how to write a thesis for a philosophy paper

• Writing & Research Conference
• UW Course Descriptions
• Support the Writing Program

University Writing Program

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

A Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers

In some respects, writing an undergraduate-level philosophy paper is not unlike writing an undergraduate-level paper in any of the other humanities or social sciences.  In fact, one could argue that philosophical writing should act as a model for writing in other disciplines.  This is because one of the central aims of western philosophy, since its inception in Ancient Greece, almost two and a half millennia ago, has been to lay bare the structure of all forms of argument, and most undergraduate writing, in any subject, requires the use of argument to defend claims.  However, there are also important differences between the writing styles appropriate to philosophical papers and papers in other subjects.  Most notably, philosophy papers usually focus more on logical structure than on content: the point is not to synopsize exhaustive literature reviews, but, rather, to focus as much as possible on relatively narrow sets of claims, and investigate their logical inter-relations.  Philosophers are less interested in exhaustive cataloging of the latest information on a topic, than in the relations of logical, argumentative support that well-established claims bear to each other, and to certain enduring, controversial claims, like the claim that God exists.

In the following, I provide a four-part guide to writing an undergraduate-level philosophy paper.  First, I explain what philosophical  arguments  are, and how they can be evaluated.  The point of any philosophy paper is to formulate and/or evaluate philosophical arguments, so this brief, rudimentary discussion is essential as a starting point.  Second, I explain the structure and style appropriate for a philosophy paper.  Third, I give students some ideas about how to choose a topic and formulate a writing plan appropriate to a philosophy paper.  Fourth, and finally, I provide a short primer on logic, which can help students formulate and evaluate philosophical arguments.

Before proceeding, let me remark about the scope of this guide.  Although it is intended as a guide to writing philosophy papers for any philosophy WID class, many philosophy instructors would disagree with at least some part of what follows.  Western philosophy has been dominated by two divergent traditions for the last two hundred years or so: the “continental” tradition and the “analytic” or “Anglo-American” tradition.  The former is associated primarily with philosophers from continental Europe, especially Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Foucault.  The latter is associated primarily with philosophers who worked in the UK and the US (though many of its most prominent representatives are German natives).  Frege, Russell, Carnap, Austin, Grice, Strawson, and Quine, are among the most famous figures associated with this tradition.  Although it is difficult to briefly characterize the difference between these two traditions, roughly speaking, while the analytic tradition takes logic, mathematics, and science as models for doing philosophy, the continental tradition is more literary and impressionistic in its approach to philosophical problems.  I am trained in the analytic tradition, and the following writing guidelines reflect this.  Thus, before using this as a guide to your philosophical writing, make sure that your class and instructor are in the analytic tradition.  Although much of the advice I offer below is, I hope, relevant to classes in the continental tradition, it might also seriously misrepresent philosophical writing as understood from the continental perspective.

Even within the analytic tradition, there can be substantive disagreements about student writing.  For example, a colleague who works in the analytic tradition read an earlier draft of this guide and was, for the most part, impressed; however, he disagreed with my view that external sources are better paraphrased than directly cited.  Although I think most instructors working in the analytic tradition would agree with most of the guidelines I provide below, you should have your instructor skim them to make sure that he or she does not take exception to any of them.  As a guide to an initial, rough, paper draft, the following is, I think, an invaluable resource.  Subsequent drafts should incorporate specific comments from the instructor whose class you are taking.  

1. Philosophical Arguments

Understanding Arguments

The point of a philosophical paper is to make and evaluate philosophical arguments.  ‘Argument’ is a term of art in philosophy.  It means more than a mere dispute.  An argument, as philosophers use this term, is a set of claims, that is, a set of declarative sentences (sentences which can be true or false).  One of the claims is the conclusion of the argument: that which the argument attempts to prove.  The other claims are the premises of the argument: the reasons that are given in support of the conclusion.  The conclusion is a relatively controversial claim that the author aims to establish on the basis of relatively uncontroversial premises.  For example, St. Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher and theologian, famously provides five ways to prove the existence of God.  The conclusion of Aquinas’s arguments is that God exists – a controversial claim.  He tries to establish this conclusion on the basis of less controversial premises, e.g., that objects are in motion, that anything in motion must have been put in motion by a different thing already in motion, and that this chain of causes must begin at some point.

Because the construction and evaluation of arguments is the point of a philosophy paper, clarity, precision, and organization are of paramount importance.  One cannot determine whether or not some set of premises supports a conclusion unless both premises and conclusion are formulated clearly and precisely.  For example, consider the following argument: “Laws can be repealed by the legislature.  Gravity is a law.  Therefore, gravity can be repealed by the legislature.”   On one level, this argument appears to make sense: it appears to have the same form as many sound arguments, like, “Beverages can be warmed in the microwave.  Tea is a beverage.  Therefore, tea can be warmed in the microwave.”  However, there is obviously something wrong with the first argument.  The problem is that the world “law” is used in two different senses: in the first premise and the conclusion, it means roughly the same as “social rule enacted by political means”, while in the second premise, it means roughly the same as “natural law”.  Because the word “law”, as it is used in the second premise, means something entirely different from its use in the conclusion, the premise is of no relevance to the conclusion, and so, provides no logical support for it.  This shows why it is so important to be as precise and clear as possible in philosophical writing.  Words often mean different things in different contexts, and, unless their meaning is made as clear and precise as possible, it is impossible to tell whether or not the claims words are used to formulate support each other.

Organization is important to make clear the complex logical relations that different claims bear to each other.  Consider Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God, to which I allude above.  The conclusion is that God exists.  The premises are that objects are in motion, that objects can be put in motion only by other objects already in motion, that there is a chain of causes extending into the past, and that if this chain of causes were infinite then there would be no motion.  But how, exactly, do these premises conspire to establish the conclusion that God exists?  The key to answering this question is appreciating the structure or organization of the argument.  The structure of philosophical arguments can often be captured in a kind of flow-chart diagram.  Each ‘node’ is a claim (premise or conclusion), and links between nodes represent logical support.  So, for example, in Aquinas’s First Way, the node which represents the premise that objects are in motion does not link directly to the node which represents the conclusion: how can the claim that objects are in motion, alone, give sufficient logical support for the claim that God exists?  After all, atheists acknowledge that objects are in motion, yet deny that God exists.

The structure of Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God is approximated in the following diagram.

Note that the claim that objects are in motion (premise 1) must be joined with the claim that objects in motion are put in motion by other objects already in motion (premise 2), in order to support the claim that there is a causal chain of objects in motion extending into the past (premise 3), which constitutes the “sub-conclusion” of this “sub-argument”.  Premise 3 must then be joined with premise 5 – the claim that this causal chain begins at some point – in order to support the claim that there is a first cause responsible for all the motion in the world, identified by Aquinas as God (premise 6).  But premise 5 is not obvious on its own.  It needs support from still other premises.  For example, Aquinas claims that if there were no start to this chain of causes, none of the subsequent causes would occur (premise 4).  Together with premise 1, premise 4 then supports premise 5, which, together with premises 3 and 6, supports the claim that there must be a first cause, namely, God (C).  So premise 5 is another “sub-conclusion” of a “sub-argument”, which supports the ultimate conclusion (C).

The lesson from this example is that different claims have complicated relations of support to each other.  Some premises support the conclusion only when conjoined with other premises.  And other premises are like “sub-conclusions”, which must be supported by still other premises in “sub-arguments”, before they can be used to help establish the ultimate conclusion.  Since the goal of writing an undergraduate philosophy paper is to formulate and evaluate arguments, organization is crucial.  The author must make clear for the reader not just what the different premises and conclusions claim, but, also, how they relate to each other, that is, in what way they support each other.

Evaluating Arguments

There are only two ways that any argument can go wrong.  An argument is good when its premises count as good reasons for its conclusion.  What makes a premise a good reason for a conclusion?  First, the premise must be true, or at least more plausible than the conclusion.  For example, suppose I argue for the conclusion that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions on the basis of the following premises: the Bruins are likely the next Stanley Cup Champions, and they are based in Washington DC.  This argument fails because at least one of its premises is false: the Bruins are based in Boston, not Washington DC.  However, sometimes even true premises fail to qualify as good reasons for a conclusion.  For example, suppose I argue for the conclusion that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions on the basis of the following premises: the Redskins are likely the next Superbowl Champions, and they are based in Washington DC.  Here, the latter premise is true, and the previous premise may very well be true.  However, the argument is still bad.  The reason is that, even if these premises are true, they do not support the conclusion.  The claims that the Redskins are likely the next Superbowl Champions and that the Redskins are based in Washington DC, are  irrelevant  to the conclusion: the claim that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions.  So, there are two ways any argument can go wrong: either the premises it offers in support of its conclusion are false or implausible, or, even if they are true, they fail to support the conclusion because, for example, they are irrelevant to the conclusion.

Any philosophical writer must constantly keep these two potential pitfalls of argumentation in mind, both in formulating her own arguments and in evaluating the arguments of others.  Undergraduate philosophy papers are often devoted exclusively to evaluating the arguments of well-known philosophers.  Such critical papers must be guided by four basic questions: (1) What, precisely, do the premises and conclusion claim? (2) How, precisely, are the premises supposed to support the conclusion, i.e., what is the organization/structure of the argument? (3) Are the premises true/plausible? (4) Do the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion?  Note that philosophical critiques of arguments seldom attack the conclusion directly.  Rather, the conclusion is undermined by showing the premises to be false or implausible, or by showing that the premises, even if true, do not provide adequate support for the conclusion.  Conclusions are attacked directly only on the grounds of imprecision or lack of clarity.

Despite the fact that arguments can be criticized on the grounds that their premises are false or implausible, most philosophical writing is focused not on determining the truth of premises, but, rather, on determining whether or not premises provide strong enough support for conclusions.  There are three reasons for this.  First, the most enduring philosophical arguments take as little for granted as possible: they rely on premises that are maximally uncontroversial – likely to be accepted by everyone – in order to prove conclusions that are controversial.  Second, most philosophers have a strong background in logic.  Logic is the science of argument: it aims to identify what all good arguments have in common and what all bad arguments have in common.  But logic can be used only to evaluate the support that premises provide for a conclusion, never the truth or plausibility of the premises themselves.  Any argument must take some claims as unargued starting points; otherwise, the argument could never get off the ground, as any premise would require a prior argument to be established.  But logic can evaluate only arguments, so it cannot be used to evaluate the unargued starting premises with which any argument must begin.  Third, the premises upon which many arguments depend often depend on observation, either in everyday life, or in specialized, scientific contexts such as experiments.  But philosophers are not, for the most part, trained in experimental methodologies.  They are trained in determining what follows logically from experimental results established in science or from common, everyday observations.

I discuss strategies for evaluating and formulating philosophical arguments in more detail below, in section 4.  Now I turn to the structure and style appropriate for a philosophy paper.  

2. Appropriate Structure and Style for a Philosophy Paper

Organizing the Paper

Although the philosophical canon includes a wide variety of styles and structures, including argumentative essays, axiomatically-organized systems of propositions, dialogs, confessions, meditations, historical narratives, and collections of aphorisms, most of these styles and structures are inappropriate for the novice, undergraduate, philosophical writer.  Because the main concern of undergraduate philosophical writing is the formulation and evaluation of arguments, style and structure must be chosen with these goals in mind.  As we have seen, precision, clarity, and organization are key to the understanding, formulation, and evaluation of arguments.  If one’s language is not clear and precise, it is impossible to know what claims are being made, and therefore, impossible to determine their logical inter-relations.  If one’s arguments are not clearly organized, it is difficult to determine how the different premises of an argument conspire to support its conclusion.  As we saw above, with the example of Aquinas’ First Way to prove the existence of God, arguments are often composed of “sub-arguments” defending “sub-conclusions” that constitute premises in overall arguments.  Unless such logical structure is perspicuously represented in a philosophy paper, the reader will lose track of the relevance that different claims bear to each other, and the paper will fail to enlighten the reader.

The best way to impose clarity and structure on a philosophy paper is to begin with a brief, clear, and concise introduction, outlining the organization of the rest of the paper.  This introduction should be treated as a “map” of the rest of the paper that will prepare the reader for what is to follow.  Alternatively, one may think of it as a “contract” with the reader: the author promises to discuss such and such related claims, in such and such an order.  The introduction should make clear the logical inter-relations between the different claims that the paper will defend, and the order in which the claims will be discussed.  With such an outline in hand, the writer can then organize the rest of the paper into numbered, sub-titled sub-sections, each devoted to the different parts of her argument, in the order outlined in the introduction.  This helps maintain focus and clarity throughout the paper for the reader.

One of the greatest pitfalls in philosophical writing is distraction by tangential topics.  Philosophical themes are extremely broad, and many of them are relevant to almost anything.  So it is very tempting for a novice philosophical writer (and even for seasoned veterans) to stray from her original topic in the course of writing the paper.  This throws the writer’s main goal – that of clearly articulating an argument capable of convincing a reader – into jeopardy; however, this danger can be avoided if the writer makes clear in the introduction exactly what components of a topic, and in what order, she intends to discuss and why, and then uses this to organize the rest of the paper.  If the writer does this, readers should know exactly “where they are” in the overall argument, at any point in the paper, simply by noting the number and title of the sub-section they are reading, and referring to the introduction to understand its role in the paper’s overall argument.

A good introduction to a 10-page philosophy paper should take up no more than two-thirds of a page.  It should accomplish three main objectives: (1) setting up the context for the paper, i.e., which philosophical debate or topic is the focus, (2) expressing the thesis of the paper, i.e., the conclusion it aims to defend, and (3) explaining, in broad terms, how the paper aims to defend this conclusion, i.e., what are the components of the argument, and in what order they will be discussed.  The first objective, setting up the context, often requires reference to historically important philosophers known for defending claims related to the thesis of the paper.  The components of the argument might include, first, an overview of how others have argued for or against the thesis, then a few sections on different assumptions made in these arguments, then a section in which the author provides her own argument for the thesis, and then a conclusion.

Consider the following example of an introduction to a paper about Aquinas’ First Way to prove the existence of God.

Aquinas, famously, provides five arguments for the existence of God.  In the following, I focus on his First Way to prove the existence of God: the argument from motion.  The claim that there can be no causal chains extending infinitely into the past plays a crucial role in this argument.  In this paper, I argue against this claim, thereby undermining Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God.  First, I explain Aquinas’s argument, and the role that the claim about infinite causal chains plays in it.  Second, I explain Aquinas’s defense of this claim.  Third, I raise three objections to this defense.  I conclude by drawing some broader lessons for the question of God’s existence.

Notice that, despite its brevity, this introduction is very specific and clear regarding what the author intends to accomplish in the paper.  The thesis is stated clearly and concisely.  Brief reference to Aquinas, his five proofs for the existence of God, and the specific proof on which the paper focuses provide necessary context.  Specificity and clarity are aided further with the use of numbering.  The reader knows to expect four sections following the introduction, and she knows exactly what each section will try to accomplish, and its role in the overall project of the paper.  She knows to expect three objections to the argument that is the main target of the paper, in the third section after the introduction.  And the writer can now easily structure the paper into five, numbered sub-sections (including the introduction), with appropriate titles, meant to periodically remind the reader of where she is in the overall argument.

When the writer starts with such a well-defined structure, it is relatively easy to avoid the pitfall of tangential distractions.  Beginning with such an introduction is not meant to be unreasonably constraining.  In the course of writing the paper, an author might revise her thinking about the topic, and be forced to reconceptualize the paper.  She would then have to begin by revising the introduction, and, consequently, the organization of the paper.  This is a natural part of paper revision.  So, the introduction should not be treated as though it were written in stone.  In early drafts, the introduction should serve as a provisional source of constraint for organizing one’s thoughts about the topic.  As one’s thoughts evolve, the introduction can be rewritten, and the paper reorganized, to reflect this.  But beginning with an introduction that specifies the organization of the paper in substantial detail serves as an important constraint on one’s writing and thinking, insuring that one’s topic is investigated systematically.

1. Plain Language for a Non-Specialist Audience: Much canonical philosophy is opaque and difficult to understand for the novice.  A common reaction to this in undergraduate writing is the use of obscure “academic-sounding” language, of which students have only minimal mastery, in an attempt to sound intelligent and equal to the task of explaining and criticizing canonical philosophical arguments.  This must be avoided at all costs.  Good philosophy papers must employ clear,  plain  language, in short sentences and short, well-organized paragraphs.  It is impossible to evaluate the cogency of arguments unless they are expressed in terms that are easily understood.  Students must not assume that instructors know in what senses they intend esoteric, philosophical vocabulary, nor what lessons they have drawn from the sources they have been reading.  Unless a student can express and defend claims using words with which they, and any educated layperson are familiar, it is doubtful that they fully understand these claims.  Students should write for an imagined audience composed of family members, friends and acquaintances.  They should use words that any educated, non-specialist would understand in order to explain the more opaque canonical arguments their papers discuss, and in order to formulate their own responses to these arguments.  This attitude both insures that the language students use is clear and precise, and shows the instructor the degree to which students have understood the more opaque canonical arguments they discuss.

2. Illustration with Examples: One of the most important components of a good undergraduate philosophy paper is the copious use of concrete, everyday examples to illustrate abstract and sometimes obscure philosophical points.  For example, the claim that a moving object must be put in motion by a different object already in motion is one of the key assumptions of Aquinas’s first argument for the existence of God.  But this is a fairly abstract and potentially confusing way of expressing a familiar fact.  Such abstract and potentially obscure means of expression are inevitable in philosophy because philosophers aim to defend maximally general conclusions: claims that are true in all circumstances, everywhere and always.  In order to defend such general claims, familiar observations must be couched in the most general terms possible, and this often invites obscurity.  Undergraduate philosophical writers must clarify such potentially confusing language by appeal to concrete, everyday examples.

For example, Aquinas’ claim about the causes of motion is actually a claim about the causes of  any  change in any object, including what we typically call “motion,” like a rolling ball, and other changes, like the rising temperature in a heated pan of water.  A student should make this clear by illustrating Aquinas’s claim with such everyday examples.  For example, one might write something like, “Aquinas claims that every moving or changing object is caused to move or change by a different object that is already in motion or changing.  For example, a rolling ball is caused to move by a kick from a swinging foot, or a boiling pan of water is caused to boil by a flame giving off heat.”  Such illustration of abstract philosophical principles with concrete, everyday examples serves two extremely important functions.  First, it makes one’s exposition and evaluation of others’ arguments clear and tangible for the reader.  Second, it shows one’s instructor that one has understood obscure yet crucial philosophical assumptions in one’s own terms.

3. The Principle of Charity: The point of any work of philosophy, from the most canonical treatise to the humblest undergraduate effort, is to determine which claims are supported by the best reasons.  The point is not to persuade some particular audience of some claim using rhetoric.  Philosophers always aim at identifying the best possible reasons to believe some claim.  For this reason, when criticizing the arguments of others, philosophical writers should adhere to a principle of extreme charity.  They should interpret arguments with which they disagree in the most favorable terms possible.  Only then can they be sure that they have done their utmost to identify the truth of the matter.  Criticism is inevitable in an undergraduate philosophy paper.  In order to responsibly defend some conclusion, the student must give a thorough overview of what others have said about it, criticizing those with whom she disagrees.  But students must bend over backwards to insure that these criticisms are fair.  Since her goal is to arrive at the truth of the matter, a student author must not stack the deck against those with whom she disagrees.  She must empathize with her antagonists; appreciating as deeply as possible the reasons why they disagree with the conclusion she defends.  This puts the student author in a position to criticize those with whom she disagrees fairly and responsibly.

Consider, once more, Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God.  It is relatively easy to criticize this argument by appeal to modern physics.  Aquinas assumes that every object in motion must have been put into motion by another object already in motion.  But he was working with pre-Newtonian physics.  According to post-Newtonian physics, an object can be in uniform motion without being acted upon by an outside force.  So, technically, Aquinas’s premise is false.  However, this is a nit-picky point that is unfair to Aquinas, and misses the spirit of his argument.  Aquinas’s argument from motion can easily be rephrased as an argument from acceleration to make it compatible with post-Newtonian physics.  Even if uniform motion does not require an external force, acceleration does, and once Aquinas’ premise is rephrased to respect this, the rest of the argument proceeds as before.  Anyone seeking to criticize Aquinas’s argument is well served by considering the most charitable possible interpretation.  If fatal flaws remain even after one has bent over backwards to accommodate Aquinas’s ignorance of later developments in physics, etc., one’s critique of his argument is more effective.

4. Self-Criticism: There is another implication of the philosopher’s commitment to discovering the claims that are supported by the best reasons, as opposed to just winning arguments.  Works of philosophy must include self-criticism.  The responsible philosophical author is always cognizant of potential pitfalls in her own arguments, and possible responses by antagonists she criticizes.  In the course of criticizing an opposing view on some matter, a philosophical writer must always consider how her target might respond.  In the course of defending some claim, a philosophical writer must always anticipate and respond to possible objections.  Papers by professional philosophers often include whole sections devoted entirely to possible objections to the theses they defend.  It is a good idea for undergraduate philosophical writers to follow this example: often, it is useful for the penultimate section of a paper to address possible criticisms of or responses to the arguments provided earlier in the paper.  Not only does this constitute a fair and responsible way of writing philosophy, it helps the student think about her own views critically, improving the final product.

5. Undermining an Argument Vs. Criticizing a Conclusion: Suppose I raise some insurmountable problems for Aquinas’s first argument for the existence of God.  It is important to keep in mind that this is not the same as arguing against the existence of God.  Just because one argument for the existence of God fails, does not mean that there are not other arguments for the existence of God that succeed.  Students should not think that criticizing an argument requires disagreeing with its conclusion.  Some of the greatest critics of certain arguments for the existence of God were themselves theists.  In fact, if you agree with the conclusion of a bad argument, it makes sense to criticize the argument, showing where it is weak; this can help you construct an alternative argument that avoids this problem.    Criticizing an argument is never the same as arguing against its conclusion.  To criticize an argument is to show that its premises do not provide adequate support for its conclusion, not to show that its conclusion is false.  In order to do the latter, one must provide a new argument that supports the claim that the conclusion is false.  For example, in order to show that God does not exist, it is not enough to show that no arguments for God’s existence are sound; one must also provide positive reasons to deny God’s existence.

An analogy to criminal trials makes this distinction clear.  The goal of the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove that the defendant is guilty.  They must construct an argument that provides good reasons for this conclusion.  However, the goal of the defense in a criminal trial is  not  to prove that the defendant is innocent.  Rather, the defense aims to criticize the prosecution’s argument, to show that the reasons provided by the prosecution for the conclusion that the defendant is guilty are not strong enough to support this conclusion, because there remains a reasonable doubt that this conclusion is true.  The difference between the tasks of the prosecution and the defense in a criminal trial parallels the distinction between arguing against (or for) a conclusion, and merely criticizing an argument for a conclusion.  Students should keep this distinction in mind when writing philosophy papers.  When they are defending any conclusion, e.g., that God exists or that God does not exist, they must provide arguments for this conclusion, much as the prosecution must provide evidence and reasons that prove the defendant guilty.  When students are criticizing an argument, they are not defending the denial of the argument’s conclusion.  Rather, like the defense in a criminal trial, they are merely undermining the reasons given for the conclusion.

6. References: Undergraduate philosophy papers must be grounded in relevant and reputable philosophical literature.  Attributing claims to others, including canonical philosophers or discussions of them in the secondary literature, must be supported by references to appropriate sources.  However, direct quotation should, on balance, be avoided.  Instructors are interested in whether or not students understand difficult philosophical concepts and claims in their own terms.  For this reason, paraphrase is usually the best way to cite a source.  Using one’s own words to express a point one has read elsewhere, however, does not excuse one from referring to one’s source.  Any time a substantial claim is attributed to another person, whether or not one uses the person’s own words, the source should be referenced.  There are occasions when direct quotations are appropriate, for example, when one is defending a controversial interpretation of some philosopher’s argument, and the precise wording of her claims is important.

It is important for a student author to get a sense of what the recent philosophical conversation about a specific topic has been.  Otherwise, she has no way of knowing how to contribute to it. There are many ways for a student to explore the philosophical literature relevant to a topic she has chosen.  It is advisable to begin with readings assigned for class.  Textbooks, most recent philosophical journal articles, and recent secondary literature usually include detailed lists of references, which provide a useful guide to the relevant literature.  Works cited in multiple places are particularly good sources for students to consult. The Philosopher’s Index and the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are good on-line starting points for exploring the philosophical literature. These sources provide references to recent articles written about most philosophical topics.  Students may also want to explore less specialized internet-based resources, like Google Scholar.  However, one must be careful with on-line content.  Many web-based resources are not subject to appropriate professional review, and are therefore unreliable. Students must insure that the claims they make are supported by recent, reputable philosophical literature.  Simply asking one’s instructor can assuage any worries about whether or not a paper draft meets this standard.

As for citation format, philosophers are generally flexible: some journals require Chicago Style formatting, while others require MLA style.  Most instructors will accept any style as long as it is used correctly and consistently.  So students should consult their instructors about which citation format to follow.  Non-standard sources like websites and lecture notes should also be cited in a format that instructors approve.

7. The First Person Pronoun: In high school composition classes, students are often taught to avoid using the first-person pronoun, “I”.  The reasoning behind this is that use of “I” tends to encourage the expression of subjective opinions, whereas the goal of much essay writing is to provide an objective defense of some thesis.  However, this rule of thumb is an overly blunt instrument.  Certain uses of the “I” are typical of academic, philosophical writing.  For example, authors often express their plans for a paper, e.g., the thesis they intend to defend, using the first-person pronoun, as I did in the sample introduction provided above.  As long as the “I” is used in the context of laying out one’s intended plan for the paper, or circumscribing the scope of one’s claims, it is entirely appropriate.  For example, it is entirely legitimate to write, “In the following,  I  defend Aquinas’s Fifth Way to prove the existence of God against a common criticism.  However, space limitations preclude  me  from considering every version of this criticism, so  I  focus exclusively on Hume’s.”  The spirit behind the “anti-‘I’” rule must, however, be respected.  Students must avoid expressing subjective opinions.  Expressions like “I feel that …”, or “It seems to me that …”, or “In my experience…” should be avoided.  The point of a philosophy paper is to defend a thesis by appeal to objective reasons, that is, reasons that  any  reasonable person should accept.

8. The Present Tense: Another stylistic feature that is typical of philosophical writing is the almost exclusive use of the present tense.  Tense consistency is often a challenge for undergraduate writers: often past, present, and future tenses are used within the same sentence or paragraph.  This must be avoided.  In philosophy papers, the rule of thumb is: always use the present tense, even when discussing arguments proposed by philosophers in the past.  The fact that some argument, for the existence of God for example, was first proposed in the past is irrelevant for philosophical purposes.  Arguments are treated as timeless contributions to the philosophical conversation, and students should treat canonical arguments as though they still constitute persuasive reasons for believing some claim.  Thus, in the introduction provided as an example above, I write, “Aquinas, famously,  provides  five arguments for the existence of God.”  The present tense should always be used when explaining any philosopher’s argument, any reason he or she provides for accepting some conclusion.  This simple rule also insures tense consistency.  In the rare circumstance in which some kind of historical context must be provided, e.g., a discussion of Descartes’ education by Jesuits, the past tense may be appropriate.  But such circumstances are exceptional because philosophy papers focus on the timeless arguments that have been provided in defense of claims that are still controversial, not on the historical details or biographies that led particular philosophers to formulate these arguments.

9. Repeating Words vs. Using Synonyms: Another rule-of-thumb often promulgated in high school composition classes prescribes the use of synonyms over repetition of the same word.  The motivation for this is clear: when students are forced to avoid repeating words, they must search for synonyms and this helps expand their vocabulary.  However, by the time a student enrolls in a University-level philosophy course, her vocabulary should be sufficiently developed.  Philosophy instructors value  clarity  and  precision  far above conspicuous displays of vocabulary.  This is because, as we saw above, the soundness of an argument often depends on the precise meanings of the terms with which it is expressed.  The meanings of so-called “synonyms” often vary in very subtle, nuanced ways.  And these variations in meaning are often very significant in the context of philosophical arguments.  Consider for example the words “liberty” and “freedom”.  In some contexts, these words are interchangeable; they constitute synonyms.  However, there are many philosophical contexts in which these words are not interchangeable.  For example, the question of whether or not our decisions are free, or determined by our genetic endowment and environmental influences is a perennial philosophical puzzle.  However, “freedom of the will” cannot be paraphrased as “liberty of the will”.  The reason is that “liberty” has certain connotations which restrict its use to political contexts, while “freedom” can be used to characterize both political freedom, and freedom from natural constraints, like one’s genetic endowment, as well.  Substituting the word “freedom” with the word “liberty” in a philosophy paper would only compromise clarity: the reader would not know whether freedom from political or from natural constraints was at issue.  For this reason, it is best to repeat precisely the same terms for the same key concepts throughout a philosophy paper.  

3. Strategies for Choosing a Topic and Formulating Arguments

Philosophical creativity and imagination, like their scientific or artistic counterparts, are mysterious.  It is difficult to formulate rules for coming up with topics and arguments for philosophy papers.  Different individuals will succeed at this task in different ways.  Here, I discuss three broad strategies for conceiving and composing an undergraduate philosophy paper; however, this list is not meant to be exhaustive.  Philosophy papers can be characterized as (1) narrow focus papers, (2) broad focus papers, and (3) application papers.

Narrow Focus Papers

The narrow focus strategy is perhaps the most straightforward strategy for composing a philosophy paper.  The point of such a paper is to focus as much as possible on a specific argument by a specific philosopher and to discuss the strengths and weakness of this specific argument.  One begins by correctly explaining the target argument.  Then one raises objections, either by showing that one or more of the premises is false or implausible, or by showing that the premises, even if true, fail to support the conclusion.  One then considers how the author of argument might respond to these criticisms, and ends by replying to these responses.  In the course of writing such a focused, critical analysis, the student should include a survey of other criticisms that have been raised, and make clear how her criticism is unique.

Such papers can be extremely narrow.  For example, they might focus on just one premise, or sub-argument of a larger argument.  The introduction provided as an example above focuses just on Aquinas’ argument that there can be no causal chains extending infinitely into the past.  The focus is on just one crucial sub-argument of one of Aquinas’s five arguments for the existence of God.  Another possibility is to look at some historical debate about a particular premise of some canonical argument, and contribute to it.  For example, one might consider one objection of an early critic of Aquinas’s arguments, imagine how Aquinas might reply to this objection, and then raise an improved objection of one’s own, for which this reply does not work.  Or one might look at a classic criticism of some premise Aquinas uses in an argument, and offer a novel response on behalf of Aquinas.

Another kind of narrow focus paper concerns philosophical definitions.  One of the principal projects of canonical philosophy, since Plato, has been the attempt to define philosophically important concepts, such as TRUTH, JUSTICE, and KNOWLEDGE.  This has given rise to an important kind of philosophical debate.  Philosophical definitions provide necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as an example of some concept.  For example, one classical definition of knowledge states that for a person to know some claim, the person must believe the claim; she must have good reasons for believing it, and the claim must be true.  This definition claims that belief, truth and justification are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.  However, one of the classic papers of Twentieth Century philosophy raises a counterexample to this definition: an example of a justified true belief that, intuitively, should not count as knowledge.  This counterexample shows that belief, truth and justification are not sufficient for knowledge, contrary to the classical definition.  This has spawned a cottage industry, involving attempts to modify the definition of knowledge to accommodate the counterexample, followed by new counterexamples to these new definitions.  Such give-and-take about the meanings of important philosophical concepts is typical of much academic philosophy.  It also constitutes a great strategy for composing a narrow focus, undergraduate philosophy paper: identify some classic philosophical definition of a philosophically important concept, raise a counter-example to the definition, and then consider ways the definition might be modified to accommodate the counter-example.  This cycle can be repeated through numerous iterations, including new counter-examples to new definitions, followed by newer definitions accommodating these counter-examples, etc.

Narrow focus papers are mainly critical: they aim to undermine particular arguments, assumptions, or definitions proposed by specific philosophers.  For this reason, it is useful for a student writing a narrow focus paper to think of her role as analogous to that of a defense attorney in a criminal trial.  Her goal is not to prove that the conclusion to some argument is false.  Rather, her role is to show that the reasons some philosopher has provided for a specific conclusion are insufficient to establish that conclusion.

Broad Focus Papers

Unlike narrow focus papers, broad focus papers do not restrict their scope to particular arguments, assumptions, or definitions made by particular philosophers.  Instead, such papers identify a broad topic that has been discussed by many philosophers throughout history, identify different positions that have been taken on this topic, sketch the different kinds of arguments that have been provided for these different positions, and then take a stand on the topic by defending one of these arguments as superior to the others, or providing a new argument.  For example, rather than focusing on just one assumption in one of Aquinas’s arguments for the existence of God, a student may choose to treat the question of the existence of God more broadly, sketching the different positions on this topic, and some of the classical arguments that support them.  The student may then defend theism or atheism by offering an improved version of one of these arguments that avoids some of the classic criticisms of it, or by providing an argument of her own.

Broad focus papers are, in general, more challenging than narrow focus papers.  Undergraduates are rarely asked to draft papers longer than 15 pages.  However, it is extremely difficult to do justice to a broad topic in philosophy in so little space.  Philosophical questions and claims tend to ramify: they tend to open cans of worms – other questions and claims that are equally if not more difficult to resolve.  For this reason, the best advice for undergraduate philosophical writing is to focus on as narrow a topic as possible.  It is possible to write a decent broad focus undergraduate paper.  However, it is very difficult, and students who focus as much as possible on specific claims and arguments make life much easier for themselves.

Application Papers

Perhaps the most interesting strategy for composing an undergraduate philosophy paper – the strategy that allows the most scope for individual creativity – is to illustrate some philosophical concept, claim or argument with a concrete example drawn from art, film, fiction, popular culture, science, or one’s own experience.  For example, a classic dispute in epistemology – the philosophical study of knowledge – concerns our justification for believing the testimony of others.  On one view, this justification is derived from our own observation that people are, for the most part, reliable.  On the opposing view, trusting testimony is justified in itself, not in virtue of observing that people are typically reliable.  A classic argument for this opposing view is that young children could never learn anything from adults if they had to wait to observe that people tend to be reliable before trusting their testimony.  This argument makes substantial assumptions about how young children learn.  It therefore suggests an interesting topic for an application paper: see whether the latest literature in developmental psychology supports this assumption.

Often, showing how some common experience, drawn from everyday life, fiction, film, or popular culture, illustrates some philosophical principle, argument, or claim is very useful.  Not only does this help clarify the philosophical principle, argument, or claim; if the common experience is sufficiently vivid and compelling, it might even provide some support for the philosophical principle, argument, or claim.  For example, consider the classical philosophical definition of knowledge mentioned above, in the discussion about philosophical definitions.  According to this definition, a person knows some claim just in case she believes it; she is justified in believing it, and it is true.  The counterexamples that philosophers have raised to this definition have been fairly abstract and contrived.  However, it is possible to illustrate the problems with the definition by more plausible, real world examples.  For example, consider the claim that the sun moves.  We know this to be true today.  But what about people who lived prior to Copernicus?  Copernicus proposed that, contrary to the assumptions of astronomers that lived before him, the earth moves around the sun rather than vice versa.  So pre-Copernican astronomers believed that the sun moves around the earth.  This means that they also believed that the sun moves.  Since we know the sun moves, this belief of theirs was true.  Furthermore, they had good reasons for this belief, and were therefore justified in believing that the sun moves.  Copernicus had not yet formulated an alternative hypothesis and all the evidence seemed to support their view.  So pre-Copernican astronomers had a true justified belief that the sun moves.  But, arguably, they did not know this, since the reason they thought the sun moves – that it circles the earth – is not the true reason it moves – that, like any star, it is caught up in the motion of the galaxy of which it is a part.  This concrete historical example illustrates what is wrong with the classical definition of knowledge.

Working through such a concrete example from the history of science not only clarifies a philosophical point, it also provides some support for this point by showing that it is easily illustrated with concrete examples from the history of human knowledge.  Furthermore, it immediately suggests how a paper focused on this example can be further extended.  For example, one might imagine how a defender of the classical definition of knowledge would reinterpret this case in a way that vindicates the classical definition.  One could then respond to this reinterpretation.  In general, application papers can be based on very clear and simple argumentative structures: they argue that some concrete example illustrates a philosophical thesis, and then they consider how those who deny the thesis might deal with the example.  

4. A Short Primer on Logic

As we saw above, in section 2, although philosophical arguments can go wrong in two ways – either the premises are false or implausible, or they fail to support the conclusion – philosophers tend to focus on detecting and avoiding failures of the latter kind.  Here, I provide a short primer on the various ways that premises in philosophical arguments succeed and fail to support their conclusions.

Kinds of Support

There are broadly two kinds of support that premises provide for conclusions of arguments.  First, in  deductively valid  arguments, the premises  guarantee  the conclusion, i.e., if we assume the premises are true, we cannot, at the same time, deny the conclusion.  Here is a classic example: All humans are mortal.  Socrates is a human.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.  If we accept the premises, we cannot, at the same time, deny the conclusion.  So, this is the strongest kind of support that premises can provide for a conclusion.  Notice that, when determining whether or not an argument is deductively valid, it is not necessary to establish whether or not the premises are true.  Validity is a matter of the support the premises provide the conclusion, not their truth.  The question is: if the premises were true, would the conclusion also have to be true?  So, for example, the following argument is deductively valid, despite its questionable premises:  All George Washington University students are Dalmatian.  Barack Obama is a George Washington University student.  Therefore, Barack Obama is Dalmatian.  Note that this argument has the same logical form as the previous argument about Socrates: “humans” has been substituted with “George Washington University students”; “mortal” has been substituted with “Dalmatian”, and “Socrates” has been substituted with “Barack Obama”.  Despite the fact that the second argument’s premises and conclusion are false, it is a deductively valid argument because the premises guarantee the conclusion.  That is,  if  the premises were true, the conclusion would also have to be true.

In deductively valid arguments, the premises supply the strongest possible support for the conclusion.  One can refute an argument claiming to be deductively valid by showing that even if the premises were true, the conclusion could still be false, i.e., there is still at least a slight probability that the premises are true and the conclusion is false.  For example, the following argument, though plausible, is not deductively valid: Every morning I’ve lived, the sun has risen.  Therefore, tomorrow morning, the sun will rise.  As we’ll see next, this is an inductively strong argument: the premise provides strong support for the conclusion.  But the argument is not deductively valid because the premise does not  guarantee  the conclusion: it is possible that the premise is true but the conclusion is false, e.g., if the sun explodes tonight, it won’t rise tomorrow morning.

The second kind of support that premises can provide conclusions is evident in  inductively strong  arguments.  In such arguments, though the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, as they do in deductively valid arguments, they  make the conclusion more likely .  Such arguments are common in science and politics.  Most arguments in which the conclusion is based on a public opinion poll are inductive arguments.  For example, suppose you do a blind taste test comparing Coke to Pepsi with 5% of the GWU student population, finding that 60% of this sample prefers Coke to Pepsi.  If you then generalize, concluding that 60% of the GWU student population prefers Coke to Pepsi, you are making an inductive argument: the premise is the result of the poll, and the conclusion is the generalization from the 5% sample to the whole GWU student population.  The strength of the support this premise provides this conclusion depends on the size of the sample, and how it is obtained.  Sometimes, for example, such arguments rely on samples that are not obtained randomly, and therefore contain biases relative to the population to which they generalize.  This is one way of criticizing an inductive argument: if the sample is biased, the argument is inductively weak.

In another sort of inductive argument, the premises express certain observations that need to be explained, while the conclusion is a plausible explanation of those observations.  Such forms of inductive argument are common in criminal trials.  The prosecution presents the jury with facts, e.g., the defendant’s alleged motives, her presence at the crime scene at around the estimated time of the crime as testified to by a reliable witness, etc.  They then conclude that the best explanation of all these facts is that the defendant committed the crime of which she is accused.  However, such premises never guarantee the conclusion, since there may always be alternative explanations for the evidence.  The defendant may have been at the crime scene by coincidence, or the witness may be lying, or the prosecution may be trying to frame the defendant, etc.  This is why, in such arguments, the premises never guarantee the conclusion, as they do in deductively valid arguments.  At best, they provide defeasibly strong reasons to accept the explanation that constitutes the conclusion.  But such arguments can always be criticized by providing an alternative explanation of the evidence that is just as good or better.

A classic philosophical argument of this type is the argument for the claim that nature is the product of intelligent design. Proponents of this argument begin with a list of facts about nature, e.g., that it is orderly, complex, goal-directed, and dependent on highly unlikely background conditions.  They then argue that the best explanation for these facts is that nature was designed by a supernatural intelligence.  However, as with the case of arguments made in court, these facts do not guarantee this conclusion.  There may be alternative explanations of these facts that are just as good or better.  For example, Darwin argues that many such facts can be explained by his theory of evolution by natural selection, with no appeal to intelligent design.

Argument types in which the premises do not support the conclusion are called “fallacies”.  Philosophers have studied the ways that arguments can go wrong for millennia, and they have identified dozens of fallacies.  Here are five common fallacies that it is useful to keep in mind when evaluating or formulating arguments in a philosophy paper.

• Begging the Question: Arguments that commit this fallacy are also known as circular arguments.  Such arguments assume what they are trying to prove.  Recall that the point of philosophical, and, indeed, any argumentation, is to try to prove a controversial conclusion on the basis of less controversial premises.  For example, as we saw above, Aquinas tries to prove the controversial claim that God exists on the basis of uncontroversial premises, like the claim that objects are in motion.  But sometimes the premises of an argument are equally or more controversial than the conclusion.  In fact, sometimes the premises of an argument covertly assume the conclusion they are trying to prove.  Consider the following argument for the existence of God, for example.  “God wrote the Bible.  Therefore, everything the Bible says is true.  The Bible says God exists.  Therefore, God exists.”  This argument is circular, or begs the question, because it assumes what it is trying to prove.  For God to write the Bible, he has to exist.  So, in this argument, the premises provide no independent justification for the conclusion: they are just as controversial as the conclusion because they covertly assume the conclusion’s truth.
• False Alternatives: Arguments that commit this fallacy rely on at least one premise that claims that there are fewer alternatives than there actually are.  Consider the following example: “Either France supports the United States or France supports the terrorists.  France does not support the United States.  Therefore, France supports the terrorists.”  This argument is fallacious because the first premise is a false alternative.  France might not support either the United States or the terrorists.
• Unjustified Appeal to Authority: Arguments that commit this fallacy rely on premises that appeal to an authority with no justification.  Consider the following example: “There are passages in the Bible that prohibit homosexuality.  Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.”  The conclusion is not supported by the premise because the argument fails to establish that the Bible is a legitimate authority on moral matters.
• Ad Hominem: The name of this fallacy is a Latin term meaning the same as “to (or against) the man”.  Such fallacies are often committed in the course of critiquing another argument.  For example, suppose an Evangelical Christian has just finished arguing that abortion is immoral, and a critic responds not by identifying any weaknesses in the argument but, rather, by pointing out the arguer’s religious beliefs as a reason for dismissing the argument.  The critic may say something like, “Clearly we cannot accept the reasoning of someone with such superstitious convictions!”  This is an example of the Ad Hominem fallacy: instead of criticizing the argument, the critic is attacking the person who presents the argument.  In logic and philosophy, we are interested in whether or not the premises of an argument support its conclusion.  The identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant to this.  People with whom one disagrees on many matters can nonetheless produce sound arguments.  A person’s personal convictions or personality are irrelevant to the strength of her arguments.
• Straw Man: This is another fallacy that often arises in the course of criticizing someone else’s argument.  It occurs when the critic misrepresents the argument she is criticizing, formulating a version of it that is easier to refute.  This is where the fallacy gets its name: a “straw man” is easier to knock down than a “real man”.  Consider the following example.  Suppose a person defends abortion rights on the grounds that no law regulating a person’s control over her own reproductive decisions is equitably enforceable.  If someone were to criticize this argument on the grounds that (1) it claims killing a fetus is morally unobjectionable, and (2) this assumption is false, then the critic would be guilty of a Straw Man fallacy.  The argument makes no claims about whether or not killing a fetus is morally unobjectionable.  The critic has burdened her target with a difficult to defend assumption that she never made.  In terms discussed above, such a critic does not respect the principle of charity that guides all good philosophical writing.  Philosophical writers have an obligation to present their antagonists’ arguments in as favorable a light as possible before criticizing them.  Only then can they be sure that they are seeking to establish claims that are supported by the best reasons, rather than merely scoring rhetorical points.  

Undergraduate philosophical writing is about evaluating and constructing arguments.  A good argument is one in which strong reasons are provided in support of some claim.  In order to evaluate and construct arguments, the claims that comprise them must be expressed in clear and precise language.  In addition, these claims must be perspicuously organized, such that the complex relations of support they bear to each other are apparent to any educated reader.  The goal of philosophical writing should be discovering which claims are supported by the best reasons, not scoring cheap rhetorical points.  For this reason, philosophical writing must be guided by a principle of extreme charity: views antagonistic to the author’s must be considered carefully and fairly, and presented with the utmost sympathy.  The author must anticipate likely criticisms of her own views and respond to them.  Undergraduate philosophical writers must master the art of conveying abstruse philosophical concepts in clear, plain language, writing for an imagined audience of educated non-specialists, like family and friends.  This makes undergraduate writing clearer, and demonstrates to the instructor that the student has understood difficult concepts in her own terms.  The use, as much as possible, of concrete examples to illustrate abstract philosophical concepts is strongly recommended.

Finally, the best undergraduate philosophy papers focus on relatively narrow and specific topics, e.g., a specific argument or assumption made by a specific philosopher.  One cannot establish an ambitious philosophical claim in the 10-15 pages usually allotted for undergraduate philosophy papers.  Thousands of years and pages have been devoted to determining whether or not God exists, for example.  Yet the question remains controversial.  Do not assume that you can accomplish, in 10-15 pages, something that professional philosophers have failed to accomplish in thousands of years.  Philosophical arguments tend to open cans of worms because they invariably make assumptions or raise difficult issues that go beyond the topic on which they focus.  The art of writing philosophy consists in avoiding such potential digressions, and contributing to specific, constrained debates.

The foregoing is a good guide to composing an initial rough draft of a term paper for an undergraduate philosophy class.  Different instructors might not agree with all of my recommendations; however, most will agree with most of them.  Once a student receives feedback from her instructor on a rough draft, she will be able to fine-tune the paper to the instructor’s particular preferences.  Although the foregoing should help students make a good start on a philosophy paper, there is no substitute for frequent consultation with one’s instructor.  Do not fear “bothering” your instructors about helping with paper drafts.  As long as you follow the relevant instructions on their syllabi and give them plenty of time, they are obligated to help you with your writing.  The persistent pursuit of detailed feedback from one’s instructor is the best resource you have for succeeding at undergraduate philosophical writing.  This guide provides a solid foundation from which to start.

The Writing Place

Resources – how to write a philosophy paper, introduction to the topic.

The most common introductory level philosophy papers involve making an original argument (“Do you believe that free will exists?”) or thinking critically about another philosopher’s argument (“Do you agree with Hobbes’ argument about free will?”). This short checklist will help you construct a paper for these two types of assignments.

The Basics of a Philosophy Paper

1. introduction and thesis.

There is not a need for a grand or lofty introduction in a philosophy paper. Introductory paragraphs should be short and concise. In the thesis, state what you will be arguing and how you will make your argument.

2. Define Terms

It is important to define words that you use in your argument that may be unclear to your reader. While it may seem like words like “morality” and “free will” have an obvious definition, you need to make clear to your audience what those words mean in the context of your paper. A generally useful rule is to pretend that your reader does not know anything about your course or the subject of philosophy and define any words or concepts that such a reader may find ambiguous.

In a philosophy paper, you need to give reasons to support the argument you made in your thesis. This should constitute the largest portion of your paper. It is also important here to name preexisting conditions (premises) that must exist in order for the argument to be true. You can use real-world examples and the ideas of other philosophers to generate reasons why your argument is true. Remember to use simple and clear language and treat your readers as if they are not experts in philosophy.

4. Objections and Responses to Objections

Unlike other types of persuasive essays, in a many philosophy papers you should anticipate criticisms of your argument and respond to those criticisms. If you can refute objections to your argument, your paper will be stronger. While you do not have to address every potential counterargument, you should try to cover the most salient problems.

5. Conclusion

Like the introduction, you should be simple and concise. In the final paragraph you should review and summarize what your paper has established. The conclusion should tell readers why your argument is relevant. It answers the question, “Why do I care?”

General Tips

• Do not overstate or over generalize your ideas.
• Do not try to argue for both sides of an issue. Be clear about where you stand or your reader will be confused.
• Be specific. Do not try to tackle a huge issue, but rather, aim to discuss something small that can be done justice in just a few pages.
• Be wary of using religious or legal grounds for your argument.

A Quick Practice Exercise...

Practice: what is wrong with this paragraph.

This paragraph contains 5 major errors that you should try to avoid in a philosophy paper. Can you find them all?

“In his argument from design, Paley uses the example of a watch that he finds upon a road that has dozens of pieces that work together to make the clock function.  He asserts that this watch is too perfect of a creation not to have a creator and that it would be obvious to conclude that the timepiece must have a maker. Similarly, the Bible proves that God must exist because he made the world beautiful in seven days.  Paley notes, “There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order, without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging” (Paley 49). This reasoning is strong because it is apparent that beings found in nature have a complex design.  For example, the iris, retina, lens and ocular muscles of the eye all work together to produce sight in the human eye and without any one of these mechanisms, one would be blind.  For all of these tiny pieces that are required for a functioning eye to have randomly come together seems impossible. Therefore, it is logical that there had to be a designer who created a world in which DNA replicates and dozens of small parts create a functioning human or animal.  By simply viewing the natural world, it is highly plausible to see that Paley’s theory is correct.”

1.  “Similarly, the Bible proves that God must exist because he had the power to make the flood happen in Noah’s Ark.”  Arguments based off religious texts, such as the Bible, are generally frowned upon and only weaken an essay.

2. The writer does not define what he means by “God.” Is God a benevolent overseer of the earth? Or is God a vengeful figure? Although it may seem as though everyone knows who God is, in reality, people have different perspective and the writer needs to define God’s character for the reader.

3.  “For all of these tiny pieces that are required for a functioning eye to have randomly come together seems impossible.”  The phrase “ seems impossible ” is weak and unclear. In a philosophy paper, you should take a strong stance and avoid words that weaken your argument like “probably” or “seem.” Additionally, the phrase “ highly plausible ” appears at the end of the paragraph, which is also a phrase that weakens the argument.

4. The writer gives not premises for Paley’s argument to be true. A stronger paper would name the preexisting conditions that must exist in order for the argument to stand.

5. The “real world” example of the human eye is not the best. The writer neglects strong counterarguments such as evolution and the existence of blindness in humans. A good philosophy paper would be more careful when considering real world examples.

Developed by Ann Bruton

Adapted from:

Harvard University’s Short Guide to Philosophical Writing

Kenneth Seeskin’s “How to Write a Philosophy Paper,” Northwestern University

Click here to return to the “Writing Place Resources” main page.

You'll be graded on three basic criteria:

Writing Studio

Writing philosophy papers.

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF: Writing a Philosophy Paper Return to Writing Studio Handouts

Most  philosophy paper s  present an argument for  a thesis.  Some times the thesis is normative (e.g.,  animals should have rights;  we can establish clear conditions for when  patients should have access to lethal doses of medicine ) . Sometimes they are technical (e.g.,  the  mind is nothing but the brain;  to be is to be perceived) . A nd  sometimes, if not  usually ,   they focus on interpreting philosophers  (e.g.,  Anslem’s  ontological argument is sound proof for God’s existence ;  Hume’s sentimental theory of taste  better accounts for the value of art in our lives than  Plato’s claim that there is a Form of Beauty).   

Elements to Consider as You Write a Philosophy Papers  

Clear definitions and consistent use of terms.

You will be well-served to give definitions of key terms, often the terms in the prompt or thesis statement. Also, what seem like easy synonyms in regular language often have significantly different meanings in philosophy (e.g. ethics or morality; person or human being). Consistency and accuracy are much more important than creativity or variety.

Roadmap and Signposts

Philosophers often use the first person, especially   when announcing their argument . The structure of the paper is often methodical as well, so numbering new claims and  correctly  using words that distinguish premises ( e.g.  because, for,  given that, etc . )  and conclusions ( e.g. therefore, accordingly, it follows, etc . ) is common.  Beware of the use of the first person that avoids giving reasons (e.g. in my opinion).

Examples, Test Cases, or Thought Experiments

As abstract as much philosophy is, giving clear examples and applications of an argument (or doing so to prove someone else is wrong) is worthwhile  and efficient  when done carefully .

Effective Quotes, Paraphrases, and Summaries

The prompt should help establish how much quoting is expected and whether  you can summarize the arguments and positions of others. When it is a question of interpretation, the text is the evidence  and  your argument is the entirety of the essay. But even when  prompted to  evaluate a position,  first  you should  spend serious time explaining the position carefully, showing that  you have read and comprehended complex texts. In those cases, your own evaluation regularly does not appear until the last paragraph or two.  But be aware of overuse of quotations that  give the  impression that  you  ha ve little to say or do not understand enough to paraphrase. See “ Effective Quotes, Paraphrases, and Summaries .”

Response to Objections

No philosophy paper is complete without it; although, objections can be entertained in subtle ways throughout the argument rather than saving a whole section to do so. One can defend  a thesis by showing that arguments against it are unconvincing rather than, or in addition to, offering plausible reasons to support it.  Don’t hesitate  to be explicit here . See “ They Say, I Say .”

C onsider Avoiding the Following as You Write a Philosophy Paper    

Mere summary.

Don’t only explain another position without critical engagement. The exception here occurs if the prompt specifically  state s otherwise (e.g. an  argument reconstruction or  entirely  exege tical essay).

Dictionary Definitions

Dictionaries merely record how words are, and have been, used; they do not make good philosophical authorities. You  should supply  your  own definitions for key words or us e  meanings from course reading s . One  exception  occurs when one c onsciously us es the dictionary definition for contrast or context.

Overstatement

Supporting  “ all ”  or  “ none, ”   “ always ”  or  “ never, ”   statement s  is   rather difficult. Philosophy papers thrive on effectively defending modest and narrow claims ,  qualifying claims, and  even admitting the limits of one’s own position. This holds for intro ductions  too – who cares about the dawn of time?

Common Argumentative Fallacies

See “ Identifying Illogical Arguments .”

Last revised: 04/2012 | Adapted for web delivery: 07/2021

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

Simon Fraser University Engaging the World

Department of philosophy.

• A-Z directory

Writing A Philosophy Paper

Copyright © 1993 by Peter Horban Simon Fraser University

THINGS TO AVOID IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY ESSAY

• Lengthy introductions. These are entirely unnecessary and of no interest to the informed reader. There is no need to point out that your topic is an important one, and one that has interested philosophers for hundreds of years. Introductions should be as brief as possible. In fact, I recommend that you think of your paper as not having an introduction at all. Go directly to your topic.
• Lengthy quotations. Inexperienced writers rely too heavily on quotations and paraphrases. Direct quotation is best restricted to those cases where it is essential to establish another writer's exact selection of words. Even paraphrasing should be kept to a minimum. After all, it is your paper. It is your thoughts that your instructor is concerned with. Keep that in mind, especially when your essay topic requires you to critically assess someone else's views.
• Fence sitting. Do not present a number of positions in your paper and then end by saying that you are not qualified to settle the matter. In particular, do not close by saying that philosophers have been divided over this issue for as long as humans have been keeping record and you cannot be expected to resolve the dispute in a few short pages. Your instructor knows that. But you can be expected to take a clear stand based on an evaluation of the argument(s) presented. Go out on a limb. If you have argued well, it will support you.
• Cuteness. Good philosophical writing usually has an air of simple dignity about it. Your topic is no joke. No writers whose views you have been asked to read are idiots. (If you think they are, then you have not understood them.) Name calling is inappropriate and could never substitute for careful argumentation anyway.
• Begging the question. You are guilty of begging the question (or circular reasoning) on a particular issue if you somehow presuppose the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to show in the course of arguing for it. Here is a quick example. If Smith argues that abortion is morally wrong on the grounds that it amounts to murder, Smith begs the question. Smith presupposes a particular stand on the moral status of abortion - the stand represented by the conclusion of the argument. To see that this is so, notice that the person who denies the conclusion - that abortion is morally wrong - will not accept Smith's premise that it amounts to murder, since murder is, by definition, morally wrong.
• When arguing against other positions, it is important to realize that you cannot show that your opponents are mistaken just by claiming that their overall conclusions are false. Nor will it do simply to claim that at least one of their premises is false. You must demonstrate these sorts of things, and in a fashion that does not presuppose that your position is correct.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING YOUR PHILOSOPHY PAPER

• Organize carefully. Before you start to write make an outline of how you want to argue. There should be a logical progression of ideas - one that will be easy for the reader to follow. If your paper is well organized, the reader will be led along in what seems a natural way. If you jump about in your essay, the reader will balk. It will take a real effort to follow you, and he or she may feel it not worthwhile. It is a good idea to let your outline simmer for a few days before you write your first draft. Does it still seem to flow smoothly when you come back to it? If not, the best prose in the world will not be enough to make it work.
• Use the right words. Once you have determined your outline, you must select the exact words that will convey your meaning to the reader. A dictionary is almost essential here. Do not settle for a word that (you think) comes close to capturing the sense you have in mind. Notice that "infer" does not mean "imply"; "disinterested" does not mean "uninterested"; and "reference" does not mean either "illusion" or "allusion." Make certain that you can use "its" and "it's" correctly. Notice that certain words such as "therefore," "hence," "since," and "follows from" are strong logical connectives. When you use such expressions you are asserting that certain tight logical relations hold between the claims in question. You had better be right. Finally, check the spelling of any word you are not sure of. There is no excuse for "existance" appearing in any philosophy essay.
• Support your claims. Assume that your reader is constantly asking such questions as "Why should I accept that?" If you presuppose that he or she is at least mildly skeptical of most of your claims, you are more likely to succeed in writing a paper that argues for a position. Most first attempts at writing philosophy essays fall down on this point. Substantiate your claims whenever there is reason to think that your critics would not grant them.
• Give credit. When quoting or paraphrasing, always give some citation. Indicate your indebtedness, whether it is for specific words, general ideas, or a particular line of argument. To use another writer's words, ideas, or arguments as if they were your own is to plagiarize. Plagiarism is against the rules of academic institutions and is dishonest. It can jeopardize or even terminate your academic career. Why run that risk when your paper is improved (it appears stronger not weaker) if you give credit where credit is due? That is because appropriately citing the works of others indicates an awareness of some of the relevant literature on the subject.
• Anticipate objections. If your position is worth arguing for, there are going to be reasons which have led some people to reject it. Such reasons will amount to criticisms of your stand. A good way to demonstrate the strength of your position is to consider one or two of the best of these objections and show how they can be overcome. This amounts to rejecting the grounds for rejecting your case, and is analogous to stealing your enemies' ammunition before they have a chance to fire it at you. The trick here is to anticipate the kinds of objections that your critics would actually raise against you if you did not disarm them first. The other challenge is to come to grips with the criticisms you have cited. You must argue that these criticisms miss the mark as far as your case is concerned, or that they are in some sense ill-conceived despite their plausibility. It takes considerable practice and exposure to philosophical writing to develop this engaging style of argumentation, but it is worth it.
• Edit boldly. I have never met a person whose first draft of a paper could not be improved significantly by rewriting. The secret to good writing is rewriting - often. Of course it will not do just to reproduce the same thing again. Better drafts are almost always shorter drafts - not because ideas have been left out, but because words have been cut out as ideas have been clarified. Every word that is not needed only clutters. Clear sentences do not just happen. They are the result of tough-minded editing.

There is much more that could be said about clear writing. I have not stopped to talk about grammatical and stylistic points. For help in these matters (and we all need reference works in these areas) I recommend a few of the many helpful books available in the campus bookstore. My favorite little book on good writing is The Elements of Style , by William Strunk and E.B. White. Another good book, more general in scope, is William Zinsser's, On Writing Well . Both of these books have gone through several editions. More advanced students might do well to read Philosophical Writing: An Introduction , by A.P. Martinich. Some final words should be added about proofreading. Do it. Again. After that, have someone else read your paper. Is this person able to understand you completely? Can he or she read your entire paper through without getting stuck on a single sentence? If not, go back and smooth it out. In general terms, do not be content simply to get your paper out of your hands. Take pride in it. Clear writing reflects clear thinking; and that, after all, is what you are really trying to show.

Undergraduate

Study philosophy at sfu, department events.

.................

Department News

Horban Award 2024: Nava Karimi June 12, 2024 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Nava Karimi, who...

Horban Award 2023: Danielle Jones July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Danielle Jones,...

Horban Award 2023: Parmida Saemiyan July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Parmida...

2023 BC Lower Mainland Ethics Bowl Report March 09, 2023 by Cem Erkli On February 25th, 150 high school students from all across the Lower Mainland met on...

Blended learning: spotlight on SFU’s newest course designation September 21, 2022 Philosophy Chair Evan Tiffany is one of the first faculty members at SFU to design and deliver a...

MA Student Aaron Richardson at Aesthetics For Birds - Accessibility and the Problem of Alt Text September 21, 2022

SFU Philosophy's collection of 'be employable, study philosophy' web content: PHIL IRL on Flipboard

How to Write a Philosophy Paper

• Develop a Thesis
• Formulate an Argument
• Structure & Outline
• Grammar & Style

Forming an Argument

Writing a Paper in Philosophy Part 3 - Forming an Argument

What is an Argument?

Arguments consist of one or more  premises and a  conclusion. "

Image source: Hartmann Schedel. Publius Ovidius Naso and Plato. Public domain. Wikimedia Commons.

Source:  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

• Argument Good background information on argument; includes links to information on different types of arguments. Dictionary of World Philosophy.
• Inductive Argument Defines inductive arguments. Dictionary of World Philosophy.
• Deductive Argument Defines and describes a deduction, or the deductive method. Dictionary of World Philosophy.

Is Your Argument Valid?

Make sure there are no sharks in your roof: argue with validity and soundness.  Learn how to do that in the article below.

Image source:  SG Bailey.  Public domain.  Wikimedia Commons.

• Validity and Soundness Article on logic that covers validity and soundness. Dictionary of World Philosophy.
• << Previous: Develop a Thesis
• Next: Structure & Outline >>
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lvc.edu/philosophypaper

• Skip to content
• Skip to main navigation
• Accessibility
• Future Students
• Current Students
• Visitors & Neighbors
• Alumni & Parents
• Faculty & Staff
• Campus Directory
• Faith community
• Our history
• Recognitions
• At a glance
• News and events
• Accreditation
• University leadership
• Student consumer info
• Majors and minors
• Accelerated options
• Academic opportunities
• Academic support
• Careers and outcomes
• Study abroad
• Degree Programs
• Degrees and certificates
• Academic distinctives
• School of Graduate and Professional Studies
• Career development
• Career & Professional Development Center
• Schools and departments
• University Honors Program
• The Bridge Center for Continuing Education
• Request information
• Cost of tuition
• Scholarships and grants
• Meet your counselor
• Admissions process
• Accepted students
• Request Info
• Tuition and aid
• Admissions requirements
• Browse by event type
• View upcoming events
• View virtual tour
• Full calendar
• GoMessiah.tv
• Be recruited
• Sports camps
• Club & rec sports
• Physical fitness
• Sports ministry
• Grow your faith
• Service opportunities
• Find a church
• Faith in the classroom
• Life on campus
• Things to do
• Your new home
• Living on campus
• Frequently asked questions
• Dining facilities
• A diverse community
• Student support

Fill out our online application and take an important step toward becoming a Messiah University Falcon!

• How to write a philosophy paper
• Department of Biblical, Religious and Philosophical Studies

Tips for Writing about Philosophy

These are tips for writing a philosophy paper by Douglas W. Portmore. Select an option from the menu on the right to read more.

Copyright © 2001 (Revised 2012) by Douglas W. Portmore. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Jim Pryor's Writing Guidelines

Acknowledgments

I cannot claim credit for many of the ideas contained within this guide. Many of them have come from the other guides that I've looked at—I've listed them below. I have also borrowed from handouts used by colleagues at both the University of California, Santa Barbara and the College of Charleston. I have tried to give credit where credit is due, but I may have left some people out. My sincere apologies to those individuals and my thanks to the authors of all those guides.

Other Guides to Writing Philosophy

• A. P. Martinich, Philosophical Writing, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996).
• Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, Doing Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001).
• Stephen M. Garrison, Anthony J. Graybosch, and Gregory M. Scott, The Philosophy Student Writer's Manual (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997).
• P. Martinich, Philosophical Writing, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996). 4 Joseph Gibaldi and Walter S. Achert, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: The Modern Language Association, 1988), 21-25.
• Jay F. Rosenberg, The Practice of Philosophy: A Handbook for Beginners, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).
• Zachery Seech, Writing Philosophy Papers, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997).
• Barry Brown, "How to Write an Essay in Bioethics." http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/philosophy/phlwrite/brown1.html.
• R. L. Franklin, "On Writing Philosophy Assignments."
• R. W. Hepburn, "Good and bad in philosophy essays." http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/study_html/vade-mecum/sections/section4/4-1.htm.
• James Pryor, "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper." http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html .
• Evan Thompson and Duff Waring, "Essay Writing Handbook for Philosophy Students." http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/handbook.pdf .
• Michael Tooley, "Writing a Good Ethics Essay." http://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/WritingEssays.html .
• Adam Polak, "Essentials of Effective Persuasive Essays," at http://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/WritingEssays.html .

• How It Works
• PhD thesis writing
• Master thesis writing
• Bachelor thesis writing
• Dissertation writing service
• Dissertation abstract writing
• Thesis proposal writing
• Thesis editing service
• Thesis proofreading service
• Thesis formatting service
• Coursework writing service
• Research paper writing service
• Architecture thesis writing
• Computer science thesis writing
• Engineering thesis writing
• History thesis writing
• MBA thesis writing
• Nursing dissertation writing
• Psychology dissertation writing
• Sociology thesis writing
• Statistics dissertation writing
• Buy dissertation online
• Write my dissertation
• Cheap thesis
• Cheap dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help
• Pay for thesis
• Pay for dissertation
• Senior thesis
• Write my thesis

227 Philosophy Thesis Topics To Use Right Now

A philosophy dissertation everyone’s favorite. The long list of philosophers and their allegories or theories is not a subject most students would want to listen to comfortably. However, students still have to write a philosophical thesis in their undergraduate or post-graduate to graduate.

Let us narrow down this elephant in the room for you.

What Is A Philosophical Thesis?

A philosophical paper is not a report of what various scholars have had to say on a particular issue. It is a reasoned defense of a particular thesis. Unlike other papers that present the latest findings of tests or experiments, this paper tries to persuade the reader to give in to a particular point of view together with grounds or justification for its acceptance.

The introduction of a philosophy paper states what the writer is trying to show the reader. When writing a dissertation in philosophy, follow the following simple guidelines for efficiency:

• Very carefully and think about your topic
• Have a rough idea of what you intend to establish
• Determine how you’ll go about convincing the reader that your thesis is correct.

For an outstanding philosophy thesis, ensure that you say what you mean and in a way that minimizes the chances of being misunderstood. It is the general rule thumb for this paper that every student should have at his/her finger-tips.

What To Avoid in a Philosophy Dissertation

Understanding the do’s and don’ts of any paper is essential in ensuring that you stick within the scope of what is required of you. Here are some of the things to avoid in philosophical thesis papers for college:

• Lengthy quotations: It is essential to understand that quotations are an essential part of philosophy papers. However, stating long quotes that run into paragraphs or more does not make your paper sound original. One will only see this as a duplication of another person’s work.
• Circular reasoning: If you presuppose the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to bring out in the course of arguing for it, then you are guilty of begging the question.
• Lengthy introductions: An intro should only serve the purpose of giving the context of your philosophy topic and creating interest in the reader. You can do it in less than four short and precise questions. Overloading your introduction only serves to drain your readers’ energy before they get into the real deal – the body.
• Fence sitting: Most students are guilty of presenting several positions in their papers and then saying they are not qualified to settle the matter. Do not close by saying that philosophers have been divided over a particular issue. That only shows how shallow and scanty you were in your research process.

Always organize your work carefully, using the right words to present your stance without any disputes. The stance should also come out naturally without making the reader feel that you are forcing him/her to ascribe to your particular point of view.

It is also essential to support your arguments with undisputed evidence. Do not assume that your reader may not be skeptical of your arguments. Every reader is skeptical of whatever they read, and if sufficient evidence is not provided, then you might not convince anyone at the end of your 20-page long thesis.

Now, for you to have a strong thesis, ensure that it is:

• Answering a specific question;
• Engaging; one that can be challenged or opposed, thus also defended;
• Passes the “so what? Or why should I care?” test;
• Supported by your paper; and
• Not too broad nor too vague.

To have a strong argument in your philosophical paper, demonstrate these sorts of things that make your opponent’s views false in a fashion that does not presuppose that your position is correct. Your philosophy research topics will play a significant role in supporting this claim.

You can find philosophy research paper topics from:

Early American Imprints of 1639 to 1819 Early English Books Online of 1475 to 1700 Internet archives The War Diaries of Jean-Paul Sartre The Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant

And many more sources that are readily available in your college library or online catalogs.

We now advance to our professional philosophy topics list:

Sample Thesis Topics For Philosophy of the Human Sciences

• Critique of mainstream assumptions and practices of human behavior globally
• How are constructions of human nature affect our associations and lineation
• Adopting a human science framework to the problem of racial discrimination in the US
• How to adopt positivism in a world bombarded by negative news all the time
• A rigorous and systematic approach to man’s natural behavior
• The role of the Greek philosophers in shaping human sciences around the 18th century
• How existential phenomenology found its way from Europe
• Cultural and biological dimensions of human science research programs
• The role of qualitative research methods across the discipline of the human sciences
• How humanistic psychology offers more substantive findings in human science tradition
• An evaluation of the colleges and universities dedicated to humanistic/human science philosophy
• Discuss the impact of the American infusionism into the cultures and systems of the world
• Fundamental tenets of Western civilization in developing countries
• An assessment of the ancient nature of human interactions
• Political and cultural standards acceptable to all human interactions

Philosophy Potential Senior Thesis Topics

• A philosophical perspective of evil actions and evil persons
• How the ideology of Darwinism has affected the aspect of natural selection
• Distinguishing the underlying differences between intervention and information
• Psychoanalysis of melancholia in teenagers
• Investigating the use of biology in dealing with human philosophical issues
• The evolution of philosophical writings from the 15th century to the 21st century
• Examine the connection between shame and an immoral piece of art
• How depression relates to natural and interactive children
• What is the logic behind nightmares and madness in dreams?
• An investigation of how man is adapting to the invasion of privacy by new technologies
• The ethical and practical arguments against voluntary euthanasia
• Discuss the relationship between value, dignity, and human virtue in the Modern Virtue Theory
• The evolution of personal and corporate responsibility in the 21st century
• Trends in sex and sexuality as seen in the 21st century
• Why arousal of an emotion in the listener is essential in the delivery of any speech

Undergraduate Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Modern science: Should we employ a monistic or pluralistic model?
• How moral philosophy can help improve our understanding of folk psychology
• Why is it close to impossible to escape mental externalism?
• The emergence of technology and resulting bioethics as seen in the 21st century
• Investigate the willingness to accept punishment after committing a civil crime
• Why artificial intelligence may not be a genuinely creative entity
• Discuss empathy, fiction, and morality in the development of fiction stories and folklores
• The role of sporting activities in developing virtues and morals in the society
• Is voluntary suicide justified for any reason whatsoever?
• Why postmodern philosophical theories and market anarchism are enemies
• Discuss the ultimate goal of humanity in the backdrop of the changing roles
• Give a detailed analysis of the relationship between fate, destiny, and free will
• What is the essence of dreams and visions to man?
• Evaluate the sources of your self-worth in the light of personal attributes
• What is the impact of a person’s name on who they become in the future?

Best-Rated Political Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Consider the dividing line between distributive justice and the family
• Investigate the gendered basis for care and caregiving
• What are the underlying differences between multiculturalism and feminism
• Discuss the liberal versus radical feminist positions on pornography
• How social beings should live together considering the underlying differences
• Following the example of Plato, discuss what it means to have an ideal society
• Given the knowledge and resources available, discuss the best form of society using the US as a case study
• The evolution of democracy in the US presidential election
• How the history of the past several centuries has impacted the role of citizens in participation in democracy
• What is the essence of having a conservative free-market economy in the 21st century?
• The role of the government in regulating the economy
• Should the economy incorporate both capitalist and socialist structures?
• Do we have an economically viable socialist alternative to capitalism?
• Is it worth fighting for an economically viable alternative to capitalism?
• The conservative view of the post-World-War-Two period

Thesis Topics on the Renaissance and Philosophy

• The impact of the renaissance period o man’s view of the world
• Compare and contrast the High Renaissance in Rome as compared to the of Northern Europe
• The impact of the scientific revolution on the renaissance period
• The early renaissance period in Florence and the existence of the Flemish art
• Discuss the contributions of some of the godfathers of the Renaissance
• The perfect interplay between music and painting during the renaissance period
• The humanist intellectual, cultural, and artistic revolution of the Renaissance
• Religious symbolism and naturalistic beauty as exemplified in the renaissance period
• The role of sexuality and eroticism in the works of the 16th-century renaissance art
• How the discoveries of the renaissance period helped shape people’s attitudes towards life
• Identify and explain the role of the Carolingian Renaissance on the Bible
• The impact of the Great migration and economic changes on literature and art
• Discuss how art patronage was conducted in Italy during the Renaissance
• How science has made advancements in renaissance culture and art
• Impacts of the early Renaissance on the medical innovations

Master Thesis Topics in Philosophy

• Discuss the benefits and impacts of the renaissance period on the man
• How the renaissance period played a part in the reformation of the world
• A comparative analysis of philosophy, art, and culture during the Renaissance
• How much influence did the renaissance period have on dressing?
• Conduct a critical analysis of Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance
• The contribution of sculptors of the Italian Renaissance
• Discuss artistic renaissance humanism during 1400 and 1650
• The Renaissance and religion: A case study of the Catholic church
• Artistic revolution as a significant element of the Renaissance
• The role of William Shakespeare in the renaissance period
• Discuss the classical and Renaissance humanities art of the Greco-Roman artists
• The cultural, economic, and political influence of the Renaissance
• The age of revolutionary, Renaissance, and enlightenment period
• The representation of nature in the European renaissance artistic works
• How Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Rafael contributed to the new era of the Renaissance

Introduction to Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Discuss whether people are good or evil by nature
• What are the limitations to free will in making personal decisions?
• What is the impact of the belief in God on a person’s way of life?
• Discuss the compatibility issues between science with religion
• Give a detailed argument for or against utilitarianism
• What is the logic behind psychological and ethical egoism?
• Ascertain the relevance of morals to culture or society
• The role of Aesop’s fables in contributing to human philosophy
• Discuss the history and development of African philosophy
• What are the central tenets of African Sage Philosophy?
• The critical role played by altruism and group selection
• Conduct a detailed analysis of the American Enlightenment Thought
• How does the American Wilderness Philosophy vary from that of today?
• A case study of Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
• Critically evaluate motion and its place in nature
• Discuss association in the philosophy of the mind
• How Bolzano’s mathematical knowledge played a crucial role in human philosophy

Thesis Papers Topics on Buddhist Philosophy

• The view of sin and punishment between the Buddhist and Hindu religions
• Buddhist believe in rebirth, which is determined by the actions one does in daily life.
• Misconceptions about sexuality in the Buddhist religion
• Discuss the relationship between Shinto with China and Buddhism
• Analyze the four noble truths of Buddhism
• The concept of salvation according to the Zen Buddhism religion
• A detailed study of the confluence of Buddhism and Hinduism in India
• An analysis of the faith and practices of Buddhism as a religion in India
• The role of Mahatma Gandhi in advancing the ideologies and practices of Buddhism
• Evaluate the vase of treasure hidden in the Buddhist iconography
• Compare and contrast the various variations between Buddhism and Christianity
• Elements of the Buddhism religion that make it sacred
• Discuss the concept of anger and how to manage it in the Buddhism religion
• Cultural histories and the expansion of the Buddhism religion in China
• Differences in the Japanese versus Chinese Buddhism practices

Types of Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Discuss the role of aesthetics in the study of philosophy
• How epistemology has contributed to the growth in philosophical literature
• Elaborate the role of ethics on the survivability of a society
• How logic has been crucial in making rational decisions in a man
• What are the limitations of metaphysics as a branch of philosophy?
• Analyze the philosophy of mind given the fundamental tenets
• Discuss the major revolutions of the African philosophy
• Why does Eastern philosophy have a lower absorption rate?
• Reasons why Western philosophy has a greater acceptance in the world as compared to others
• Give the unique characteristics of the ancient and classical philosophy
• Why the medieval and post-classical philosophies have a place in the modern world
• The modern and contemporary philosophy in terms of improvements
• Discuss the philosophy of language theories and stances in Europe
• What is the impact of the philosophy of science theories and stances?
• Discuss the epistemological stances of different philosophical schools of thought

Epistemology Paper Topics

• The concept of skepticism among different readers
• Analyze the internalist vs. externalist accounts of knowledge and justification
• Discuss the structure of knowledge and justification
• What contributes to contextualism in epistemology?
• Impacts of the relevant alternative accounts of knowledge
• Discuss the pros and cons of the epistemology of lotteries
• A case study of foundationalism and coherentism
• The impacts of facts and beliefs on people
• Is skepticism doomed to an inevitable defeat?
• Arguments and positions in epistemology in the 21st century
• The pros and cons of different positions in epistemology
• Relevant arguments and principles in epistemology: A case of The Closure Principle
• Critically discuss Shoemaker’s ‘self-blindness’ concept
• How the epistemology of attitudes like the belief is very different from the epistemology of other mental states
• Fundamental flaws in various epistemological theories

High-Quality Philosophy Project Topics

• Discuss the concept of happiness
• Why egoism is a negative trait
• Discuss the motive behind acts of charity
• Is love merely an illusion of the mind?
• Are criminals evil by nature?
• Is the current generation less affectionate?
• Discuss the concept of true friendship
• Is there happiness in achieving nothing?
• Does a perfect life exist?
• Why do people struggle to attain perfectionism?
• The impact of technology of taking away emotions
• Analyze time management among high school versus campus students
• Is obsession replacing true love?
• Is the concept of ‘You Only Live Once’ viable?
• Why are most geniuses’ introverts?

Easy Philosophy Paper Topics

• Discuss the existence of fate in the modern world
• Can we achieve an ideal society?
• Is life meaningful after all?
• Why should people work, yet they will die in the end?
• Is the concept of feminism overhyped?
• Is every human action predetermined?
• Discuss the components of the human consciousness
• Why do people tend to do the bad instead of the good?
• Are atheists deceiving themselves?
• Why is the world changing so fast?
• Is there life after death?
• Why must everyone go to school?
• Who determines what clothes each gender should don?
• The impact of religious beliefs on science
• Does death usher in the new life?

Top Philosophical Topics To Write About

• Will the world ever come to an end?
• Why do people have different religions?
• Does stealing originate from the person’s mind?
• Who is responsible for the rot in the society
• The role of parents in instilling morals
• Why do people believe in revenge?
• What makes man different from animals?
• Why should we care about our neighbors?
• Is humility a virtue for ladies?
• Why are most men aggressive
• Discuss the role of sleeping at night
• Should people eat food after all?
• Is man the biggest threat to himself?
• Is the judicial system serving justice?
• Will robots make the world better?

Good Philosophy Topics

• Do beliefs and superstitions match?
• Is sex necessary?
• Why should people love each other?
• Should a woman head the house also?
• Are other planets mere superstitions?
• Are the stars in the sky fantasies?
• Why bother about planning?
• Do aliens exist?
• Why is man rational?
• What is the effect of finding a purpose in life
• Do shooting stars fall on earth?
• Why do fiction movies move people?
• Does the moon exist?
• Are we living reality or a fantasy?
• Can one love more than two people?

Interesting Philosophy Topics

• Was man made out of clay?
• Do guns protect?
• Does true love exist among teenagers?
• Beauty and morality
• Religion and power
• Memories and love
• Peace and war
• Religion and own belief system
• Angels and demons
• Heaven and earth
• Plastic surgery and ethics
• Character and upbringing
• Dreams and the future
• The rich and the poor
• Is death inevitable

Do you need affordable help with a thesis or a research paper? Contact our thesis help writers now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment * Error message

Name * Error message

Email * Error message

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

• General Overview
• How to Apply
• Admission Requirements
• Admissions Checklist
• International Students
• Transfer Credits
• Open House Events
• Financial Aid
• Submit Official Transcripts
• Prepare for Your First Class
• Student Email
• Student Portal
• Student Services
• Master Booklist
• Graduate Online Writing Studio
• KU Bookstore
• Make a Payment
• Contact Graduate Admissions Counselor
• Contact Graduate Financial Aid Counselor
• Virtual Visit
• Why Keiser Graduate School?
• Accreditation
• ADA/Accessibility
• Columbia College, SC
• Sumner College
• West Virginia University
• Testimonials
• Our Newsletter

Entering Zip will list the campuses closest to your location top to bottom.

By clicking the "Submit" button, I authorize Keiser University to make or allow the placement of recurring marketing calls, emails, and texts to me at the phone number that I have provided, including through the use of automated technology or a prerecorded or artificial voice. I understand that I am not required to provide my phone number as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services. Privacy Policy

Whether you're thinking about pursuing an advanced degree in education or are already in such a program, one thing you will need to be prepared for...

Writing a winning thesis or dissertation: guidance for an education graduate student.

Posted on July 31, 2024 on Graduate School , Seahawk Nation

Quick Contact

Whether you’re thinking about pursuing an advanced degree in education or are already in such a program, one thing you will need to be prepared for is writing a thesis or dissertation. In most graduate-level education programs, a thesis or dissertation is the culmination of years of challenging work, serving as your own independent research that marks the final step before earning your graduate degree.

If writing a dissertation or thesis sounds like a daunting task, it does not have to be. With a little preparation and some best practices in mind, you can approach writing a thesis or dissertation with confidence.

Understanding the Thesis and Dissertation Process

Before writing a thesis or dissertation, it’s important to understand their general scope and purpose, along with some key differences between a thesis and a dissertation. After all, while there are some similarities between the two, a dissertation and a thesis are not the same thing.

Defining the Scope and Purpose

The primary purpose of a thesis or dissertation in an education graduate program is for students to demonstrate what they have learned in their respective programs while applying their own research, theory, analysis and synthesis. Ultimately, the author of a thesis or dissertation should successfully contribute something new to the existing topic. In dissertations specifically, students may also be required to articulate, discuss and defend their research orally in front of professors or other faculty members. This oral defense is not required for a master’s thesis.

Differences Between Thesis and Dissertation

When it comes to writing a thesis or a dissertation, the terms “dissertation” and “thesis” are sometimes used interchangeably. That said, it is crucial to understand that these are two different things. Generally, a dissertation is primarily focused on filling a gap in existing literature or extending upon current research regarding a specific topic. The goal is to analyze literature to the point of saturation and determine where there is a need for further research. In a dissertation, a doctoral student will then explain where the problem exists given current research and develop a research study to explore or evaluate the problem, thus filling the gap and contributing meaningfully to the field.

On the other hand, a thesis is more of a presentation of information that’s already out there with no obligation to conduct additional research.

Choosing the Right Topic

One of the most important aspects of drafting a great thesis or dissertation begins with choosing the right topic. Here, it is paramount to select a topic that not only interests you but is relevant to your future professional goals and aspirations. After all, there’s a good chance you may use your thesis or dissertation as a basis for future work or further research.

Considering Current Research Trends

In selecting a topic, you will also want to consider current research trends in your field. What is trending in the realm of education and what could you contribute to existing research? There are research gaps or questions that remain unanswered about certain educational topics that could be addressed through your research.

Research and Proposal Development

In most graduate programs, you will need to write and present a research proposal before you can really get started on your thesis or dissertation. Most research proposals are reviewed and approved by a professor or other faculty.

Conducting a Literature Review

A literature review is to discover the research available on your research topic. This review should detail each source you plan to use in your own research with plenty of detail. More specifically, a literature review is a comprehensive summary of the current literature on a given topic that demonstrates the need for additional research to be conducted. Literature reviews comprise a major portion of a proposal, including a summary of each source as it relates to the need for additional research.

Finding Reliable Sources

Quality is vital when it comes to selecting literature for your research or literature review. Ideally, your literature review should include plenty of recent and reputable sources that come from academic journals, books, articles and even other dissertations.

Developing a Research Proposal

Once you have a better understanding for what is already out there, you can craft a research proposal that discusses your specific research topic, the current problem, the purpose behind your research, the methodology you plan to use and the relevant literature that further defends a need for your topic to be investigated.

Methodology Selection

An important part of your research proposal will be your methodology selection, which will explain exactly how you plan to go about your research. For example, will your research be qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both and why? How will the methodology you choose answer your research questions?

Writing and Structuring Your Thesis or Dissertation

After your research proposal is approved, you will have the green light to begin working on your thesis or dissertation. You will receive feedback or thesis guidance from the faculty member who reviewed your proposal. It is important to reflect on the feedback and make revisions as needed.

Creating an Outline

One of the most helpful things you can do as you get started with your dissertation or thesis is to create an outline. This allows you to develop the most critical aspects of your final project that include your thesis, your main points and other key details to ensure that they flow logically.

For reference, an outline for a dissertation will typically include the following:

• Introduction of existing research
• Review of literature
• Conceptual framework
• Methodology
• Results or findings
• Interpretations, conclusions or recommendations for future research

Structuring Arguments

In creating an outline, include designated sections for each of your main points with specific research, statistics, or other data to support it. This will ensure that your arguments are made clearly and that your thought process is clear.

Writing Tips and Strategies

Even if writing is not necessarily your strong suit, you will need to be able to put together a cohesive document for your thesis or dissertation. There are some basic strategies worth keeping in mind to help you get started.

First, it can be helpful to write your introduction and conclusion paragraphs last once you have completed all your research. While it might seem counterintuitive to do it this way, it can help set the tone for the rest of your writing. Likewise, this strategy ensures that you include your main points while preparing your readers for the information to come.

Additionally, meet with your advisor or faculty sponsor regularly to gain valuable feedback and keep your project on track.

Data Collection and Analysis

Whether you are writing a thesis or dissertation, you will need to do a fair amount of your own qualitative or quantitative research. It’s important to understand the various data collection methods available to you, plus the best practices for analyzing and interpreting data.

Choosing Data Collection Methods

There are two main types of data collection:

• Quantitative data  - Refers to hard data that is numerical in nature, such as statistics and percentages.
• Qualitative data  - Refers to information that is non-numerical, such as interviews and focus groups.
• Mixed methods – Refer to a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Analyzing and Interpreting Data

Once you have all the data you need to write your thesis or dissertation, the challenging part is often analyzing and interpreting the data to apply to your own research. The most important thing to keep in mind when looking at hard data is how it relates back to your research and specific research questions.

When working with quantitative data, it can also be helpful to look for specific trends and correlations that you can share in your research.

Reviewing and Editing Your Work

Once you have completed the first draft of your thesis or dissertation, the process of reviewing, revising and editing your work before submission is important to ensure that the document is free of errors and that it effectively communicates your main points to the reader.

Peer Review and Feedback

One of the best ways to improve upon the first draft of your dissertation or thesis is through peer review and feedback. By having others read your draft and provide feedback, you can gain some valuable insights into how your arguments are being interpreted. Even if the person you ask to read your draft is not familiar with the subject matter, they can still provide useful feedback on the organization of the information, structure and grammar/spelling.

Proofreading and Final Edits

It may take several rounds of revisions before your dissertation or thesis is approved. Even when you feel like the entire thing is ready to submit, it is important to complete another round of proofreading and editing to be sure that the entire document is polished and in the best shape possible. This includes not just running a basic spell check but taking the time to read your paper word for word.

Formatting Guidelines

In most education programs, you will be instructed to use the  American Psychological Association (APA) style when writing and formatting your thesis or dissertation. It is important to follow all formatting guidelines here, especially as they relate to citations or references.

Preparing for the Defense

In many doctorate programs and some graduate programs, students will also be expected to defend their dissertations in front of other scholars, usually professors or other faculty from the department. This process can be daunting, even for those who know their research well and have crafted thoughtful dissertations.

Crafting Your Presentation

In preparing for a dissertation defense, it is imperative to craft a presentation that covers the basics of your dissertation topic, how you researched it and what your findings were. Following your presentation, you can expect to be asked questions by those in attendance about your topic and other aspects of your research.

Practicing Your Defense

The best way to prepare for a dissertation defense is to practice as much as possible. This way, you will be prepared for the kinds of questions that may be asked, and you will feel a little more confident when completing your defense.

Mock Sessions

Mock defense sessions can be especially helpful for practicing your presentation and answering questions from a real crowd. Do not hesitate to ask your fellow students or even some trusted professors to practice with you to provide feedback or ask questions.

Handling Questions

One of the most difficult aspects of defending a dissertation is often answering questions from the audience. One important tip to keep in mind here is to prepare some answers in advance to some of the questions you think might be asked during your dissertation defense. This way, you will be completely prepared to knock these out of the park.

Ready to Pursue an Advanced Degree?

As you can see, there is a lot that goes into writing a dissertation or thesis as part of your graduate education program. With this dissertation guidance in mind, you will be prepared to craft and even defend your thesis or dissertation with success.

Still looking for the right graduate education program to suit your interests and professional goals? Keiser University is proud to offer a number of advanced degrees in education, including our  Master of Science in Education, Teaching and Learning  program. If you’re interested in earning your doctorate degree, we also offer a  Doctor of Education  and a  Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership .

Learn more about any of the graduate programs offered at Keiser University by  contacting a graduate admissions counselor today, or get started with your online application  for enrollment.

Jessica Kircher

Free Al Office Suite with PDF Editor

Edit Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE.

Read, edit, and convert PDFs with the powerful PDF toolkit.

Microsoft-like interface, easy to use.

Windows • MacOS • Linux • iOS • Android

• Articles of Word

How to Write A thesis statement - Steps with Examples

A seasoned writer myself, I have watched so many students struggle to formulate a thesis statement. One sentence really the backbone of your paper has surprisingly been very tricky to perfect. No fears, though! I am here to guide you through the making process, sharing my experience and addressing you to a game-changing tool that will make magic transform your vague notions into thesis statements.

What is a thesis statement & What to include? 

Imagine the thesis statement to be the North Star of your paper. It is the one- or two-sentence declaration boldly announcing your main point or argument. It isn't a summary, but rather a mission statement of sorts for your paper to guide your reader through the twists and turns of your research or analysis.

Key Ingredients for a Killer Thesis Statement

An excellent thesis statement truly ought to have these elements:

The main idea or argument: This is what will propel the paper forward. It is, in effect, its heart. What are you attempting to prove, explain, or explore? Do not bury the lead—state it up front.

Specificity: Vagueness is the enemy of a good thesis. Get specific! Instead of saying, "Social media is bad," pinpoint exactly how it's detrimental.

Scope: Set the setting of your discussion. Are you dealing with a particular time period, demographic, or another aspect of your topic? Let your reader in on it.

Significance: So what? Why does your argument matter? Explain to your reader why they should care about your topic and your take on it, too.

Structure: Be concise and to the point. Try not to get no more than one or two sentences with real punch.

When all of these elements come together, you get a thesis statement that is not only informative but stimulating and attractive, beckoning your reader towards the rest in a paper.

Types of Thesis Statements

In academic writing, thesis statements fall under classes depending on the type of essay or paper being written. Knowing them can help in creating an emphatic and fruitful thesis statement.

Argumentative Essay

An argumentative thesis statement does indeed stand strong on a debated issue. This implies that it incorporates the author's position and the reasons, along with evidence supporting that position. This means convincing the reader that this is the right argument, together with supporting rationale and credible resources.

The impact of social media on adolescent mental health is devastating due to the rising cases of cyberbullying and body images that are unachievable. "

Expository Essay

On the other hand, the thesis statement for an expository essay aims to explain or describe the topic in a neutral way and is not argumentative. It provides the reader with a clear view of what the essay is going to talk about or analyze since it contains purely factual information, providing insight into the subject matter.

How to Write a Thesis Statement in 3 Steps [With Examples]

Setting a solid thesis statement doesn't have to be terrifying. Just break it down into three manageable steps:

Step 1: Identify the Topic and the Main Idea

Think of this as laying the groundwork for your thesis—what is the central subject you're going to be exploring, and what is your main point about it?

Example: If your chosen topic is "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Job Employment," then you would say your thesis is that AI will create new and destroy existing jobs.

Step 2: Craft Your Preliminary Thesis Statement

In this step, you'll write your initial draft of the thesis statement. Your reaction to the primary idea should be simple and logically evident.

Example: Original thesis: "Artificial intelligence is likely to create a huge impact in the job market, generating as well as putting people out of jobs at the same time."

Step 3: Revisioning and Refining Your Thesis Statement

Now you're ready to refine your thesis. Add detail, flesh out your language, and make it clear that it encompasses what you discuss in your paper.

WPS AI to the Rescue!

WPS AI will give you the best partner in this regard and can help you ensure your writing is error-free, with its grammar check, perfecting word choice through its paraphrasing tool, and even ideating for you regarding argumentation, with an AI-powered writing assistant. WPS AI interface with Grammar check, Paraphrasing and Writing assistant features highlighted.

Using these steps and WPS AI, you can come up with a thesis statement that is clear and concise, yet thought-provoking and engaging enough to set the stage for a well-organized and impactful paper.

Bonus Tips: How to Perfect your Thesis Statements with WPS AI

Get the Basics in Place, Then Take Your Thesis Statement From Good to Great You are about to submit your thesis statement. Okay, this is where WPS AI really can become the ultimate cheat not that I told you to use it like one. Think of it as your personal writing coach, who'll help you fine-tune your masterwork:

Grammar and Syntax Guru: Even the most seasoned writer may miss typing this or that. A grammar check in WPS is there for your rescue. It will pick up any weird errors and give a professional finish to your thesis.

Length Master: Too long? Too short? WPS AI can help you find that Goldilocks zone. Need a bit more meat? AI writing assistant is happy to assist with suggestions of more details. Want to tighten things up? The paraphrasing tool can help condense your statement while retaining its meaning.

Clarity Champion: Sometimes, even when we know what to say, the words don't quite come out right. Use WPS AI rewriting suggestions to rephrase clunky or unclear language, so that your thesis is clear and your main point comes across clearly.

Think of WPS AI as your copilot to this journey that is the thesis statement. It is here to help you chart your way through the quagmire of linguistic subtleties, rub your prose until it gleams like a beacon of shining wisdom, and come up with a thesis statement sure to draw in the reader and set the tone for a great paper. So go ahead, take the plunge, and watch your thesis statements climb through the roof!

FAQs about writing a Thesis Statement

Q1. can a thesis statement be two sentences long.

Although a thesis statement may be two sentences long in certain rare circumstances, it is best for clarity and emphasis to be expressed in one. This way, the reader can quickly ascertain the main argument from the final sentence of your first paragraph.

Q2. How do I create a thesis statement?

Ask yourself these questions to help generate a thesis statement:

Step 1: Select your topic: Think of a specific area or issue you want to write about.

Step 2: Formulate your question: Pose a question as related to the topic selected. Asking something that interests you will help in formulating the thesis statement.

Step 3: Formulate your rough answer: Provide a tentative answer to your question. This serves you as the working thesis.

Step 4: Elaborate and clarify: Add specific detail, reason, or qualification to give your thesis statement more specificity. Make sure that it is clear, specific, and directly states how the scope of your paper will follow.

Q3: What is a good thesis statement?

A good thesis statement should be :

Specific: States what clearly will be about or what argument will take place in your paper.

Debatable: It introduces a position that could be argued or disputed.

Insightful: It provides insight into what the scope and purpose of your paper are.

Supported: Evidence and logical reasoning in the paper support this.

A good thesis statement makes sure that there is precision and clarity to guide your readers through the central ideas of your paper.

An effective thesis statement in academic writing serves as one's map, indicating what the main argument is and why it matters. This guide puts a premium on the clarity and specificity with which thesis statements should be written. For that, WPS AI enables you to efficiently create drafts down to the refinement stage, making sure your thesis statement strongly communicates what your paper is about. A good thesis helps you create valid claims, if not vivid arguments for your audience.

• 1. Write a Teaching Philosophy Statement: Examples and Guide
• 2. Best 4 Steps on How to Edit a Bank Statement PDF on Windows with WPS Office
• 3. How to Write a Proposal [ Steps & Examples]
• 4. How to Use the IF Statement in Google Sheets (With Examples)
• 5. How to Write a Hook- Steps With Examples
• 6. How to Write an IF Statement in Excel: Easy Steps

15 years of office industry experience, tech lover and copywriter. Follow me for product reviews, comparisons, and recommendations for new apps and software.