THE THESIS
A viable thesis presents a clear position and initiates an academic discourse. To successfully fulfill this function, the thesis must fit within the following criteria.
1) The thesis is a complete sentence, not a fragment.
As a linguistic building block in an academic paper, the thesis should include a subject and verb that work together to communicate a complete thought.
2) The thesis is a statement, not a question.
While some writing may track an author’s investigation of a question, a thesis-driven paper posits an answer from the outset. This statement, however, need not conform to any predetermined structure, including the pervasive “divided thesis,” in which three supporting facts follow the initial claim.
3) The thesis asserts a stance between a simple matter of subjective taste and a hard statement of objective fact / ubiquitous wisdom.
The thesis must offer more than the mere reproduction of a fact that readers may definitely validated with a textbook, reference book, or even common knowledge. For example, the writer should avoid statements like, “The earth’s atmosphere includes elements other than oxygen.”
Similarly, a thesis garners little interest or credibility if it presents a position that pushes beyond the facts—yet still remains uncontestable by any reasonable reader. For example, the writer should also avoid statements like, “People prefer clean air.”
As a test to avoid these two disqualifiers, the writer might ask herself, “Will any readers reasonably argue against my claim?” If the answer to that question presents a resounding and unconditional, “no,” then the assertion requires further development to achieve the necessary contention provoked by a functional thesis.
4) The thesis shapes an argument that can be reasoned and supported with evidence rather than just opinion.
Even within the confines of the above stipulations, some statements may leave the writer with too few objective measures to support his claim. Statements that fall into this category may successfully surpass the simple recitation of certain fact and evolve beyond the safe reflection of ubiquitous opinion—but they may then rely too heavily on a subjective stance. For example, writers should avoid statements such as “The Rolling Stones recorded their most memorable music during Mick Taylor’s relative short tenure as lead guitarist.”
In this case, the thesis fails because music’s memorability depends on each listener’s infinitely variable and ultimately subjective experience with the sound. With this in mind, the above thesis presents an inarguable personal perspective. Furthermore, the sentence allows too much ambiguity. The reader cannot know if the writer is suggesting a causal relationship between Taylor’s playing and memorable music—or if the writer is simply using Taylor’s time with the band as a common way of designating a particular era of the Stone’s discography.
To avoid these problems, the writer might instead assert that, “Despite Brian Jones’ multi-instrumental abilities and near-mythical status, a track-by-track comparison suggests that the founding member’s contributions to Beggars Banquet, his last significant work with the Rolling Stones, fall short of the technical virtuosity and melodic sensibilities that Mick Taylor demonstrates on Sticky Fingers, the latter player’s first significant work with the band.”
The second thesis articulates a clear and specific position. It sets the stage for debate by limiting the content under consideration and designating the terms of comparison. It also helps the reader more easily follow and understand the writer’s position by acknowledging the following content’s structure: a track-by-track comparison of two albums.
Thoughts, Revised & Refined 