicit ==== | ||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Implicit ==== | ||
| + | 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.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Using Qualifiers ===== | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Extent ==== | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Exceptions ==== | ||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Concessions ==== | ||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
