(excerpted from: D. Rosenwasser & J. Stephen, eds., Writing Analytically, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. 1997.)
Weak thesis statements take various forms. Often they contain cliched, obvious, or overly general ideas and so don't need or are not worth proving. Other kinds of weak theses substitute for analysis either a global value judgment (for example, individualism is good) or a personal like or dislike (for example, shopping malls are wonderful places). To reiterate the definition we offered in Chapter 4: a strong thesis makes a claim that needs proving; a weak thesis either makes no claim or is an assertion that does not need proving.
We now turn to examples of five kinds of weak thesis statements--actual excerpts from student papers-and show how they can be reworded in ways that will lead to analysis.
WEAK THESIS TYPE 1: THE THESIS MAKES NO CLAIM
The following statements are not productive theses because they do not advance an idea about the topics the papers will explore.
Problem Examples
I'm going to write about Darwin's concerns with evolution in The Origin of Species.
This paper will address the characteristics of a good corporate manager.
The problem examples name a subject and link it to the intention to write about it, but they don't make any claim about that subject. As a result, they direct neither the writer nor the reader toward some position or plan of attack. The second problem example begins to move toward a point of view through the use of the value judgment "good," but there is still no assertion-no framework for analysis. The statement--of--intention thesis invites a list: one paragraph for each quality the writer chooses to call "good." Even if the thesis were rephrased as "This paper will address why a good corporate manager needs to learn to delegate responsibility," the thesis would not adequately suggest why such a claim would need to be argued or defended. There is, in short, nothing at stake-no issue to be resolved.
Solution
Raise specific issues for the essay to explore.
Solution Examples
Darwins’ concern with survival of the fittest in The Origin of Species leads him to neglect a potentially conflicting aspect of his theory of evolution-survival as a matter of interdependence.
The very trait that makes for an effective corporate manager-the drive to succeed can also make the leader domineering and therefore ineffective.
It should be noted that some disciplines expect writers to offer a statement
of method and/or intention in their papers' openings. Generally, however,
these openings also make a claim: for example, "In this paper I will examine
how congressional Republicans undermined the attempts of the Democratic
administration to legislate a fiscally responsible health care policy for
the elderly," not "In this paper I will discuss America's treatment of
the elderly."
WEAK THESIS TYPE 2:
THE THESIS IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE OR IS A STATEMENT OF FACT
The following statements are not productive theses because they do not require proof. A thesis needs to be an assertion with which it would be possible for readers to disagree.
Problem Examples
The jean industry targets its advertisements to appeal to young adults.
The flight from teaching to research and publishing in higher education is a controversial issue in the academic world. I will show different views and aspects concerning this problem.
If few people would disagree with the claim that a thesis makes, there is no point in writing an analytical paper on it. Though one might deliver an inspirational speech on a position that virtually everyone would support (such as the value of tolerance), endorsements and appreciations don't lead to analysis; they merely invite people to feel good about their convictions.
In the second problem example above, few readers would disagree with the fact that the issue is "controversial." In the second sentence of that example, the writer has begun to identify a point of view-that the flight from teaching is a "problem"--but her next declaration, that she will "show different views and aspects," is a statement of fact, not an idea. The phrasing of the claim is noncommittal and so broad that it prevents the writer from formulating a workable thesis.
Solution
Find some avenue of inquiry--a question about the facts or an issue raised by them. Make an assertion with which it would be possible for readers to disagree.
Solution Examples
By inventing new terms, such as "loose fit" and "relaxed fit,"
the jean industry has attempted to normalize, even glorify, its product
for an older and fatter generation.
The "flight from teaching" to research and publishing in higher
education is a controversial issue in the academic world. As I will attempt
to show, the controversy is based to a significant degree on a false assumption,
that doing research necessarily leads teachers away from the classroom.
WEAK THESIS TYPE 3: THE THESIS RESTATES CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Restatement of one of the many cliches that constitute a culture's conventional wisdom is not a productive thesis unless you have something to say about it that hasn't been said many times before.
Problem Examples
An important part of one's college education is learning to better understand others' points of view.
From cartoons in the morning to adventure shows at night, there is too much violence on television,
I was supposed to bring the coolers; you were supposed to bring the chips!" exclaimed ex-Beatle Ringo Starr, who appeared on TV commercials for Sun County Wine Coolers a few years ago. By using rock music to sell a wide range of products, the advertising agencies, in league with corporate giants such as Pepsi, Michelob, and Ford, have corrupted the spirit of rock and roll.
All of these examples say nothing worth proving because they are cliches.
(Conventional wisdom is a polite term for cliches Most cliches were
fresh ideas once, but over time they have become trite, prefabricated forms
of nonthinking. Faced with a phenomenon that requires a response, many
inexperienced writers rely on a knee-jerk reaction: they resort to a small
set of culturally approved "an-
swers' " In this sense, cliches resemble statements of fact, but they
usually aren't. So commonly accepted that most people nod to them without
thinking, statements of conventional wisdom make people feel a comfortable
sense of agreement with one another. The problem with this kind of
packaged solution is that conventional
wisdom is so general and so conventional that it doesn't teach anybody-including
the writer-anything. Worse, since the cliche appears to be an idea, it
prevents the
writer from engaging in a fresh, open-minded exploration of his or
her subject. There is some truth in all of the problem examples,
but none of them complicates its position. A thoughtful reader could, for
example, respond to the claim that advertising has corrupted the spirit
of rock and roll by suggesting that rock and roll was highly commercial
long before it colonized the air-waves. The conventional wisdom that rock
and roll is somehow pure and honest while advertising is phony and exploitative
in fact invites the savvy writer to formulate a thesis that overturns these
cliches. As our solution example demonstrates, one could argue that rock
actually has improved advertising, not that ads have ruined rockor alternatively,
that rock has shrewdly marketed idealism to a gullible populace, at least
since the love generation captured the national imagination in the late
sixties. At the least, a writer deeply committed to the original thesis
would do better to examine what it was that Ringo was selling-what he stands
for in this particular case-than to discuss rock and advertising in such
general terms.
Solution
Seek to complicate-see more than one point of view on-your subject. Avoid conventional wisdom unless you can qualify it or introduce a fresh perspective on it.
Solution Examples
Although an important part of one's college education is learning to better understand others' points of view, a persistent danger is that the students will simply be required to substitute the teacher's answers for the ones they grew up uncritically believing.
Although some might argue that the presence
of rock and roll soundtracks in TV commercials has corrupted rock's spirit,
this point of view not only falsifies
the history of rock but also blinds us to the ways that the music has
improved the quality of television advertising.
WEAK THESIS TYPE 4: THE THESIS MAKES AN OVERLY BROAD CLAIM
An overly general claim is not a productive thesis because it oversimplifies and is too broad to direct development, Such statements usually lead either to 11 say-nothing" theses or to reductive categorical thinking.
Problem Examples
Violent revolutions have had both positive and negative results for humanity.
There are many similarities and differences between the Carolingian and the Burgundian Renaissances.
Othello is a play about love and jealousy.
It is important to understand why leaders act in a leadership role. What is the driving force? Is it an internal drive for the business or group to succeed, or is it an internal drive for the leader to dominate over others?
Overly generalized theses avoid complexity. At their worst, as in our first three examples, they settle for assertions broad enough to fit almost any subject and thus say nothing in particular about the subject at hand. A writer in the early stages of his or her drafting process might begin working from a general idea, such as what is positive and negative about violent revolutions or how two historical periods are like and unlike, but these formulations are not specific enough to guide the development of a paper. Such broad categories are likely to generate listing, not thinking. We can, for example, predict that the third thesis above will prompt the writer to produce a couple of paragraphs demonstrating that Othello is about love and then a couple of paragraphs demonstrating that Othello is about jealousy, without analyzing what the play says about either.
The best way to avoid this trap is to sensitize yourself to the characteristic phrasing of such theses: "both positive and negative," "many similarities and differences," "both pros and cons." Virtually everything from meatloaf to taxes can be both positive and negative..
Solution
Convert broad categories and generic (fits anything) claims to more specific assertions; find ways to bring out the complexity of your subject.
Solution Examples
The differences between the Carolingian and Burgundian Renaissances outweigh the similarities.
Although Othello appears to attack jealousy, it also supports the skepticism of thejealous characters over the naivete of the lovers.
A clear symptom of an overly generalized thesis can be found by looking at its grammar. Each of the first three problem examples, for example, relies mostly on nouns rather than verbs; the nouns announce a broad heading, but the verbs don't do anything with or to the nouns. In grammatical terms, these thesis statements don't predicate (affirm or assert something about the subject of a proposition). Instead, they rely on anemic verbs like is or are, which function as equal signs, linking general nouns with general adjectives, rather than specifying more complex relationships.
By replacing the equal sign with a more active verb, you can force yourself to advance some sort of claim, as in one of our solutions, for example: "The differences between the Carolingian and Burgundian Renaissances outweigh the similarities." Although this reformulation remains quite general, it at least begins to direct the writer along a more particular line of argument. Replacing the equal sign will usually impel you to rank ideas in some order of importance and to assert some conceptual relation among them.
In other words, the best way to remedy the problem of overgeneralization is to move toward specificity in word choice, in sentence structure, and in idea. If you find yourself writing "The economic situation is bad," consider revising it to "The tax policies of the current administration threaten to reduce the tax burden on the middle class by sacrificing education and health-care programs for everyone":
Broad Noun + Weak Verb + Vague, Evaluative Adjective
The economic situation is bad.
Specific Noun + Active Verb + Assertive Predicate
(The) tax policies (of the threaten to reduce by sacrificing
education and
current administration) (the tax burden on health-care programs
for
the middle class) everyone.
By eliminating the weak thesis formula-broad nouns + is + vague, evaluative
adjective__a writer is compelled to qualify, or define carefully each of
the terms in the original proposition, arriving at a more particular and
conceptually richer assertion
.
Our fourth problem example, inquiring into the motivation of leaders
in business, demonstrates how the desire to generalize can drive writers
into logical errors.
Because this thesis overtly offers readers two possible answers to its
central question, it appears to avoid the problem of oversimplifying a
complex subject. But this appearance of complexity is deceptive because
the writer has reduced the possibilities to only two answers-an either/or
choice: is the driving force of leadership a desire for group success or
a desire to dominate others? Readers can only be frustrated by being asked
to choose between two such options when the more logical answer probably
lies somewhere in between or somewhere else altogether.
WEAK THESIS TYPE 5:
THE THESIS ADVANCES UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION
A statement of one's personal convictions or one's likes or dislikes does not alone supply sufficient grounds for a productive thesis.
Problem Examples
The songs of the punk rock group Minor Threat relate to the feelings of individuals who dare to be different. Their songs are just composed of pure emotion. Pure emotion is very important in music, because it serves as a vehicle to convey the important message of individuality. Minor Threat's songs are meaningful to me because I can identify with them.
Sir Thomas More's Utopia proposes an unworkable set of solutions to society's problems because, like communist Russia, it suppresses individualism
Although I agree with Jeane Kirkpatrick's argument that environmentalists and businesses should work together to ensure the ecological future of the world, and that this cooperation is beneficial for both sides, the indisputable fact is that environmental considerations should always be a part of any decision that is made.
Any individual, if he looks deeply enough into his soul, knows what is right and what is wrong. The environment should be protected because it is the right thing to do, not because someone is forcing you to do it.
Like conventional wisdom, personal likes and dislikes can lead inexperienced writers into knee-jerk reactions of approval or disapproval, often expressed in a moralistic tone. The writers of the problem examples above assume that their primary job is to judge their subjects, riot to evaluate them analytically. As a result, such writers lack critical detachment, not only from their topics, but, crucially, from their own assumptions and biases. They have taken personal opinions for self-evident truths.
The most blatant version of this tendency occurs in the third problem example, which asserts, "Any individual, if he looks deeply enough into his soul, knows what is right and what is wrong. The environment should be protected because it is the right thing to do." Translation (only slightly exaggerated): "Any individual who thinks about the subject will obviously agree with me because my feelings and convictions feel right to me, and therefore they must be universally and selfevidently true." The problem is that this writer is not distinguishing between his own likes and dislikes (or private convictions) and what he takes to be "right," "real," or "true" for everyone else. Testing an idea against your own feelings and experience is not an adequate means of establishing whether something is accurate or true.
Solution
Try on other points of view honestly and dispassionately; treat your ideas as hypotheses to be tested rather than obvious truths. In the following solution examples, we have replaced opinions (in the form of self-evident truths) with ideas-theories about the meaning and significance of their subjects that could be supported with evidence.
Solution Examples
Sir Thomas More's Utopia treats individualism as a serious but remediable social problem. His radical treatment of what we might now call "socialization" attempts to redefine the meaning and origin of-individual identity.
Although I agree with Jeane Kirkpatrick's argument that environmentalists and businesses should work together to ensure the ecological future of the world, her argument undervalues the necessity of pressuring businesses to attend to environmental concerns that may not benefit them in the short run.
It is fine, of course, to write about what you believe and to consult your feelings as you formulate an idea. But the risk you run in arguing from your unexamined feelings and convictions is that you will prematurely dismiss from consideration anything that is unfamiliar or does not immediately conform to what you already believe. The less willing you are to test these established and habitual convictions, the less chance you will have to refine or expand the ways in which you think. You will continue to play the same small set of tunes in response to everything you hear. And without the ability to think from multiple perspectives, you will be less able to defend your convictions against the ideas that challenge them because you won't really have examined the logic of your own beliefs.
At the root of this problem lurks an anti-analytical bias that predisposes many writers to see any challenge to their habitual ways of thinking as the enemy and to view those who would raise this challenge as cynics who don't believe in anything. Such writers often feel personally attacked, when in fact the conviction they are defending is not really so personal after all. Consider, for example, the first two problem examples, in which both writers take individualism to be an incontestable value. Where does this conviction come from? Neither of the writers arrived at the thesis independent of the particular culture in which they were raised, permeated as it is by the "rugged individualism" of John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone movies.
In other words, individualism as an undefined blanket term verges on cultural cliche. That it is always "good" or "positive" is a piece of conventional wisdom. But part of becoming educated is to take a took at such global and undefined ideas that one has uncritically assimilated. Clearly, the needs and rights of the individual in contemporary American culture are consistently being weighed and balanced against the rights of other individuals and the necessity of cooperation in groups. Look at the recent nationwide concerns with health maintenance organizations (HMOs), which control health costs but constrain the individualism of the physician, or with the rights of crime victims who are banding together to seek support from a government they believe is protecting the individual rights of the criminal at the expense of the individual rights of the victim.
In light of these considerations, the writers of the first two problem examples would have to question the extent to which they can attack a book or support a rock band merely on the basis of whether or not each honors individualism. If the author of the second problem example had been willing to explore how Thomas More conceives of and critiques individualism, he or she might have been able to arrive at a revealing analysis of the tension between the individual and the collective rather than merely dismissing the entire book.
This is not to say that the first requirement of analytical writing
is that you abandon all conviction or argue for a position that you do
not believe. But we are
suggesting that the risk of remaining trapped within a limited set
of culturally inherited opinions is greater than the risk that you will
run by submerging your personal likes or dislikes and instead honestly
and dispassionately trying on different points of view. The energy of analytical
writing comes not from rehearsing your convictions but from treating them
as hypotheses to be tested, as scientists do-finding the boundaries of
your ideas, reshaping parts of them, seeing connections you have not seen
before.
THE DANGERS OF CATEGORICAL THINKING
Looking back over the examples in this section, you will notice that a number of them engage in what is called categorical thinking. That is, they are overly global, -inclined to all-or-nothing claims. Good analytical writing makes careful distinctions; categorical thinking puts everything into big, undifferentiated categories, labeled all black or all white, with nothing in between.
Categorical thinking is an unavoidable and distinctive feature of how
all human beings go about analyzing a subject. In order to generalize from
particular experiences, we try to put those experiences into meaningful
categories. But it can be dangerous when these categories are not only
too broad but also too simply connected, as in the either/or choices to
which categorical thinking is prone: approve/ disapprove, real/unreal,
accurate/inac curate, believable/ unbelievable. Such thinking often comes
down to a basic decision either to support the subject or to denounce it.
This rush to value judgment can so dominate a writer's attention that he
or she fails to examine not only the values upon which the judgment is
based but also the subject itself. The writer who evaluates leadership
in terms of its selflessness /selfishness, for example, needs to pause
to consider why we should evaluate leadership in these terms in the first
place.
TWO WAYS TO IMPROVE
THE LOGIC OF YOUR THESIS STATEMENTS
We will refer to the following two examples to illustrate how to strengthen the logic of your thesis statements by qualifying your claims and checking for the unstated assumptions upon which your claims depend.
Example I I think that there are many things shown on television that are damaging for people to see. But there is no need for censorship. No network is going to show violence without the approval of the public, obviously for financial reasons. What must be remembered is that the public majority will see what it wants to see in our mass society.
Example 11
Some members of our society feel that [the televised cartoon series]
The Simpsons promotes wrong morals and values for our society. Other members
find it funny and entertaining. I feel that The Simpsons has a more positive
effect than a negative one. In relation to a real-life marriage, Marge
and Homer's marriage is pretty accurate. The problems they deal with are
not very large or intense. As for the family relationships, the Simpsons
are very close and love each other.
WAY 1: QUALIFY YOUR CLAIMS
The main problem with Example I is the writer's failure to qualify his ideas, a problem that causes him to generalize to the point of oversimplification. Note the writer's habit of stating his claims absolutely:
"there is no need for censorship"
"no network is going to show violence without"
"obviously for financial reasons"
“what must be remembered"
“the public majority will see"
We have italicized the words that make these claims unqualified.
Broad, pronouncement-like claims are difficult to support fairly. The
solution is for the writer to more carefully limit his claims, especially
his key premise about public approval. The assertion that a commercial
television industry will, for financial reasons, give the public "what
it wants" is true to an extent, but the writer needed to modify this claim
as well as considering other possibilities. Couldn't it also be argued,
for example, that, given the power of television to shape people's tastes
and opinions, the public sees not just what it wants but what it has been
taught to want? This necessary complication of the writer's argument about
public approval seriously undermines the credibility of his global assertion
that "there is no need for censorship." The remedy lies with qualifying
his thesis. Simply reversing it to "there is a need for censorship" would
not solve the problem, because the need for defining and limiting the writer's
position will be just as great on the other side of the issue.
Example 11 would appear to be more qualified than Example I (since
it acknowledges the possibility of at least two points of view). The writer
opens by attempting to acknowledge the existence of more than one point
of view on the show; and rather than broadly asserting that the show is
positive and accurate, she tempers these claims (as italics show): I feel
that The Simpsons has a more positive effect than a negative one. . . .";
"Marge and Homer's marriage is pretty accurate." These qualifications,
however, are superficial. Although "pretty" would seem to admit that the
show is not entirely accurate, the statements that follow the accuracy
claim do not pursue this qualification. The writer does not explore what
accuracy means. Instead, she assumes the standard of accuracy (that an
accurate show is a good show) as a given.
WAY 2: CHECK FOR UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS
Before she could convince us to approve of The Simpsons for its accuracy in depicting marriage, the writer of Example 11 would have to convince us that accuracy is a reasonable criterion for evaluating television shows (especially cartoons) rather than simply accepting it as an unstated assumption. One could certainly argue against her unstated premise. Would an accurate depiction of the life of a serial killer, for example, necessarily make for a "positive" show? Similarly, if a fantasy show has no interest in accuracy, is it necessarily "negative" and without moral value?
When writers present a debatable premise as if it were self-evidently true, the conclusions built upon it cannot stand. At the least, the writer of Example 11 needs to recognize her debatable premise, articulate it, and make an argument in support of it. She also needs to precede her judgment about the show with more analysis.
Before deciding that the show is "more positive than negative" and thus does not promote "wrong morals and values for our society," she needs to more deeply analyze what the show has to say about marriage, how it goes about making this statement, and why (in response to what).
Likewise, if the writer of Example I had looked at his own claims rather
than rushing to argue an absolute position on censorship, he would have
noticed how much of the thinking that underlies them remains unarticulated
and thus unexamined. His argument that "there is no need for censorship,"
for example, depends on the validity of another of his assertions, that
"no network is going to show violence without the approval of the public,
obviously for financial reasons." The writer's argument depends on readers'
accepting a position that he asserts ("obviously") as though it were too
clearly true to need defending. Spelling out the issue of the network's
financial dependence on public approval would help this writer clarify
and qualify his thesis. It would also allow him to sort out the logical
contradiction with his opening claim that "there are many things shown
on televison that are damaging for people to see." If televison networks
will only broadcast what the public approves of, then apparently the public
must approve of being damaged or fail to notice that it is being damaged.
If the public either fails to notice it is being damaged or approves of
it, aren't these credible arguments for, rather than against censorship?
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ARGUMENT AND INTERPRETATION
In order to formulate an insightful idea-an effective thesis-you may have to alter some of your conceptions of what writing is supposed to do. The agree/disagree mode of writing and thinking that you often see in editorials, hear on radio or television, and even practice sometimes in school may incline you to focus all your energy on the bottom line-aggressively advancing a claim for or against some view-without first engaging in the exploratory interpretation of evidence that is so necessary to arriving at thoughtful arguments.
Writing, especially as it is used in school, is often divided into kinds. And clearly, the kind of writing this book addresses--analysis--does differ in both method and aim from, say, descriptive writing or narration. Those of you who have been taught to write arguments may find that some of the prescriptions we offer on analytical writing seem to run counter to what you've learned. Our aim in this section is to break down unnecessary divisions between argument and analysis, proposing that the interpretive skill called "close reading" is essential to both.
A close reading explicates (unfolds) an interpretation by making explicit selected features of your subject that otherwise might not be readily recognized or understood. A close reading moves beyond the obvious, but it does not leap to some hidden meaning that is unconnected to the evidence. Rather, it follows logically from the evidence; the meaning is implicit in the details, waiting to be brought out by the writer careful enough to look closely and questioningly.
It is a common misconception that interpretation (close reading) occurs only in art or literature courses and that science, social science, and philosophy courses require a different kind of writing called "argument." Many of you will have been introduced to writing arguments through the debate model-writing pro or con on a given position, with the aim of defeating an imagined opponent and convincing your readers of the rightness of your position. But as the American College Dictionary says, "to argue implies reasoning or trying to understand; it does not necessarily imply opposition." It is this more exploratory, tentative, and dispassionate mode of argument that this book encourages you to practice.
Adhering to the more restrictive, debate-style definition of argument can create a number of problems for careful analytical writers:
1. By requiring writers to be oppositional, it inclines them to discount
or dismiss problems in the side or position they have chosen; they cling
to the same static position rather than testing it as a way of allowing
it to evolve.
2. It inclines writers toward either/or thinking rather than encouraging
them to formulate more qualified positions that integrate apparently opposing
viewpoints.
3. It overvalues convincing someone else at the expense of developing
understanding.
Too often interpretation and argument are treated as essentially different kinds of writing, each with a particular purpose. In practice, interpretation and argument are inseparable. As our examples in Chapter 4 show, even the most tentative and cautiously evolving interpretation is ultimately an argument; it asks readers to accept a particular interpretation of a set of data. And like argument, interpretation carefully connects evidence with claims; it does not, as it is sometimes misconceived, incline the writer toward undirected and purposeless impressionism.
Similarly, even the most passionately committed argument is an interpretation. Its credibility rests on the plausibility of its reading of evidence. You cannot argue from evidence unless you are first sure that you know what that evidence means. Most illogical argument occurs when writers assume that the meaning of their data is self-evident. In other words, you need to analyze your subject dispassionately before you can fairly argue a position about it.
Analysis is an important corrective to narrow and needlessly oppositional
thinking. A writer who is skeptical of global generalizations and of unexamined
value judgments may sound timid and even confused compared with the insistent
pronouncements of daytime talk shows and televised political debates. But
the effort you put into carefully formulating your ideas by qualifying
them, checking for unstated assumptions, and acknowledging rather than
ignoring problems in your position will make you a stronger writer and
thinker.
GUIDELINES FOR RECOGNIZING AND FIXING WEAK THESIS STATEMENTS
1 . Your thesis should make a claim with which it would be possible
for readers to disagree. Find some avenue of inquiry rather than defending
statements your readers would accept as obviously true.
2. Be skeptical of your first (often semiautomatic) response to a subject.
It will often be a cliche or too broad. Avoid conventional wisdom unless
you can qualify it or introduce a fresh perspective on it.
3. Convert broad categories and generic (fits anything) claims to more
specific assertions. Find ways to bring out the complexity of your subject.
4. Submit the wording of your thesis to this grammatical test: if it
follows the "abstract noun + is + evaluative adjective" formula ("The economic
situation is bad"), substitute a more specific noun and an active verb
that will force you to predicate something about a focused subject ("Tax
laws benefit the rich").
5. Treat your thesis as a hypothesis to be tested rather than an obvious
truth. Examine and question your own terms and categories rather than simply
accepting them.
6. Always work to uncover and make explicit the unstated assumptions
(premises) underlying your thesis. Don't treat debatable premises as givens.
7. As a rule, be suspicious of thesis statements that depend on words
such as real, accurate, believable, right, and good. These words frequently
signal that you are offering personal opinions-what "feels" right to you-as
self-evident truths for everybody.