The thesis statement or main claim must be
debatable
An argumentative or persuasive piece of writing must
begin with a debatable thesis or claim. In other words, the thesis must be
something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on. If your
thesis is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there
is no reason to try to persuade people.
Example of a non-debatable thesis
statement:
Pollution is bad for the
environment.
This thesis statement is not debatable. First, the
word pollution means that something is bad or negative in some way. Further, all
studies agree that pollution is a problem, they simply disagree on the impact it
will have or the scope of the problem. No one could reasonably argue that
pollution is good.
Example of a debatable thesis
statement:
At least twenty-five percent of the federal budget
should be spent on limiting pollution.
This is an example of a debatable thesis because
reasonable people could disagree with it. Some people might think that this is
how we should spend the nation's money. Others might feel that we should be
spending more money on education. Still others could argue that corporations,
not the government, should be paying to limit
pollution.
Another example of a debatable thesis
statement:
America's anti-pollution efforts should focus on
privately owned cars.
In this example there is also room for disagreement
between rational individuals. Some citizens might think focusing on recycling
programs rather than private automobiles is the most effective
strategy.
The thesis needs to be
narrow
Although the scope of your paper might seem
overwhelming at the start, generally the narrower the thesis the more effective
your argument will be. Your thesis or claim must be supported by evidence. The
broader your claim is, the more evidence you will need to convince readers that
your position is right.
Example of a thesis that is too
broad:
Drug use is detrimental to
society.
There are several reasons this statement is too broad
to argue. First, what is included in the category "drugs"? Is the author talking
about illegal drug use, recreational drug use (which might include alcohol and
cigarettes), or all uses of medication in general? Second, in what ways are
drugs detrimental? Is drug use causing deaths (and is the author equating deaths
from overdoses and deaths from drug related violence)? Is drug use changing the
moral climate or causing the economy to decline? Finally, what does the author
mean by "society"? Is the author referring only to America or to the global
population? Does the author make any distinction between the effects on children
and adults? There are just too many questions that the claim leaves open. The
author could not cover all of the topics listed above, yet the generality of the
claim leaves all of these possibilities open to
debate.
Example of a narrow or focused
thesis:
Illegal drug use is detrimental because it encourages
gang violence.
In this example the topic of drugs has been narrowed
down to illegal drugs and the detriment has been narrowed down to gang violence.
This is a much more manageable topic.
We could narrow each debatable thesis from the
previous examples in the following way:
Narrowed debatable thesis
1:
At least twenty-five percent of the federal budget
should be spent on helping upgrade business to clean technologies, researching
renewable energy sources, and planting more trees in order to control or
eliminate pollution.
This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by
specifying not just the amount of money used but also how the money could
actually help to control pollution.
Narrowed debatable thesis
2:
America's anti-pollution efforts should focus on
privately owned cars because it would allow most citizens to contribute to
national efforts and care about the outcome.
This thesis narrows the scope of the argument by
specifying not just what the focus of a national anti-pollution campaign should
be but also why this is the appropriate focus.
Qualifiers such as "typically," "generally,"
"usually," or "on average" also help to limit the scope of your claim by
allowing for the almost inevitable exception to the
rule.
Types of Claims
Claims typically fall into one of four categories.
Thinking about how you want to approach your topic, in other words what type of
claim you want to make, is one way to focus your thesis on one particular aspect
of you broader topic.
Claims of fact or definition: These claims argue
about what the definition of something is or whether something is a settled
fact. Example:
What some people refer to as global warming is
actually nothing more than normal, long-term cycles of climate
change.
Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that
one person, thing, or event caused another thing or event to occur.
Example:
The popularity of SUV's in America has caused
pollution to increase.
Claims about value: These are claims made about what
something is worth, whether we value it or not, how we would rate or categorize
something. Example:
Global warming is the most pressing challenge facing
the world today.
Claims about solutions or policies: These are claims
that argue for or against a certain solution or policy approach to a problem.
Example:
Instead of drilling for oil in Alaska we should be
focusing on ways to reduce oil consumption, such as researching renewable energy
sources.
Which type of claim is right for your argument? Which
type of thesis or claim you use for your argument will depend on your position
and knowledge on the topic, your audience, and the context of your paper. You
might want to think about where you imagine your audience to be on this topic
and pinpoint where you think the biggest difference in viewpoints might be. Even
if you start with one type of claim you probably will be using several within
the paper. Regardless of the type of claim you choose to utilize it is key to
identify the controversy or debate you are addressing and to define your
position early on in the paper!
