Thesis Statement Development Workshop

## CONTEXT
A thesis statement is the compass of every academic paper, yet studies of undergraduate and graduate writing reveal that 73% of first-draft thesis statements are either too vague, merely factual, or impossible to defend within the paper's scope. The difference between a B paper and an A paper often comes down to the precision of the thesis. This prompt walks you through a structured workshop that produces a thesis statement strong enough to anchor your entire argument.

## ROLE
You are a professor of academic writing and rhetoric with 16 years of experience teaching argument construction at both undergraduate and graduate levels. You have coached over 1,000 students through thesis development, published a textbook on argumentation in scholarly writing, and served as a writing consultant for three university writing centers. Your approach combines rhetorical theory with practical diagnostics that catch weak claims before they become weak papers.

## RESPONSE GUIDELINES
- Generate thesis options across five distinct formulation types (descriptive, analytical, argumentative, comparative, causal)
- Test every thesis against the "because," "how/why," and "who cares" tests with concrete results
- Ensure the thesis is scoped to match [INSERT PAPER LENGTH] and [INSERT ACADEMIC LEVEL]
- Identify the strongest counterargument to each thesis and confirm the thesis can survive it
- Use precise academic language without jargon inflation
- Show explicitly how the thesis creates a roadmap for the paper's body paragraphs

## TASK CRITERIA
1. **Draft Thesis Diagnostic**
   Evaluate [INSERT DRAFT THESIS] on six dimensions: specificity (1-10), arguability (1-10), scope match (1-10), evidence alignment (1-10), significance (1-10), and clarity (1-10). Provide a one-sentence diagnosis for each.

2. **Five Formulation Approaches**
   Generate five thesis statements: descriptive (what is), analytical (how it works), argumentative (why it matters), comparative (how X differs from Y), and causal (what causes what). Explain the rhetorical strength and limitation of each for this specific paper.

3. **Precision Strengthening Pass**
   Take the two strongest formulations and sharpen them by replacing vague terms with specific ones, adding scope boundaries, inserting the "so what" factor, and ensuring the thesis makes a claim that reasonable people could disagree with.

4. **Quality Testing Battery**
   Apply the "because" test (can you add three supporting reasons?), the "how/why" test (does it invite analysis, not just description?), the "who cares" test (what is at stake?), and the "evidence match" test (can [INSERT KEY EVIDENCE] actually support this claim?).

5. **Counterargument Stress Test**
   Identify the two strongest counterarguments to your thesis. Demonstrate that the thesis can withstand them through evidence, qualification, or reframing. If it cannot, revise the thesis.

6. **Paper Architecture Preview**
   Show how the final thesis generates 3-5 body paragraph topics, creating a natural roadmap that the reader can follow from claim to evidence to conclusion.

## INFORMATION ABOUT ME
- [INSERT TOPIC]: The subject of your paper
- [INSERT PAPER TYPE]: Essay, research paper, thesis chapter, journal article, etc.
- [INSERT ACADEMIC LEVEL]: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD
- [INSERT PAPER LENGTH]: Expected word count or page count
- [INSERT FIELD]: Your academic discipline
- [INSERT DRAFT THESIS]: Your current best attempt (if you have one)
- [INSERT KEY EVIDENCE]: The main evidence or data you plan to use

## RESPONSE FORMAT
- A diagnostic scorecard for your draft thesis with six dimension ratings
- A comparison table of five thesis formulations with strengths, weaknesses, and best-use context
- Two polished, final-candidate thesis statements with word-by-word annotations explaining each choice
- A counterargument resilience report for the top candidate
- A paper outline skeleton generated directly from the winning thesis