跳转到正文
学术写作

如何写论点句

论点句(thesis statement)是论文其余部分将要证明的一两句话主张。它不是题目,不是标题预告,也不是是/否问题。UNC Writing Center称之为路线图:它告诉读者你如何解释对象,以及论文其余部分将做什么。本页是这份写法指南。它不是整段开篇的如何写引言,也不是如何写研究论文。

作者:阅读约 29 分钟

学术写作指南的配图
图片:Calum MacAulay,维基共享资源(CC0)
本页内容

如何写论点句:简要回答

把作业变成一个问题,用完整句子回答,然后改到有思考力的读者能够反对、正文也确实能支撑该主张为止。Harvard College Writing Center把同一检验收成一个词:论点必须arguable(可争议)。Purdue OWL首先加上类型核对:分析性、说明性或论证性——句子必须匹配你被布置的论文,而不是你背下的公式。如果句子只点出题目,或只报告无人争议的事实,它还不是论点。

起步模板(套用这些;不要捏造证据)

论证 / 政策论文:

由于[具体证据],[谁]应当[具体行动],而不是[通常的替代方案]。

文学或来源分析:

在[文本]中,[作者]为了[解释]而[做X],这之所以重要,是因为[它如何改变我们对作品的读法]。

研究文章(目的,不是课堂论点):

本研究检验在[总体]中,[变量A]是否[增加 / 减少 / 不影响][变量B],因为[该设计能填补的空白]。

UNC的定义是这项工作最短的官方版本。保留原词;本页后面的例子,都是那些写作中心实际发表过的。现行Purdue OWL页面是Creating a Thesis Statement, Thesis Statement Tips——不是残留路径/establishing_arguments/how_to_write_a_thesis_statement.html,后者现在会404。

UNC Writing Center,“Thesis Statements”

tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
makes a claim that others might dispute.
is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader.

只有在已有证据之后,才使用论点句生成器。生成器可以收紧措辞,不能发明你尚未赢得的解释。用CitationEasy生成器引用真正支撑主张的来源。

什么是论点句——官方定义

六所大学的写作页面描述同一对象,并在何时应当写论点上有益地分歧。Harvard点名主张。Indiana University描述读者在找什么。UNC点名这句话必须完成的工作。Purdue OWL在起草句子之前,先把论文分成分析性、说明性和论证性。UW–Madison把论点与目的句分开。Margaret Procter的University of Toronto Writing Advice页面补充何时不该写论点。它们都不把论点当作标题、题目或目录。

Harvard College Writing Center,“Thesis”

Your thesis is the central claim in your essay—your main insight or idea about your source or topic.
A strong thesis is arguable, which means a thoughtful reader could disagree with it and therefore needs your careful analysis of the evidence to understand how you arrived at this claim.
You arrive at your thesis by examining and analyzing the evidence available to you, which might be text or other types of source material.
A strong thesis will be arguable rather than descriptive, and it will be the right scope for the essay you are writing.

Indiana University Writing Tutorial Services

Almost all of us—even if we don’t do it consciously—look early in an essay for a one- or two-sentence condensation of the argument or analysis that is to follow.
Almost all assignments, no matter how complicated, can be reduced to a single question.

Indiana的页面接着点名这句话为何存在:它检验你的想法能否装进一两句,它组织论证,它给读者一份指南。若你还写不出那份浓缩,你还没有论点——你只有题目和一些笔记。

UW–Madison Writing Center,“Developing a Thesis Statement”(现行 /processandstructure/thesis/ 路径)

Keep in mind that not all papers require thesis statements.
Makes an argumentative assertion about a topic; it states the conclusions that you have reached about your topic.
Makes a promise to the reader about the scope, purpose, and direction of your paper.
Is focused and specific enough to be “proven” within the boundaries of your paper.
Is generally located near the end of the introduction; sometimes, in a long paper, the thesis will be expressed in several sentences or in an entire paragraph.

不要使用残留的UW–Madison网址。https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/process/thesis/ 和 https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/thesis/ 都会404。现行手册页面是Developing a Thesis Statement和Thesis and Purpose Statements。

何时需要论点——以及何时不需要

UNC说,当作业要求你分析、解释、比较对照、说明因果或表明立场时,你是在被要求提出论点并加以支撑。UW–Madison直说:并非每篇论文都要论点。Toronto是针对课堂迷思的有用制衡:并非每项作业都要论点,五段式“三个理由”句子也不是规则。

University of Toronto,“Some Myths about Thesis Statements”

Every paper requires one. Assignments that ask you to write personal responses or to explore a subject don’t want you to seem to pre-judge the issues. Essays of literary interpretation often want you to be aware of many effects rather than seeming to box yourself into one view of the text.
A thesis statement must come at the end of the first paragraph. This is a natural position for a statement of focus, but it’s not the only one. Some theses can be stated in the opening sentences of an essay; others need a paragraph or two of introduction; others can’t be fully formulated until the end.
A thesis statement must be one sentence in length, no matter how many clauses it contains. Clear writing is more important than rules like these. Use two or three sentences if you need them. A complex argument may require a whole tightly-knit paragraph to make its initial statement of position.
You can’t start writing an essay until you have a perfect thesis statement. It may be advisable to draft a hypothesis or tentative thesis statement near the start of a big project, but changing and refining a thesis is a main task of thinking your way through your ideas as you write a paper. And some essay projects need to explore the question in depth without being locked in before they can provide even a tentative answer.
A thesis statement must give three points of support. It should indicate that the essay will explain and give evidence for its assertion, but points don’t need to come in any specific number.

最后这条迷思,正是课堂公式所教的。三点论点可以帮助短课程论文保持条理。UNC、Harvard、Indiana、Toronto、Purdue OWL、UW–Madison或APA都不要求它。若第三个“点”只是为了凑成三个,就删掉。Purdue OWL的Argument Papers页面仍引用MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers第七版(Gibaldi 42)的一句定义。那是残留的第七版措辞。现行MLA是第九版;当复杂主张需要两句时,应遵循Toronto的迷思清单。

课程论文、研究文章与目的句

本页写的是课堂论点。心理学、医学或工程学的期刊文章,通常在引言结尾给出目的、目标或假设——一条可检验的预测——而不是对小说的可争议解释。UW–Madison的目的句页面是官方分界:论点主张一项结论;目的句宣布范围与方向,而不预告你得出的具体结论。如何写引言覆盖该开篇部分,包括John Swales的CARS步骤,以及ICMJE关于引言陈述目的、不报告本研究结果的规则。不要把人文学论点贴进IMRaD论文,也不要用“This paper will discuss”替换文学论证。

UW–Madison,“Thesis and Purpose Statements”

A thesis statement is a sentence that makes an assertion about a topic and predicts how the topic will be developed. It does not simply announce a topic: it says something about the topic.

UW的预告(差)与主张(好):

Good: X has made a significant impact on the teenage population due to its . . . Bad: In this paper, I will discuss X.
A purpose statement announces the purpose, scope, and direction of the paper. It tells the reader what to expect in a paper and what the specific focus will be.
“This paper examines . . .,” “The aim of this paper is to . . .,” and “The purpose of this essay is to . . .”

UW目的句(Sahel教学范例):

This paper will examine the ecological destruction of the Sahel preceding the drought and the causes of this disintegration of the land. The focus will be on the economic, political, and social relationships which brought about the environmental problems in the Sahel.

在这些情况下写论点

  • 提示要求你论证、解释、评价或表明立场
  • 有思考力的读者能够反对
  • 论文其余部分将为那一条主张收集证据
  • 你在写课程论文、文学论文,或另一项要求一条中心主张的作业

在这些情况下写目的或假设

  • 论文报告你已做或将做的研究
  • 主张必须可检验,而不仅仅可争议
  • 引言的任务是占据一个研究空位(CARS Move 3)
  • 教师或期刊要的是目标,而不是一句“I argue that”

官方检验:UNC、Harvard与Indiana

UNC的修改问题,是看出草稿论点仍是题目的最快办法。对你已有的句子跑这些问题,而不是对你希望拥有的句子。

UNC Writing Center修改问题

Do I answer the question?
Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose?
Is my thesis statement specific enough?
Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test?
Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering?
Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test?

UNC对含糊赞美的警告,是学生最常跳过的一条:若论点含有“good”或“successful”之类词,就要说明是什么使该对象好或成功。“So what?”意味着已经了解题目的读者,仍需要一个继续读下去的理由。“How and why?”意味着句子应暗示机制,而不只是给出裁决。

Harvard的后续问题抓住另一种失败:句子在技术上可争议,但过于显而易见、过于单薄,或得不到眼前来源的支撑。

Harvard College Writing Center,“Questions to ask about your thesis”

Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?
Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?
Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?
Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?
Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?

Indiana University Writing Tutorial Services接着点名好论点通常具备的四个属性:它处理合理的人会有分歧的对象,它能在你实际拥有的作业范围内处理,它表达一个主旨,它主张你的结论。这四个属性,正是下文IU糖序列不断收窄、直到读者能看见应当做什么以及谁应当做的原因。

官方写作中心的完整范例

下面每一条完整范例,都是UNC、Harvard、Indiana University、Toronto、Purdue OWL、UW–Madison或Purdue Global Academic Success Center发表的教学句子。它们都不是捏造的引用、虚假研究或虚构书名。若写作中心把虚构产品或国家当作课堂道具,标签会标明。

UNC:从正反两面题目到关于选民的主张

UNC从一道当代传播提示出发——“Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness”——并说明为何第一句答案通不过上面的每一项检验。

UNC工作论点(过于笼统)

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

UNC自己的诊断:它只是笼统地回答了问题,几乎没人会反对一句正反两面的话,正面与负面效果都未点名,读者仍可追问how、why和so what。在他们选定一项自己真正能支撑的影响之后,发表了这一修改:

UNC修改后的论点

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

修改后的句子回答了提示,采取了怀疑者可以挑战的立场(人们是否真的更知情),并点名一种机制(不可靠的声音迫使人们更批判地阅读)。你是否同意并不重要:它之所以是论点,是因为它可能是错的。

UNC:从喜欢Huckleberry Finn到一种解释

作业是UNC印出的真实课堂提示:就Mark Twain的Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(1884/1885)的某个方面写一篇分析。初稿是欣赏,不是分析。

文学论文的UNC序列

不是论点(欣赏):

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

观察,仍不够可争议:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

论点(对该对照的解释):

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

UNC明确指出:中间那句回答了提示,但尚未采取任何人会费心反对的立场——河岸对照早已广为人知。最后一句是对那种对照意味着什么的读法。你仍须用小说中的场景来证明它。

Harvard:关于Sandel的Case Against Perfection的四条论点

Harvard在真实来源上建立四条学生论点:Michael J. Sandel的“The Case Against Perfection”,先发表于The Atlantic(2004年4月),后扩展为The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering(Harvard University Press, 2007)。Harvard现行论点页仍点名该文,并在分析性例子中印出页码。只有在你引用Harvard讲义所假定的同一版本时,才使用那些页码。核对本页当日,Atlantic网址被Cloudflare拦截;四条主张的来源是Harvard的措辞。

Harvard College Writing Center——四种主张类型

描述性(不可争议):

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

过宽(可争议,难以支撑):

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

可争议的分析性主张:

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

可争议的规范性主张:

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

Harvard的区分,正是学生常混淆的。分析性主张关乎如何理解一份来源。规范性主张关乎应当做什么。描述句复述Sandel;已经读过Sandel的读者不需要那篇文章。过宽的句子可争议,但未点名任何议题,因此写作者和读者都不知道什么算证据。分析性句子可以从Sandel自己的页码得到支撑。规范性句子可以成为政策论文的论点,但它不再是对Sandel论证的读法。

Purdue OWL:让论点匹配论文类型

OWL现行tips页要求你先点名论文,再点名主张。下面三条官方例子是OWL的教学句子,不是我们在引用的研究。把它们当模式用。残留网址/establishing_arguments/how_to_write_a_thesis_statement.html会404;这些句子在thesis_statement_tips.html。

Purdue OWL——三种论文类型

An analytical paper breaks down an issue or an idea into its component parts, evaluates the issue or idea, and presents this breakdown and evaluation to the audience.

OWL分析性论点:

An analysis of the college admission process reveals one challenge facing counselors: accepting students with high test scores or students with strong extracurricular backgrounds.
An expository (explanatory) paper explains something to the audience.

OWL说明性论点:

The life of the typical college student is characterized by time spent studying, attending class, and socializing with peers.
An argumentative paper makes a claim about a topic and justifies this claim with specific evidence. The claim could be an opinion, a policy proposal, an evaluation, a cause-and-effect statement, or an interpretation.

OWL论证性论点:

High school graduates should be required to take a year off to pursue community service projects before entering college in order to increase their maturity and global awareness.

Purdue OWL:可辩论与过宽

Strong Thesis Statements是OWL的第二个现行页面。它会淘汰伪装成论点的事实。“Pollution is bad”不是论点,因为pollution一词已经编码了伤害;没有人需要被说服。OWL收窄后的政策句是论点,因为读者可以拒绝预算份额或对私家车的聚焦。

Purdue OWL——Strong Thesis Statements

The thesis statement or main claim must be debatable

不可辩论(不是论点):

Pollution is bad for the environment.

可辩论:

At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be spent on limiting pollution.

也可辩论:

America's anti-pollution efforts should focus on privately owned cars.

过宽:

Drug use is detrimental to society.

更窄:

Illegal drug use is detrimental because it encourages gang violence.

OWL接着点名你可以有意选择的四种主张类型:事实或定义、因果、价值,以及解决方案或政策。Harvard的分析性/规范性划分,是同一选择的粗粒度版本。为论点句选择一种主要主张类型。正文里仍会用到其他类型。

Purdue OWL——四种主张类型

事实或定义:

While some pundits have framed a four-year college education as something necessary for adult success, this notion should not be treated as a given.

因果:

Federal student loan policies have contributed to widespread growth in college tuition.

价值:

The student debt crisis is one of the most serious problems facing the country today.

解决方案或政策:

Rather than encouraging all students to attend four-year colleges, we should instead emphasize the validity of two-year colleges, technical schools, and trade schools as well.

Indiana University:从题目碎片到政策主张

IU把一篇社会政策论文从名词走到句子。前面几行不是论点;它们是错误。“Banana Herb Tea Supplement”在本页后文是IU的课堂产品,不是我们在引用的研究。

Indiana University——糖政策序列

题目,不是论点:

Sugar consumption.

更窄的题目,仍无主张:

Reducing sugar consumption by elementary school children.

含糊立场:

More attention should be paid to the food and beverage choices available to elementary school children.

具体事实,仍不是论点:

Experts estimate that half of elementary school children consume nine times the recommended daily allowance of sugar.

论点(断言加支撑):

Because half of all American elementary school children consume nine times the recommended daily allowance of sugar, schools should be required to replace the beverages in soda machines with healthy alternatives.

IU的最后一句,回答了作者只在收窄过程中才找到的问题:应当做什么,以及谁应当做。上一行的统计是你要引用的证据,不是论点。若你无法用真实来源捍卫该统计,就不能保留IU的because从句——围绕你实际拥有的证据改写主张。

Indiana University——立场与正反两面

弱(无立场;课堂产品):

There are some negative and positive aspects to the Banana Herb Tea Supplement.

强(立场 + 机制):

Because Banana Herb Tea Supplement promotes rapid weight loss that results in the loss of muscle and lean body mass, it poses a potential danger to customers.

Indiana University:一个想法,以及读者会争辩的主张

IU接下来的两对,是学生终于写出句子后最常跳过的。亲属那一对说明为何真实观察仍会失败:它没有告诉读者论文为何存在。Internet那一对说明为何一个论点里塞进两个想法会让读者困惑,直到你说出二者关系。

Indiana University——观察与受争议的主张

弱(仅观察):

My family is an extended family.

强(经验对一种被广泛接受的看法):

While most American families would view consanguineal marriage as a threat to the nuclear family structure, many Iranian families, like my own, believe that these marriages help reinforce kinship ties in an extended family.

Indiana University——两个想法与一种关系

弱(两个未接合的想法):

Companies need to exploit the marketing potential of the Internet, and Web pages can provide both advertising and customer support.

强(第二个想法服务于第一个):

Because the Internet is filled with tremendous marketing potential, companies should exploit this potential by using Web pages that offer both advertising and customer support.

那一对之后,IU的提示很实用:许多清晰论点使用because、since、so、although、unless或however——不是因为这些词有魔力,而是因为它们强制一种关系,而不是一份清单。

Toronto:用方法替换笼统裁决

Toronto的好例子点名方法、时段和分歧。A Midsummer Night's Dream是Shakespeare的作品;家具业例子指的是真实的North American Free Trade Agreement,1994年起对加拿大、墨西哥和美国生效,直至2020年被USMCA取代。安乐死那一对是Toronto的第三组官方对照:笼统裁决,对上一条点名称赞、限度与通行办法的主张。

University of Toronto——弱与值得注意

陈词滥调:

Shakespeare was the world’s greatest playwright.

引人入胜:

The success of the last scene in Midsummer Night’s Dream comes from subtle linguistic and theatrical references to Elizabeth’s position as queen.

预告 + 裁决:

This essay will show that the North American Free Trade agreement was a disaster for the Canadian furniture industry.

主张 + 方法 + 年代:

Neither neo-protectionism nor post-industrial theory explains the steep reversal of fortune for the Canadian furniture industry in the period 1988-1994. Data on productivity, profits, and employment, however, can be closely correlated with provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement that took effect in the same period.

笼统、含糊:

Having an official policy on euthanasia just causes problems, as the Dutch example shows.

足够复杂(Toronto原词,含“Hamarckian”):

Dutch laws on euthanasia have been rightly praised for their attention to the principles of self-determination. Recent cases, however, show that they have not been able to deal adequately with issues involving technological intervention of unconscious patients. Hamarckian strategies can solve at least the question of assignation of rights.

把Toronto的第三对当作模式,而不是医疗或法律建议。“Hamarckian”是Toronto印在现行页面和PDF上的词;不要悄悄换成你更喜欢的术语,也不要把那句话当作对法规或判例的引用。

UW–Madison:先写目的,再写主张结论的论点

UW的组合例子,是方法论文所需要的。前两句宣布范围与方法。加粗的收束才是真正的论点:一条读者仍可争辩的结论。把它当作UW关于Chile土地改革的教学模式;它不是我们在引用的论文。

UW–Madison——目的加论点(Chile教学范例)

The goal of this paper is to examine the effects of Chile’s agrarian reform on the lives of rural peasants. The nature of the topic dictates the use of both a chronological and a comparative analysis of peasant lives at various points during the reform period. . . The Chilean reform example provides evidence that land distribution is an essential component of both the improvement of peasant conditions and the development of a democratic society. More extensive and enduring reforms would likely have allowed Chile the opportunity to further expand these horizons.

如何一步步写论点句

1. 先点名论文类型,再把作业蒸馏成一个问题

从OWL的类型核对开始:分析性、说明性或论证性。然后用Indiana的规则:几乎每一项作业,无论多复杂,都能还原成一个问题。他们的教育委员会例子是“Write a report to the local school board explaining the potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class”,变成“What are the potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class?” UNC做同样的转换:“Discuss the effect of X on Y”变成“What is the effect of X on Y?” 若你写不出问题,就写不出论点。

2. 先写工作答案,再收集证据

UNC直说:论点不是读完提示后写的第一句话。收集并整理证据,寻找出人意料的对照或相似,然后才起草一条你认为能支撑的工作论点。Harvard的版本相同:你通过检视证据到达论点,证据可能是文本,也可能是另一种来源。UW–Madison允许你先从目的句(“This paper examines…”)开始,有了结论再把它变成论点。若证据支撑不了工作句,就改句子。不要强迫论文去迁就你已不再相信的主张。

3. 把主张写到能在这篇论文里证明的具体程度

Indiana的饥饿一对是范围检验。“World hunger has many causes and effects”无法在七到十页的论文里证明,而“many causes and effects”什么也没点名。他们修改后的教学例子收窄了地点和原因。Glandelinia是IU的虚构国家——把它当模式,不要当成关于真实国家的事实。OWL的“Drug use is detrimental to society”通不过同一检验:drugs、detrimental和society都未定义。

Indiana University——范围

过宽:

World hunger has many causes and effects.

IU教学范例(虚构国家):

Hunger persists in Glandelinia because jobs are scarce and farming in the infertile soil is rarely profitable.

4. 有意选择分析性、规范性或说明性

Harvard的分析性主张解释一份来源。Harvard的规范性主张建议一项政策。OWL的说明性论点说明过程或结构如何运作;它常见于不要求你选边的信息性作业。不要给要求论证的提示写说明性论点,也不要给细读论文写政策论点。旧课堂标签“argumentative / analytical / expository”对应OWL的三种论文类型;它们不是三种官方手册类型。

让论点类型匹配作业,而不是匹配公式
若提示要求你就写本页的官方模型
解释文本、数据集或论证一条怀疑者可以争辩的分析性主张Harvard的Sandel “remake” / “better than well”句子;OWL的大学录取句子
建议一项政策或评价一条关于应当发生什么的规范性主张IU的汽水机句子;Harvard的HGH句子;OWL的间隔年句子
说明某事物如何运作一条关于机制或结构的说明性主张OWL的典型大学生句子;方法论文中的目的句
报告一项实验或研究一条目的、目标或假设UW的Sahel目的句;简要回答中的研究文章模板

5. 把它放在读者会找的位置,草稿后再改写

通常位置是引言末尾。UNC说论点“usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph)”。Toronto说这很自然,但不是强制。OWL的tips页给出同一通常位置:第一段末尾。草稿之后,检查句子是否仍匹配论文。APA 7不要求标题“Introduction”——正文第一页顶部的论文标题已经做了这件事。APA Style headings点名Publication Manual §§2.26–2.27;Purdue OWL的APA headings页重申引言从不加标题。核对本页当日,APA Style headings网址被Incapsula拦截;OWL转载与APA Style摘录都保留无“Introduction”标题的规则。

学生实际会撞上的失败模式

预告

UW的“In this paper, I will discuss X”、Toronto的“This essay will show…”以及OWL的标题对论点一对(Homes and schools对一条关于父母的主张)点名题目而无解释。修法不是删掉第一人称。APA 7 §4.16允许用I和we指称你自己的行动;Alamo Colleges APA reprint(最近更新于2026年5月29日)重申同一规则。问题在于空动词discuss或show。用你本会讨论的主张替换预告。

正反两面句

UNC的社交媒体草稿和IU的Banana Herb句子因同一原因失败:“positive and negative aspects”不采取立场。持全然正面或全然负面看法的读者本可以反对——这意味着几乎没人会反对。选定你能支撑的那项影响。

不需要论文的事实

IU的糖统计、OWL的“Pollution is bad for the environment”,以及Purdue Global关于Barack Obama是首位当选的非洲裔美国总统的例子,都是事实。它们可以作为证据出现。它们不能当论点。Purdue Global的修改——选举“marked a seminal moment in American politics”——至少是主张,但在你说出什么改变之前,它仍然过宽。

两个想法的句子

IU的Internet营销草稿失败,是因为读者分不清论文是关于营销潜力还是关于Web pages。Purdue Global用and说明同一问题:一个句子里两个未接合的任务。他们的修改只保留一个想法。

Purdue Global——两个想法与一个焦点

弱(用and连接两个主旨):

Healthcare reform must be addressed because so many Americans are uninsured or without adequate coverage, and politicians must work together to ensure new legislation is passed.

强(一个想法):

Politicians must work together to reform healthcare because too many Americans are without sufficient coverage.

三点清单

Purdue Global Academic Success Center展示了一条适用于短论证的正当三点论点。当作业要一份预告大纲时,使用那种形状。Toronto的迷思清单是限度:要点不必是三个,复杂论证可能需要两三句,而不是塞进一句的清单。

Purdue Global——三点论点(可选预告)

Banning cigarette smoking in public places is an effective intervention to improve the public’s health by helping to reduce the dangers of second-hand smoke on non-smokers, encouraging current smokers to quit, and reducing healthcare costs.

论文并未写出的论点

UNC的第五个问题抓住后期草稿:若正文走偏,就改论点或改正文。OWL的第四条tip相同:“Your topic may change as you write, so you may need to revise your thesis statement to reflect exactly what you have discussed in the paper.” 不要出于忠诚留下工作句。大多数可用的论点句,其实出现在修改那一轮。

学科说明(不捏造研究)

保留官方检验。只改变什么算证据。

  • 文学与历史。 解释文本、档案或争论。UNC的Twain序列和Toronto的Midsummer Night's Dream句子是模型:一个具体特征,对其作用的读法,以及对我们如何理解该作品或时期的利害。当证据是档案时,把本页与历史的一手资料配对。
  • 心理学及其他APA领域。 学生文献综述仍需在引言末尾附近有一个中心主张。实证报告通常需要目的或假设来代替。只有在主张已经存在之后,才用APA与MLA去格式化论文。
  • 科学与工程。 陈述可检验的目的或预测。不要编造你并未测得的百分比改进。UW的Sahel目的句和简要回答中的研究文章模板是安全支架;如何写方法部分是后续撰写。
  • 政策与社会科学。 IU的汽水机句子、OWL的联邦预算句子和Toronto的NAFTA句子都点名行动者、时段或机制,以及怀疑者可以核验的证据。“X is a serious problem”仍是题目。

修改清单

从官方检验着手,再核对自己实际写出的论文。

在宣布句子完成之前

  • 它匹配OWL的论文类型(分析性、说明性或论证性)
  • 它回答了作业真正提出的问题(UNC)
  • 有思考力的读者能够反对(Harvard / UNC / OWL的“debatable”)
  • 它是解释,不是题目名称(UNC的World War II / Moby Dick检验)
  • 它具体到能在这篇篇幅内证明(Indiana / OWL的“narrow”)
  • 它表达一个主旨,而不是两个未接合的主张(Indiana / Purdue Global)
  • 它通过“so what?”和“how and why?”(UNC)
  • 它不是预告、问题或事实(Toronto / Indiana / UW / OWL)
  • 它不是强制的三点清单(Toronto)
  • 每一段正文都赚到其中一部分(UNC)
  • 草稿之后,句子仍与论文相符(UNC / OWL tip 4)
  • 若这是IMRaD文章,你写的是目的或假设(UW–Madison)

写完引言,再引用证据

论点坐在引言内部;它不能替代引言。接下来写开篇部分,然后引用真正支撑主张的来源。论点句生成器可以收紧你已经相信的工作句。

相关指南

论点句常见问题

论点句应该多长?
通常一句;主张复杂时用两三句。UNC描述为“usually a single sentence”。Toronto说清晰写作胜过一句规则,复杂论证可能需要一小段。Purdue OWL的Argument Papers页仍引用残留的MLA第七版(Gibaldi 42)一句措辞;现行MLA是第九版。不要把简单主张拉长来显得更长。
论点句放在哪里?
最常见是在引言末尾,短文中常常是第一段末尾(UNC、Purdue OWL、UW–Madison)。Toronto指出,有些文章在开篇句就陈述主张,有些需要更长铺垫,有些要到结尾才能完整表述。在APA学生论文中,除非教师要求,不要加“Introduction”标题(APA 7 §§2.26–2.27)。
论点句和研究问题有何不同?
研究问题是你在问的。论点是你当前的答案。Indiana的方法是把作业蒸馏成问题,再把答案写成论点。若你仍在提问,就还没准备好锁定句子。
假设和论点句是一回事吗?
不是。假设是在分析数据之前陈述的、可检验且可证伪的预测。论点是可争议的解释或政策主张。UW–Madison的目的句更接近方法论文中假设的工作:它宣布范围,而不预告具体结论。课程论文用论点。实证文章用假设或目的句。不要为了复用一句话而把一个改名为另一个。
论点和目的句有何不同?
UW–Madison:论点主张一项结论,并预测题目将如何展开。目的句(“This paper examines…”)宣布目的、范围与方向,而不预告你得出的具体结论。目的句在某些研究领域常见,在另一些领域则过于直白。问教师。若作业要求可争议的主张,不要停在目的句。
我可以在论点句里用“I”吗?
可以,只要代词在做事。APA 7 §4.16允许用第一人称指称你自己的行动;Alamo Colleges转载(2026年5月29日)重申这一点。“I argue that Twain's river/shore contrast endorses a retreat from 'civilized' society”是主张。“I believe video games can be educational”是退让。删掉I believe / I feel;在点名你的分析时保留I。
每篇论文都需要三点论点吗?
不需要。Toronto把“A thesis statement must give three points of support”列为迷思。短课程论文可以预告两三个理由。研究文章和长篇人文学论文往往不应如此。绝不要只为凑成三个而加上第三个理由。
论点句和引言有何不同?
引言为读者定向,点名利害,并(在研究文章中)建立空白。论点通常是该部分内部的一两句话。见如何写引言。摘要是另一份独立概要,可以报告结果。
在有完美论点之前,我可以开始写吗?
可以。Toronto称“先有完美论点”规则为迷思。UNC、Harvard、Purdue OWL和UW–Madison都描述会随证据处理而变化的工作论点。先起草,再修改句子,使之匹配你写出的论文。
我应该在论点句本身里引用来源吗?
仅当主张关乎一个点名的来源时,如Harvard的Sandel例子。不要把参考文献塞进论点。在正文中引用支撑性研究和文本,并按课程要求用APA、MLA或Chicago格式化那些记录。