Defining a thesis:
A thesis is a meaningful claim or argument that is the central focus of your essay, that you can defend with credible information, that will outline an essay of 1,200 words or more, that is challenging enough to be appropriate for college-level writing, that has high stakes, and that defies simple analysis.
- The thesis or claim is the central focus of your essay. It is the reason you are writing your essay. To stray from your thesis is to betray your original intention.
- The thesis is based on an informed opinion based on credible research. Your research has been peer reviewed and is rooted in reality. To look to “research” based on a fever swamp of unproven conspiracies and misinformation is to present an essay that is disconnected from reality. We live in an age where even facts and reality itself are disputed. This is a very specific crisis called the epistemic crisis. You can read about this crisis in Jonathan Rauch’s book The Constitution of Knowledge.
- A strong thesis may have reasons contained in the sentence. These reasons are also called mapping components. They outline your essay’s body paragraphs. Observe the following example: Working from the home is more viable for most companies because working from the home saves your workers from commute time, doesn’t expose workers to illnesses resulting in lost work time, reduces work theft opportunities, reduces company expenses such as heat, AC, lighting, etc., and takes advantage of the technology that’s cheaply available to make your employees’ home office an efficient business office.
- The thesis can generate an essay that is 1,200 words or more means the thesis is demonstrable: You can defend the thesis with reasoning, logic, examples, and research.
- Your thesis has high stakes. You present an argument and the listener or reader doesn’t feel compelled to say “So what?” Rather, you have chosen a topic that is relevant, vital, and urgent to the human condition.
- Your thesis defies simple analysis. You are avoiding the obvious and factual such as “What the world needs now is love.” Rather, you are focusing on debatable topics.
Review 3 Selected Thesis Statements
Thesis for Self-Agency with a Caveat
While I will concede that systemic injustice has to be acknowledged when we are talking about those people who exist in “survival mode,” languishing in homelessness or close to it, I will argue that even the working poor can benefit from a health quest based on self-agency in which they become health literate, minimize the “poison” foods--processed, sugar, and alcohol, and replace mindless entertainment with an hour of equipment-free home exercise.
Thesis for Self-Agency with a Caveat and a More Specific Prescription
With the exception of those who are living in the streets or are close to it, rendering them in survival mode, people with a minimum of a working-class income can and should learn to take responsibility for their health. First, they should replace all sugar, refined foods, and alcohol with a Mediterranean or Okinawan diet; second, with a minimum investment and free YouTube videos, they can learn to use kettlebells or practice fast-paced Ashtanga yoga in the privacy of their own home. Third, asserting the practice of self-agency in their lives will improve their self-confidence and self-esteem. Fourth, most of their excuses such as “I don’t have enough time,” are bogus. A night of Netflix can be replaced with a yoga or kettlebell workout. Fifth, replacing the malaise of inertia with consistent exercise and healthy eating will ameliorate their depression and in essence give them the free psychotherapy they so desperately need.
Thesis Modeled After the Philosophy of Frederick Douglass
McMahon has assigned us an argumentative essay in which we address either social injustice or self-agency as the appropriate method for improving our healthy weight management. McMahon’s topic is an important and relevant one because owning our health is essential to being full members of society and pursuing the American dream of freedom and happiness, but let us discard the either/or fallacy implicit in his assignment. Just as we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can champion both social justice and self-agency simultaneously. We can look to the model that embraces systemic injustice and self-agency by emulating the greatest American in history--Frederick Douglass. A freed slave and eloquent writer whose works were translated into hundreds of languages during his lifetime, Douglass became the greatest American critic of America’s systemic injustice. He stood in Abraham Lincoln’s face and told Lincoln to stop blaming the slaves for the Civil War and by persuading Lincoln of committing folly by blaming the victims, Lincoln reworded his Emancipation Proclamation. At the same time, Frederick Douglass was an advocate of self-agency. At age thirteen, Douglass purchased a book “teaching principles of eloquence and oratory” and an “antislavery message,” The Columbian Orator, which he read over and over. This book alone taught Douglass an important lesson: A powerful book can transform a person’s life. One passage in particular, a dialogue between a master and his slave, addressed the dehumanization of the slave by denying the slave the full attributes of free-will and self-agency. Developing literacy and the powers of reason were essential to being fully human and being unshackled by physical oppressors and mental ones alike. Flourishing as a free human and eloquent speaker, Frederick Douglass became an international champion of human rights and “the greatest abolitionist voice in American history.” In addition to fighting actual slavery, Douglass argued for the freedom from an unstructured life through education. Rosen writes: “In his ‘Self-made Men’ speech, Douglass distilled the principles that he first encountered in The Columbian Orator to make the case that the purpose of liberty is to allow all human beings to educate themselves.” Only through a structured life of self-education can we be free and whole. We must clear the mind of clutter and learn how to focus on what matters. As Rosen writes: “He embraces the central tenet of faculty psychology that the mind is its own place, responsible for its own happiness through virtuous self-control: ‘Nothing can bring to man so much of happiness or so much of misery as man himself,’ Douglass writes.” Looking at Douglass’ life committed to attacking systemic injustice and the folly that erodes our self-agency, I will use Douglass’ heroic life to argue that we can pursue healthy weight management only by incorporating both the pursuit of social justice and at the same time assert our free will and self-discipline to achieve a life of health literacy and optimal physical fitness.
***
Sample Counterarguments and Rebuttals for Dieting Is a Fool’s Errand Essay
Typically, when we write argumentation essays, we devote a section of our essay, usually before our conclusion, that addresses our opponents’ disagreement with our central argument or the way we anticipate how our opponents will object to our essay’s claim.
We want to make a clear presentation of how and why our imagined opponents might disagree with us. This is called the counterargument.
We then examine the counterargument and offer a rebuttal or refutation of that counterargument.
Here are some examples for the essay that addresses the claim that losing weight is such a futile endeavor that dieting surely is a fool’s errand.
Example of a Counterargument and Rebuttal for Essay That Supports Idea That Dieting Is a Fool’s Errand
I can anticipate my opponents taking my claim that dieting is a fool’s errand for the economically challenged as bait for accusing me of “dietary nihilism,” the notion that we should throw care to the wind and engage in reckless disregard when it comes to our bodies, indulging in gluttony, and being both beholden and addicted to the food industry’s myriad of fat-, salt-, and sugar-laden foods. On the contrary, I am no dietary nihilist. I am a dietary realist or pragmatist. My approach is not to focus on weight loss but on health by cultivating a love for cooking whole foods, avoiding processed foods, and having the food literacy to know the difference.
Example of a Counterargument and Rebuttal for Essay That Refutes Idea That Dieting Is a Fool’s Errand
I am a staunch defender of the idea that we should not let the majority of dieters, doomed to fail for a myriad of reasons too many to list here, be an excuse for our own individual aspirations to manage our weight and live a healthy lifestyle. My opponents will point out, correctly, that many lack the time and resources to buy and prepare healthy foods. I concede their point. For many hard-working Americans, time and budget constraints impede them from devoting the kind of time and resources necessary for a permanent weight-loss plan. But my fellow Americans’ dietary failures, however legitimate, do not excuse me for taking personal responsibility for my own dietary success. The truth of the matter is I have the familial, financial, and environmental support to succeed at my dietary goals, and my particular situation is such that dieting is not a fool’s errand. Rather, dieting and keeping excess weight off is a moral imperative.
Example of Counterargument and Rebuttal for Essay That Supports Idea That Dieting Is a Fool’s Errand
Since the overwhelming majority of Americans lack the time and resources to devote to full-time dieting, I stand by my argument that dieting for the most part is a fool’s errand. My opponents will point out that there are some Americans who enjoy enough financial comfort and discretionary time to devote to their weight-loss plan. But this amount of Americans is too minuscule to make a drop in the bucket, so to speak, when it comes to successful dieting because we cannot really talk about dieting as a fool’s errand, or not unless we talk about viability and sustainability for most people. If we can’t scale successful dieting for the masses, then dieting indeed is a fool’s errand with the exception of a very elite and specialized class of people who can meet all the caveats and conditions for succeeding at permanent weight loss. And I would remind the elite class that even they have a strong probability of failing, so my contention that dieting is a fool’s errand stands.
***
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise Based on a False Assumption: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy (false assumption).
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Rolex Deepsea Dweller wristwatch.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Major Premise Based on a False Assumption: I need to go on a diet because staying on a diet will exercise my willpower, increase my self-esteem, and make me healthier.
Minor Premise: Every time I go on a diet, I fail after a few months.
Conclusion: I must have lousy willpower, lousy self-esteem, and lousy health.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Going on a diet is good for you because diets make you lose weight, and losing weight is a good thing.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
Finding the right diet is like finding your perfect soul mate.
A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
You attack the person but not the argument.
Harriet Brown looks like a bitter person so we shouldn’t believe what she writes about dieting.
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist, distort, and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
“I told you to go off Twitter because it’s toxic and feeds your addiction, not because I’m jealous of your popularity on Twitter. Don’t twist my words.”
“Don’t accuse me of hating my country when I criticize it. I criticize my country because I have high expectations for it. The day I stop criticizing my country is the day I’ve given up on it.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
You base a generality on an insufficient sample.
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three American celebrities with fake British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all American celebrities, such as Madonna, have fake British accents.”
“Every vegan I’ve ever met is preachy, judgmental, and looks anemic and undernourished.”
“Every guy I’ve met who is obsessed with the band Rush is middle-aged, chain smokes, underemployed, and still lives with his parents.”
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue makes an oversimplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, then what’s next? We’ll have to allow people to marry turtles.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored. I will not allow you to disrespect my marriage.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be. That is the basis of a successful marriage. Look at divorce today. It’s because we’ve forgotten our traditional roles.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Identify the Logical Fallacy Below
Bailey, why do you cheat? Of course you. Look at your grades. All, As, Bailey. Does that not suggest something to you? A's are a sign of perfection. Only God is perfect, Bailey. You're not God, so perfection is impossible. Therefore, you can't have straight As unless you cheat. Surely, you're not God. Therefore, you're a cheater and a liar."
False Syllogism
Brother Leon uses false logic in the form of a false syllogism to accuse Bailey of cheating.
- Bailey, why do you cheat?
- Bailey earns straight A's.
- A's are a sign of perfection.
- Only God is perfect.
- Bailey can't be God and enjoy God's perfection.
- Therefore, Bailey is a cheater and a liar.
Comments