Both thesis samples would get an A because I wrote and graded them. But seriously, both begin with a dependent clause (While . . .), which creates a concession to your opponent, a sign of sophisticated writing. Both have mapping components (3), and both have an argumentative edge, which leads to rigorous exposition. Also, I've written contradictory thesis statements to show that an A-level thesis is rooted in style and intellectual rigor, not the position one takes.
Here is a thesis that rejects Abramsky's argument:
While Abramsky makes a solid and noble case for removing prison abuses, her lack of “real life” experience contributes to a rather naïve argument for a more humanitarian prison approach, which ignores the near impossibility of ferreting real psychos from fakers, compromises guard safety for prisoner freedoms, and blue-printing an improved, high-cost prison model for which there is an egregious lack of funds.
Here is an A thesis that supports Abramsky:
While Abramsky’s refutation of the supermax system reveals some serious flaws, her argument for reform must be embraced with great urgency, for failure to do so will only endanger prison guards, exacerbate criminal behavior, set the stage for gross prison abuses and mismanagement, and in the long-term pose a greater threat to the security of our society.
Comments