• Contestable: Intentionally writing a claim that someone can disagree with may seem
counterintuitive, but consider that if no one could possibly disagree with what you’re arguing,
there’s little point in writing about it. Being able to acknowledge and refute counterarguments
will strengthen your claim, not weaken it.
o POOR: “Durham and Chapel Hill have much in common, although they are different in some
ways.” Well, yeah, but who cares?
o BETTER: “Although Durham’s industrial past has created a more deeply troubled economic caste
system than found in Chapel Hill, it has also created greater cultural diversity that is now helping
to guide the city’s economic renewal.” There is certainly room for disagreement in this claim; as a
result, it provides a much more interesting basis for discussion. The author is likely to support it
more passionately than the first claim.
• Reasonable: While you want your claim to be contestable, you also want it to be reasonable. A
claim can be radical, in the context of current dialogue on your topic, and still be reasonable if
you have sufficient evidence to support it. Readers will recognize the difference between
thoughtful, critical interpretations of evidence and contortions that twist evidence around to
support an unreasonable claim.
• Specific: Broad claims are more difficult to support effectively than focused claims. Specific
claims also tend to provide readers with more useful information than broad claims.
o POOR: “North Carolina apple farmers are responding to the current economic situation by finding
new ways to generate income.”
o BETTER: “With hurricanes causing significant crop losses over the past decade, North Carolina
apple farmers are increasingly relying on agrotourism to generate reliable supplemental income.”
• Significant: Consider the context of the course for which you are writing your paper. Is your
claim adding anything meaningful to the current dialogue surrounding your topic? Note that as
you become more familiar with the concerns of a given topic or discipline, you will be able to
contribute more significantly to the discussion.
• Interpretive: Does your claim offer an interpretation of evidence or does it simply describe a
situation?
o POOR: “The United States is a federal system that divides governmental powers between national
and state authorities.” Rather than offering an interpretation, this sentence describes an
incontestable fact. While it may have truth value, it makes a poor thesis statement.
o BETTER: “The division of governmental authority inherent to the United States’ federal system
produces unnecessary competition between state and national jurisdictions. This division hinders
the effectiveness of public policies at both levels of government.” These two sentences (note that a
thesis statement might be two sentences, not just one) offer readers an interpretation. They propose
a specific relationship between a cause (i.e. the U.S. federal system) and its effects (i.e. less
effective public policies), as well as the rationale behind the interpretation (i.e. competition
between state and national authorities).
Revising your claim
After finishing your rough draft, it’s time to revise. As you do so, ask whether the evidence you discuss in
the body of the essay supports your working claim. Can you make your central claim more specific and
precise? Have you sufficiently addressed (as opposed to ignored) counterarguments that might undermine