thesis statement they say i say

• Library Catalogue

Templates for structuring argumentative essays with practice exercises and solutions

On this page, thesis statement, referring to others’ work.

• Using impersonal language

Agreeing with what you’ve reviewed in the “They say” section

Disagreeing with what you’ve reviewed in the “they say” section.

• Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously

My critics say

This page introduces a framework for writing argumentative/analytical essays, following a structure dubbed “They Say, I Say, My Critics Say, I Respond.” [1]

This page also includes a number of templates [2]   or examples that you may find helpful for writing argumentative/analytical essays. Keep in mind that it is possible to change the sequence of the framework sections. Also, the templates can be used interchangeably.

A principal element of an argumentative/analytical essay is the thesis statement.

A thesis statement is one or two sentences (maybe more in longer essays) typically occurring near the end of an essay introduction; it shows your position regarding the topic you are investigating or your answer(s) to the question(s) that you are responding to.

Here are some templates that may help you write an effective thesis statement:

• In this paper, I argue that .......... because ..........
• In the pages that follow, I will argue that .......... because ..........
• Although/Even though .......... this essay argues that/I will argue that .......... because ..........
• This paper attempts to show that ..........
• This paper contests the claim that ..........
• This paper argues that .......... 
• The central thesis of this paper is ..........
• In this essay, I attempt to defend the view that ..........

Thesis statement exercise and solutions

Imagine that you have been asked to write an argumentative essay about physical education in the Canadian high school system. Use one of the templates suggested to write a thesis statement about this topic.

• In the pages that follow, I will argue that physical education in the Canadian high school system has been largely ineffective because it has remained limited in its range of exercises and has failed to connect with students’ actual interests, such a dance and martial arts.
• This paper attempts to show that physical education is a crucial aspect of the Canadian high school system because many teenagers do not experience encouragement to do physical activity outside of school and contemporary life is increasingly sedentary for people of all ages.

The body of an essay usually begins by providing a background of the topic or a summary of the resources that you have reviewed (this is sometimes called a literature review). Here, you bring other people’s views into the paper. You want to show your readers what other scholars say (“they say”) about the topic, using techniques like paraphrasing, summarizing, and direct quotation.

You can start this section using one the following templates or examples to delve into the topic.

They say exercise and solutions

Imagine that you are now trying to incorporate some sources into your academic paper about physical education in the Canadian high school system. Try using a couple of templates from the “They Say” section of the handout.

Bonus exercise: See if you can identify the “template” structure that each of the sentences below is using (hint, they are different from the templates provided above).

• Brown (2018) rejects the idea that the levels of climate change we are currently seeing can be considered “natural” or “cyclical” (p. 108).
• According to Marshall (2017), we can see evidence of both code-switching and code-meshing in students’ reflective essay writing (p. 88).
• Previous studies of physical education have revealed that teenagers experience a significant degree of dissatisfaction with their gym classes (Wilson, 2010; Vowel et al, 1999; Mossman, 1986).
• A number of studies conducted prior to the 1990s have demonstrated that teenagers used to experience more encouragement to engage in physical activities outside of school hours (Sohal, 1954; Silverman, 1965; Lu, 1970; Mossman, 1986).
• Jones’ (2017) investigations of sedentariness among young people have shown significant increases in illness among teenagers who do not engage in regular physical activity.

After the background section (e.g., summary or literature review), you need to include your own position on the topic (“I say”). Tell your reader if, for instance, you agree, disagree, or even both agree and disagree with the work you have reviewed.

You can use one of the following templates or samples to bring your voice in:

• It could be argued that ..........
• It is evident/clear/obvious that the role of modern arts is ..........
• Clearly/Evidently, the role of education is ..........
• There is no little doubt that ..........
• I agree (that) ..........
• I support the view that ...........
• I concur with the view that ..........
• I disagree (that) ..........
• I disagree with the view that ..........
• I challenge/contest the view that ..........
• I oppose/am opposed to ..........
• I disagree with X’s view that .......... because, as recent research has shown, ..........
• X contradicts herself/can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, she argues ........... On the other hand, she also says ..........
• By focusing on .........., X overlooks the deeper problem of ..........
• Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that ..........
• Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that ..........
• Though I concede that .........., I still insist that ..........
• X is right that .........., but she seems on more dubious ground that when she claims that ..........
• While X is probably wrong when she claims tha ..........., she is right that ..........
• Whereas X provides ample evidence that .........., Y and Z’s research on .......... and .......... convinces me that .......... instead.
• I’m of two minds about X’s claim that ........... On the one hand, I agree that .......... On the other hand, I’m not sure if ..........
• My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X’s position that .........., but I find Y’s argument about .......... and Z’s research on .......... to be equally persuasive.

I say exercises and solutions

Try using a template from each of the sections below to bring your own position into your writing:

• Agreeing with what you’ve reviewed
• Disagreeing with that you’ve reviewed

Using impersonal language There is little doubt that the teenage years are important for establishing life-long habits.

Agreeing with what you’ve reviewed in the “They say” section I support the view, presented by Vowel et al (1999) that effective physical education needs to consider the heightened self-consciousness that many teenagers experience and, in particular, needs to be sensitive to the body image issues that can be pervasive among young people.

Disagreeing with what you’ve reviewed in the “They say” section By focusing on school physical education programs and their shortcomings, Wilson (2010) overlooks the deeper problem that young people are experiencing a lack of motivation to incorporate healthy exercise into their daily lives.

Agreeing and Disagreeing simultaneously Though I concede that school physical education programs are valuable, I still insist that they cannot be the sole or even the primary way that we promote an active lifestyle among young people.

In a good argumentative essay, in addition to expressing your position and argument, you should consider possible opposing views to your argument: refer to what your opponents say (“my critics say”) and why they may disagree with your argument.

Including the ideas of those who may disagree with you makes up the counterargument section of your paper. You can refer to actual people, including other research scholars who may disagree with you, or try and imagine what those who disagree with you might say.

Remember, a thesis should be debatable, so you should be able to imagine someone disagreeing you’re your position. Here are some templates that may help you in writing counterargument:

My critics say exercise and solutions

Using one of the templates, try imagining a counterargument for the thesis you drafted earlier.

Sociocultural theorists used to believe that adolescence was a time of “natural defiance” (Fung, 1995) and therefore discounted the role of educational programs aimed at supporting teenagers to form healthy habits. Much of the focus of schooling therefore became about teaching specific content and skills.

Critics may call into question my assumption that effective physical education can help establish life-long healthy living habits.

After explaining what your opponents say, you have to refute them. This is sometimes called the rebuttal. Here, you can show your readers that your opponents either fail to provide enough evidence to support their argument or their evidence lacks credibility and/or is flawed.

Alternatively, you may argue that your opponents’ argument is valid, but not persuasive enough to be used in your study, or that their argument could be valid in a different context.

Don’t forget that for each part of your argument, you must provide enough evidence for the claims that you make. This means that if you include one of these templates in your essays, you have to explain the evidence it presents in a way that is clear and convincing for your reader.

I respond exercise and solutions

Using one of the templates, craft a rebuttal to the counterargument you just created.

Sociocultural theorists used to believe that adolescence was a time of “natural defiance” (Fung, 1995) and therefore discounted the role of educational programs aimed at supporting teenagers to form healthy habits. Much of the focus of schooling therefore became about teaching specific content and skills. However, this argument fails to demonstrate that the defiance observed during adolescence was “natural” or inherent and not a product of a specific cultural environment. It therefore does not convince me that education during the adolescent years needs to remain rigidly focused on content and skills.

Critics may call into question my assumption that effective physical education can help establish life-long healthy living habits. While it is true that we cannot assume that physical education will automatically lead to the establishment of healthy habits, I maintain that the creation of such habits, rather than simply teaching specific physical education content or skills, should be the central goal of an effective physical education program.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2017). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing, with readings (3rd ed.). New York: Norton W. W. Company.

Marshall, S. (2017). Advance in academic writing: Integrating research, critical thinking, academic reading and writing. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Education ESL.

Morley, J. (2014). Academic phrasebank. Retrieved from http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/

[1] Adapted from Graff and Birkenstein (2016).

[2] The templates used in this handout are adapted from Morley (2014), Marshall (2017), and Graff and Birkenstein (2016).

They Say I Say

50 pages • 1 hour read

They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Before You Read

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing is a reference text designed for student writers. It explains the basic rhetorical strategies one can (and should) use when writing academic papers. Although the writing advice in this book is built around classwork and term papers, it is designed to transfer easily to other contexts.

Authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein are both tenured professors of English. In this book, they draw from their classroom experiences to identify stumbling blocks that new writers often face.

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 7,800+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,800+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

Rather than focus on teaching formal rhetoric , Graff and Birkenstein focus on identifying and explaining writing strategies in ways that make it easy for new writers to digest and retain. The 14 chapters of They Say/I Say are organized into four sections and include helpful writing templates and exercises.

They Say/I Say is often used as a textbook in composition courses designed for first-year students. Its publisher, W. W. Norton, also carries interactive resources designed to accompany coursework, such as quizzes and organizational tools for teachers.

The SuperSummary difference

• 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
• Study Guides you won ' t find anywhere else
• 175 + new titles every month

This study guide corresponds to the second edition of this text, which was issued in 2010. They Say/I Say was originally published in 2006. At the time of writing, this text has been updated a total of four times since its original publication date.

Plot Summary

Part 1, “They Say” (Chapters 1-3), concerns the practice of summarizing other writers’ works to provide readers with background information. Graff and Berkstein present argumentative writing as a conversation. For a writer to keep their readers abreast of that conversation, they must summarize other relevant writings before adding to the conversation with their own arguments.

Chapter 1, “‘They Say’: Starting with What Others Are Saying,” concerns the importance of clear and motivated summarization in well-constructed arguments. The authors illustrate this by presenting examples of argumentation with and without clear summaries. They also explain how to summarize texts for a variety of argumentative contexts.

Chapter 2, “‘Her Point Is’: The Art of Summarizing,” explores some best practices for writing summaries of other texts. While Graff and Birkenstein encourage their readers to write objective summaries, they also note that summaries should also focus on the elements of a source that are directly relevant to one’s arguments.

Chapter 3, “‘As He Himself Puts It’: The Art of Quoting” explains how to incorporate quotations into one’s own writing. The authors discuss the importance of properly framing quotes and offer general advice for choosing the most useful ones.

Part 2, “I Say” (Chapters 4-7), advises new writers on how to integrate their own views into their writing. Graff and Birkenstein lead the reader through the subtle ways one can signal agreement, disagreement, and more complex responses to other people’s arguments. They also explore ways to use opposing views to one’s own advantage.

Chapter 4, “‘Yes/No/Okay, But’: Three Ways to Respond,” discusses the three major angles a writer can take when responding to another writer’s arguments. Graff and Birkenstein stress the importance of being frank and direct when taking a stance. They also urge new writers to use agreement/disagreement as a springboard for developing new arguments.

Chapter 5, “‘And Yet’: Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say,” explains how to differentiate between two or more perspectives that appear in a single text. By attending to what Graff and Birkenstein call “voice markers,” a reader can spot the difference between a summary of someone else’s arguments and the writer’s response to those arguments.

Chapter 6, “‘Skeptics May Object’: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text,” posits that, while addressing ideological opposition may seem counterintuitive, it can actually be a very effective rhetorical tool. By planting a hypothetical naysayer in the text, writers have the opportunity to build credibility, lend nuance to their position, and defend against real counterarguments.

Chapter 7, “‘So What? Who Cares?’: Saying Why It Matters,” leads new writers through explaining why their subject matter is worth reading about. Graff and Birkenstein argue that this context is crucial to keeping readers’ attention and winning their confidence.

Part 3, “Tying It All Together” (Chapters 8-11), explores the importance of small-scale rhetorical choices, such as word choice and phrasing, as well as broad organizational considerations. It also discusses academic writing styles and the importance of qualifying one’s own arguments. While the first two parts of They Say/I Say focus on the elements of an argument, Part 3 concerns the connective tissue that holds an argumentative piece together.

Chapter 8, “‘As a Result’: Connecting the Parts” explains the importance of connecting sentences and ideas together in argumentative writing. This chapter also looks at how connective words and phrases such as “but,” “not only…but also,” “because,” and many more signal various kinds of relationships.

Chapter 9, “‘Ain’t So/Is Not’: Academic Writing Doesn’t Always Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice ,” advocates for the use of colloquial, creative, and informal language in academic writing. Birkenstein and Graff do not encourage using informal language as a substitute for rigorous scholarship. However, they argue that “formal/informal mixing” can elevate scholarly writing when it is thoughtfully deployed. Formal/informal mixing also makes space for non-standard English dialects in academia, such as those used by Black and Mexican American individuals.

Chapter 10, “‘But Don’t Get Me Wrong’: The Art of Metacommentary ,” explains the importance of explicitly developing, qualifying, and clarifying one’s arguments, including statements one has already made. Graff and Birkenstein note that while such metacommentary might seem redundant, it is actually essential for developing nuanced arguments and making sure readers can follow them. Many of the rhetorical strategies introduced in previous chapters are themselves forms of metacommentary.

Part 4, “In Specific Academic Contexts” (Chapters 12-17), explains how to apply this book’s rhetorical methods to specific situations. These situations include classroom settings as well as particular academic fields.

Chapter 11, “‘I Take Your Point’: Entering Class Discussions,” is a brief guide to participating in classroom discussions by applying the rhetorical techniques described in earlier chapters when having academic discussions. They specifically highlight metacommentary as a key tool for maintaining clarity in both online and offline class discussions.

Chapter 12, “‘What’s Motivating This Writer?’; Reading for the Conversation,” focuses on how to analyze and understand other people's writing and rhetorical moves. Graff and Birkenstein break down argumentative writing across genres to expose some of the strategies they’ve already discussed and explain how to decipher challenging texts.

Chapter 13, “‘The Data Suggest’: Writing in the Sciences,” written by guest contributor Christopher Gillen, deals with argumentative writing in scientific fields. This chapter repurposes many of Graff and Birkenstein’s methods specifically for the type of argumentation that science writing involves. Gillen states that science is a fundamentally argumentative process, and as such, many of the rhetorical moves that work across academic fields are especially suited to science writing. He also breaks down the format of a traditional scientific paper.

Chapter 14, “‘Analyze This’: Writing in the Social Sciences,” written by guest contributor Erin Ackerman, echoes many of Gillen’s points about applying Graff and Birkenstein’s work to her field. She also outlines the format of a paper for the social sciences, which differs from Gillen’s model of a hard science publication. 

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Featured Collections

Books & Literature

View Collection

Journalism Reads

Required Reading Lists

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

89 Higher-Level Integration: They Say / I Say and Writing as a Conversation

Amy Guptill

Theses and sources

Everyone knows that a thorough analysis and persuasive argument needs strong evidence. The credibility of sources is one key element of strong evidence, but it also matters how sources are used in the text of the paper. Many students are accustomed to thinking of sources simply as expert corroboration for their own points. As a result, they tend to comb texts to find statements that closely parallel what they want to say and then incorporate quotes as evidence that a published author agrees with them. That’s one way to use sources, but there is a lot more to it.

Writing academic papers is about joining a conversation. You’re contributing your own original thinking to some complex problem, be it interpretive, theoretical, or practical. Citing sources helps situate your ideas within that ongoing conversation. Sometimes you’re citing a research finding that provides strong evidence for your point; at other times you’re summarizing someone else’s ideas in order to explain how your own opinion differs or to note how someone else’s concept applies to a new situation. Graff and Birkenstein 1  encourage you to think about writing with sources is a “They Say/I Say” process. You first report what “they” say; “they” being published authors, prevalent ideas in society at large, or maybe participants in some kind of political or social debate. Then you respond by explaining what you think: Do you agree? Disagree? A little of both?

This “They Say/I Say” approach can help student writers find balance in their use of sources. On one extreme, some students think that they aren’t allowed to make any claims without citing one or more expert authors saying the same thing. When their instructors encourage them to bring more original thinking into their writing, they’re confused about how to do it. On the other extreme, some students tend to describe, more or less accurately, what sources say about a topic but then go on to state opinions that seem unrelated to the claims they just summarized. For example, a student writer may draw on expert sources to explain how the prevention and early detection of cancer has saved lives 2  but then argue for more funding for curing advanced cancer without making any explicit link to the points about prevention and screening. On one extreme, the sources are allowed to crowd out original thinking; on the other, they have seemingly no impact on the author’s conclusions.

How can you know when you’re avoiding both of these extremes? In other words, what kinds of theses (“I Say”) can count as an original claim and still be grounded in the sources (“They Say”)? Here are five common strategies:

• Combine research findings from multiple sources to make a larger summary argument . You might find that none of the sources you’re working with specifically claim that early 20th century British literature was preoccupied with changing gender roles but that, together, their findings all point to that broader conclusion.
• Combine research findings from multiple sources to make a claim about their implications . You might review papers that explore various factors shaping voting behavior to argue that a particular voting-reform proposal will likely have positive impacts.
• Identify underlying areas of agreement . You may argue that the literature on cancer and the literature on violence both describe the unrecognized importance of prevention and early intervention in order to claim that insights about one set of problems may be useful for the other.
• Identify underlying areas of disagreement . You may find that the controversies surrounding educational reform—and its debates about accountability, curricula, school funding—ultimately stem from different assumptions about the role of schools in society.
• Identify unanswered questions . Perhaps you review studies of the genetic and behavioral contributors to diabetes in order to highlight unknown factors and argue for more in-depth research on the role of the environment.

There are certainly other ways authors use sources to build theses, but these examples illustrate how original thinking in academic writing involves making connections with and between a strategically chosen set of sources.

Incorporating sources

Here’s a passage of academic writing (an excerpt, not a complete paper) that illustrates several ways that sources can figure into a “They Say/I Say” approach 3 :

Willingham (2011 ) draws on cognitive science to explain that students must be able to regulate their emotions in order to learn. Emotional self-regulation enables students to ignore distractions and channel their attention and behaviors in appropriate ways. Other research findings confirm that anxiety interferes with learning and academic performance because it makes distractions harder to resist ( Perkins and Graham-Bermann, 2012 ;  Putwain and Best, 2011 ). Other cognitive scientists point out that deep learning is itself stressful because it requires people to think hard about complex, unfamiliar material instead of relying on cognitive short-cuts. Kahneman (2011)  describes this difference in terms of two systems for thinking: one fast and one slow. Fast thinking is based on assumptions and habits and doesn’t require a lot of effort. For example, driving a familiar route or a routine grocery-shopping trip are not usually intellectually taxing activities. Slow thinking, on the other hand, is what we do when we encounter novel problems and situations. It’s effortful, and it usually feels tedious and confusing. It is emotionally challenging as well because we are, by definition, incompetent while we’re doing it, which provokes some anxiety. Solving a tough problem is rewarding, but the path itself is often unpleasant. These insights from cognitive science enable us to critically assess the claims made on both sides of the education reform debate. On one hand, they cast doubt on the claims of education reformers that measuring teachers’ performance by student test scores is the best way to improve education. For example, the  Center for Education Reform promotes “the implementation of strong, data-driven, performance-based accountability systems that ensure teachers are rewarded, retained and advanced based on how they perform in adding value to the students who they teach, measured predominantly by student achievement.” The research that Willingham (2011) and Kahneman (2011) describe suggests that frequent high-stakes testing may actually work against learning by introducing greater anxiety into the school environment. At the same time, opponents of education reform should acknowledge that these research findings should prompt us to take a fresh look at how we educate our children. While Stan Karp of  Rethinking Schools is correct when he argues that “data-driven formulas [based on standardized testing] lack both statistical credibility and a basic understanding of the human motivations and relationships that make good schooling possible,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that all education reform proposals lack merit. Challenging standards, together with specific training in emotional self-regulation, will likely enable more students to succeed. 4

In example above, the ideas of Willingham and Kahneman are summarized approvingly, bolstered with additional research findings, and then applied to a new realm: the current debate surrounding education reform. Voices in that debate were portrayed as accurately as possible, sometimes with representative quotes. Most importantly, all references were tied directly to the author’s own interpretative point, which relies on the quoted claims.

As you can see, there are times when you should quote or paraphrase sources that you don’t agree with or do not find particularly compelling. They may convey ideas and opinions that help explain and justify your own argument. Similarly, when you cite sources that you agree with, you should choose quotes or paraphrases that serve as building blocks within your own argument. Regardless of the role each source plays in your writing, you certainly don’t need to find whole sentences or passages that express your thinking. Rather, focus on what each of those sources is claiming, why, and how exactly their claims relate to your own points.

The remainder of this chapter explains some key principles for incorporating sources, principles which follow from the general point that academic writing is about entering an ongoing conversation.

Principle 1: Listen to your sources

Have you ever had the maddening experience of arguing with someone who twisted your words to make it seem like you were saying something you weren’t? Novice writers sometimes inadvertently misrepresent their sources when they quote very minor points from an article or even positions that the authors of an article disagree with. It often happens when students approach their sources with the goal of finding snippets that align with their own opinion. For example, the passage above contains the phrase “measuring teachers’ performance by student test scores is the best way to improve education.” An inexperienced writer might include that quote in a paper without making it clear that the author(s) of the source actually dispute that very claim. Doing so is not intentionally fraudulent, but it reveals that the paper-writer isn’t really thinking about and responding to claims and arguments made by others. In that way, it harms his or her credibility.

Academic journal articles are especially likely to be misrepresented by student writers because their literature review sections often summarize a number of contrasting viewpoints. For example, sociologists Jennifer C. Lee and Jeremy Staff wrote a paper in which they note that high-schoolers who spend more hours at a job are more likely to drop out of school. 5  However, Lee and Staff’s analysis finds that working more hours doesn’t actually make a student more likely to drop out. Instead, the students who express less interest in school are both more likely to work a lot of hours  and  more likely to drop out. In short, Lee and Staff argue that disaffection with school causes students to drop-out, not working at a job. In reviewing prior research about the impact of work on dropping out, Lee and Staff write “Paid work, especially when it is considered intensive, reduces grade point averages, time spent on homework, educational aspirations, and the likelihood of completing high school” 6 . If you included that quote without explaining how it fits into Lee and Staff’s actual argument, you would be misrepresenting that source.

Principle 2: Provide context

Another error beginners often make is to drop in a quote without any context. If you simply quote, “Students begin preschool with a set of self-regulation skills that are a product of their genetic inheritance and their family environment” (Willingham, 2011, p.24), your reader is left wondering who Willingham is, why he or she is included here, and where this statement fits into his or her larger work. The whole point of incorporating sources is to situate your own insights in the conversation. As part of that, you should provide some kind of context the first time you use that source. Some examples:

Willingham, a cognitive scientist, claims that …

Research in cognitive science has found that … (Willingham, 2011).

Willingham argues that “Students begin preschool with a set of self-regulation skills that are a product of their genetic inheritance and their family environment” (Willingham, 2011, p.24). Drawing on findings in cognitive science, he explains “…”

As the second example above shows, providing a context doesn’t mean writing a brief biography of every author in your bibliography—it just means including some signal about why that source is included in your text.

Even more baffling to your reader is when quoted material does not fit into the flow of the text. For example, a novice student might write,

Schools and parents shouldn’t set limits on how much teenagers are allowed to work at jobs. “We conclude that intensive work does not affect the likelihood of high school dropout among youths who have a high propensity to spend long hours on the job” (Lee and Staff, 2007, p. 171). Teens should be trusted to learn how to manage their time.

The reader is thinking, who is this sudden, ghostly “we”? Why should this source be believed? If you find that passages with quotes in your draft are awkward to read out loud, that’s a sign that you need to contextualize the quote more effectively. Here’s a version that puts the quote in context:

Schools and parents shouldn’t set limits on how much teenagers are allowed to work at jobs. Lee and Staff’s carefully designed study found that “intensive work does not affect the likelihood of high school dropout among youths who have a high propensity to spend long hours on the job” (2007, p. 171). Teens should be trusted to learn how to manage their time.

In this latter example, it’s now clear that Lee and Staff are scholars and that their empirical study is being used as evidence for this argumentative point. Using a source in this way invites the reader to check out Lee and Staff’s work for themselves if they doubt this claim.

Many writing instructors encourage their students to contextualize their use of sources by making a “ quotation sandwich ”; that is, introduce the quote in some way and then follow it up with your own words. If you’ve made a bad habit of dropping in unintroduced quotes, the quotation sandwich idea may help you improve your skills, but in general you don’t need to approach every quote or paraphrase as a three-part structure to have well integrated sources. You should, however, avoid ending a paragraph with a quotation. If you’re struggling to figure out what to write after a quote or close paraphrase, it may be that you haven’t yet figured out what role the quote is playing in your own analysis. If that happens to you a lot, try writing the whole first draft in your own words and then incorporate material from sources as you revise with “They Say/I Say” in mind.

Principle 3: Use sources efficiently

Some student writers are in a rut of only quoting whole sentences. Some others, like myself as a student, get overly enamored of extended block quotes and the scholarly look they give to the page. 7  These aren’t the worst sins of academic writing, but they get in the way of one of the key principles of writing with sources: shaping quotes and paraphrases efficiently. Efficiency follows from the second principle, because when you fully incorporate sources into your own explicit argument, you zero in on the phrases, passages, and ideas that are relevant to your points. It’s a very good sign for your paper when most quotes are short (key terms, phrases, or parts of sentences) and the longer quotes (whole sentences and passages) are clearly justified by the discussion in which they’re embedded. Every bit of every quote should feel indispensable to the paper. An overabundance of long quotes usually means that your own argument is undeveloped. The most incandescent quotes will not hide that fact from your professor.

Also, some student writers forget that quoting is not the only way to incorporate sources.  Paraphasing  and summarizing are sophisticated skills that are often more appropriate to use than direct quoting. The first two paragraphs of the example passage above do not include any quotations, even though they are both clearly focused on presenting the work of others. Student writers may avoid paraphrasing out of fear of plagiarizing, and it’s true that a poorly executed paraphrase will make it seem like the student writer is fraudulently claiming the wordsmithing work of others as his or her own. Sticking to direct quotes seems safer. However, it is worth your time to master  paraphasing  because it often helps you be more clear and concise, drawing out only those elements that are relevant to the thread of your analysis.

For example, here’s a passage from a hypothetical paper with a block quote that is fully relevant to the argument but, nevertheless, inefficient:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman concludes our brains are prone to error: 8

System 1 registers the cognitive ease with which it processes information, but it does not generate a warning signal when it becomes unreliable. Intuitive answers come to mind quickly and confidently, whether they originate from skills or from heuristics. There is no simple way for System 2 to distinguish between a skilled and a heuristic response. Its only recourse is to slow down and attempt to construct an answer on its own, which it is reluctant to do because it is indolent. Many suggestions of System 1 are casually endorsed with minimal checking, as in the bat-and-ball problem.

While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests, the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Even a passage that is important to reference and is well contextualized in the flow of the paper will be inefficient if it introduces terms and ideas that aren’t central to the analysis within the paper. Imagine, for example, that other parts of this hypothetical paper use Kahneman’s other terms for System 1 (fast thinking) and System 2 (slow thinking); the sudden encounter of “System 1” and “System 2” would be confusing and tedious for your reader. Similarly, the terms “heuristics” and “bat-and-ball problem” might be unfamiliar to your reader. Their presence in the block quote just muddies the waters. In this case, a paraphrase is a much better choice. Here’s an example passage that uses a paraphrase to establish the same points more clearly and efficiently:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman summarizes that our brains are prone to error because they necessarily rely on cognitive shortcuts that may or may not yield valid judgments. 9  We have the capacity to stop and examine our assumptions, Kahneman points out, but we often want to avoid that hard work. As a result, we tend to accept our quick, intuitive responses. While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests that the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Not only is the paraphrased version shorter (97 words versus 151), it is clearer and more efficient because it highlights the key ideas, avoiding specific terms and examples that aren’t used in the rest of the paper. If other parts of your paper did refer to Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2, then you might choose to include some quoted phrases to make use of some of Kahneman’s great language. Perhaps something like this:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman summarizes that our brains are prone to error because they necessarily rely on cognitive shortcuts that may or may not yield valid judgments. 10  System 1, Kahneman explains, “does not generate a warning signal when it becomes unreliable.”  11  System 2 can stop and examine these assumptions, but it usually wants to avoid that hard work. As a result, our quick, intuitive responses are “casually endorsed with minimal checking.”  12  While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests, the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Whether you choose a long quote, short quote, paraphrase or summary depends on the role that the source in playing in your analysis. The trick is to make deliberate, thoughtful decisions about how to incorporate ideas and words from others.

Paraphrasing, summarizing, and the mechanical conventions of quoting take a lot of practice to master. Numerous other resources (like those listed at the end of this chapter) explain these practices clearly and succinctly. Bookmark some good sources and refer to them as needed. If you suspect that you’re in a quoting rut, try out some new ways of incorporating sources.

Principle 4: Choose precise verbs of attribution

It’s time to get beyond the all-purpose “says.” And please don’t look up “says” in the thesaurus and substitute verbs like “proclaim” (unless there was actually a proclamation) or “pronounce” (unless there was actually a pronouncement). Here’s a list of 15 useful alternatives: 13

• Suggests (if the author is speculating or hypothesizing)
• Contests (disagrees)

More precise choices like these carry a lot more information than “says”, enabling you to relate more with fewer words. For one thing, they can quickly convey what kind of idea you’re citing: a speculative one (“postulates”)? A conclusive one (“determines”)? A controversial one (“counters”)? You can further show how you’re incorporating these sources into your own narrative. For example, if you write that an author “claims” something, you’re presenting yourself as fairly neutral about that claim. If you instead write that the author “shows” something, then you signal to your reader that you find that evidence more convincing. “Suggests” on the other hand is a much weaker endorsement. As I’ll discuss in  Chapter 8 , saying more with less makes your writing much more engaging.

Like so many things in adult life, writing in college is often both more liberating and burdensome than writing in high school and before. On the one hand, I’ve had students tell me that their high-school experiences made it seem that their own opinions didn’t matter in academic writing, and that they can’t make any claims that aren’t exactly paralleled by a pedigreed quotation. Writing papers based on their own insights and opinions can seem freeing in contrast. At the same time, a college student attending full time may be expected to have original and well considered ideas about pre-Columbian Latin American history, congressional redistricting, sports in society, post-colonial literatures, and nano-technology, all in about two weeks. Under these conditions, it’s easy to see why some would long for the days when simple, competent reporting did the job. You probably won’t have an authentic intellectual engagement with every college writing assignment, but approaching your written work as an opportunity to dialogue with the material can help you find the momentum you need to succeed with this work.

“They Say / I Say” Activity

The blog that accompanies the book  They Say/I Say  with Readings, by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, contains short, elegantly constructed contemporary arguments from a variety of publications. Take a look at the  They Say/I Say blog for a moment and read part of at least one of the readings to see how it can be helpful to you the next time you have to make a written argument.

1. Here is a passage from a world history textbook: 14

Like so many things desired by Europeans and supplied by Asians—at first luxury items for the elite such as silk or porcelain, but increasingly products like tea from China for the mass market—cotton textiles were produced well and cheaply in India. The British textile manufacturers focused on the “cheap” part and complained that with relatively higher wages, British manufacturers could not compete. India had a competitive advantage in the eighteenth century, being able to undersell in the world market virtually any other producer of textiles. Some thought the reason for cheap Indian textiles was because of a low living standard, or a large population earning depressed wages, but all of those have been shown to not be true: Indian textile workers in the eighteenth century had just as high a standard of living as British workers. So, if it was not a low standard of living that gave India its competitive advance, what did? In a word: agriculture. Indian agriculture was so productive that the amount of food produced, and hence its cost, was significantly lower than in Europe. In the preindustrial age, when working families spent 60-80 percent of their earnings on food, the cost of food was the primary determinant of their real wages (i.e. how much a pound, dollar, a real, or a pagoda could buy). In India (and China and Japan as well), the amount of grain harvested from a given amount of seed was in the ration of 20:1 (e.g., twenty bushels of rice harvested for every one planted), whereas in England it was at best 8:1. Asian agriculture thus was more than twice as efficient as British (and by extension European) agriculture, and food—the major component in the cost of living—cost less in Asia.

Drawing on this passage, try out different quoting, paraphrasing and summarizing options:

a. Quote a key phrase or part of a sentence, naming the source and incorporating the quote within your own logic.

b. Quote an entire sentence or two, providing context and incorporating the quote within your own logic.

c. Construct an unacceptable paraphrase of part of the passage; copying a couple sentences and change just a few of the key words.

d. Construct a successful paraphrase of part of the passage; describing it in your own words.

e. Write a sentence, with a citation, that summarizes the general point of the passage.

2. Rewrite your responses to 1a and 1b, above, changing the verbs of attribution. How do the new verbs change the meaning or tone of your sentence?

1 Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein,  They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing , (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2009).

2  Recommended read:  Siddhartha Mukherjee’s  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer  (New York, Scribner, 2010).

3  The sources cited in this example:  Daniel T. Willingham,  “Can teachers increase students’ self control?” American Educator  35, no. 2 (2011): 22-27.   Kahneman,  Thinking, Fast and Slow.   Suzanne Perkins and Sandra Graham-Bermann, “Violence exposure and the development of school-related functioning: mental health, neurocognition, and learning,”  Aggression and Violent Behavior  17, no. 1(2012): 89-98.   David William Putwain and Natalie Best, “Fear appeals in the primary classroom: Effects on test anxiety and test grade,”  Learning and Individual Differences  21, no. 5 (2011): 580-584.

4  A side note: You may have noticed that the verbs used in referencing tend to be in present tense: so-and-so “writes” or “claims” or “argues”. That’s what academic writers do, even if the piece and author are from far in the past. It’s called “the historical present” and it’s just one convention of academic writing.

5 Jennifer C. Lee, J.C. and Jeremy Staff, “When Work Matters: The Varying Impact of Work Intensity on High School Drop Out,”  Sociology of Education  80, no. 2 (2007): 158-178.

6 Ibid. , 159.

7  It took me a long time to stop abusing block quotes. They made me feel like my paper was an unassailable fortress of citation! With the friendly but pointed feedback of my professors, I gradually came to see how they took too much space away from my own argument.

8 Kahneman,  Thinking, Fast and Slow,  416-7.

11 Ibid,  416.

12 Ibid ,  417.

13  Google “verbs of attribution” to find other suggestions.

14 Robert B. Marks,  The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Ecological Narrative from the Fifteenth to the Twenty-first Century  (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 95.

Write What Matters Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long; Amy Minervini; and Joel Gladd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden Announces New Actions to Secure the   Border

New actions will bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum Biden taking action as Congressional Republicans put partisan politics ahead of national security, twice voting against toughest reforms in decades

Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border and address our broken immigration system. Over the past three years, while Congress has failed to act, the President has acted to secure our border. His Administration has deployed the most agents and officers ever to address the situation at the Southern border, seized record levels of illicit fentanyl at our ports of entry, and brought together world leaders on a framework to deal with changing migration patterns that are impacting the entire Western Hemisphere.  Earlier this year, the President and his team reached a historic bipartisan agreement with Senate Democrats and Republicans to deliver the most consequential reforms of America’s immigration laws in decades. This agreement would have added critical border and immigration personnel, invested in technology to catch illegal fentanyl, delivered sweeping reforms to the asylum system, and provided emergency authority for the President to shut down the border when the system is overwhelmed. But Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades. President Biden believes we must secure our border. That is why today, he announced executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. These actions will be in effect when high levels of encounters at the Southern Border exceed our ability to deliver timely consequences, as is the case today. They will make it easier for immigration officers to remove those without a lawful basis to remain and reduce the burden on our Border Patrol agents. But we must be clear: this cannot achieve the same results as Congressional action, and it does not provide the critical personnel and funding needed to further secure our Southern border. Congress still must act. The Biden-Harris Administration’s executive actions will:   Bar Migrants Who Cross the Southern Border Unlawfully From Receiving Asylum

• President Biden issued a proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the Southern border into the United States unlawfully. This proclamation is accompanied by an interim final rule from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that restricts asylum for those noncitizens.
• These actions will be in effect when the Southern border is overwhelmed, and they will make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.
• These actions are not permanent. They will be discontinued when the number of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry is low enough for America’s system to safely and effectively manage border operations. These actions also include similar humanitarian exceptions to those included in the bipartisan border agreement announced in the Senate, including those for unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking.

Recent Actions to secure our border and address our broken immigration system: Strengthening the Asylum Screening Process

• The Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule to ensure that migrants who pose a public safety or national security risk are removed as quickly in the process as possible rather than remaining in prolonged, costly detention prior to removal. This proposed rule will enhance security and deliver more timely consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Announced new actions to more quickly resolve immigration cases

• The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security launched a Recent Arrivals docket to more quickly resolve a portion of immigration cases for migrants who attempt to cross between ports of entry at the Southern border in violation of our immigration laws.
• Through this process, the Department of Justice will be able to hear these cases more quickly and the Department of Homeland Security will be able to more quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States and grant protection to those with valid claims.
• The bipartisan border agreement would have created and supported an even more efficient framework for issuing final decisions to all asylum seekers. This new process to reform our overwhelmed immigration system can only be created and funded by Congress.

Revoked visas of CEOs and government officials who profit from migrants coming to the U.S. unlawfully

• The Department of State imposed visa restrictions on executives of several Colombian transportation companies who profit from smuggling migrants by sea. This action cracks down on companies that help facilitate unlawful entry into the United States, and sends a clear message that no one should profit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.
• The State Department also imposed visa restrictions on over 250 members of the Nicaraguan government, non-governmental actors, and their immediate family members for their roles in supporting the Ortega-Murillo regime, which is selling transit visas to migrants from within and beyond the Western Hemisphere who ultimately make their way to the Southern border.
• Previously, the State Department revoked visas of executives of charter airlines for similar actions.

Expanded Efforts to Dismantle Human Smuggling and Support Immigration Prosecutions

• The Departments of State and Justice launched an “Anti-Smuggling Rewards” initiative designed to dismantle the leadership of human smuggling organizations that bring migrants through Central America and across the Southern U.S. border. The initiative will offer financial rewards for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, or conviction of those most responsible for significant human smuggling activities in the region.
• The Department of Justice will seek new and increased penalties against human smugglers to properly account for the severity of their criminal conduct and the human misery that it causes.
• The Department of Justice is also partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to direct additional prosecutors and support staff to increase immigration-related prosecutions in crucial border U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Efforts include deploying additional DHS Special Assistant United States Attorneys to different U.S. Attorneys’ offices, assigning support staff to critical U.S. Attorneys’ offices, including DOJ Attorneys to serve details in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in several border districts, and partnering with federal agencies to identify additional resources to target these crimes.

Enhancing Immigration Enforcement

• The Department of Homeland Security has surged agents to the Southern border and is referring a record number of people into expedited removal.
• The Department of Homeland Security is operating more repatriation flights per week than ever before. Over the past year, DHS has removed or returned more than 750,000 people, more than in every fiscal year since 2010.
• Working closely with partners throughout the region, the Biden-Harris Administration is identifying and collaborating on enforcement efforts designed to stop irregular migration before migrants reach our Southern border, expand investment and integration opportunities in the region to support those who may otherwise seek to migrate, and increase lawful pathways for migrants as an alternative to irregular migration.

Seizing Fentanyl at our Border

• Border officials have seized more fentanyl at ports of entry in the last two years than the past five years combined, and the President has added 40 drug detection machines across points of entry to disrupt the fentanyl smuggling into the Homeland. The bipartisan border agreement would fund the installation of 100 additional cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl at our Southern border ports of entry.
• In close partnership with the Government of Mexico, the Department of Justice has extradited Nestor Isidro Perez Salaz, known as “El Nini,” from Mexico to the United States to face prosecution for his role in illicit fentanyl trafficking and human rights abuses. This is one of many examples of joint efforts with Mexico to tackle the fentanyl and synthetic drug epidemic that is killing so many people in our countries and globally, and to hold the drug trafficking organizations to account.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Advertisement

Supported by

Will You Accept the Election Results? Republicans Dodge the Question.

Leading Republicans have refused to say flatly that they will accept the outcome of the presidential election if Donald Trump loses.

• Share full article

By Michael C. Bender and Nick Corasaniti

Less than six months out from the presidential contest, leading Republicans, including several of Donald J. Trump’s potential running mates, have refused to commit to accepting the results of the election, signaling that the party may again challenge the outcome if its candidate loses.

In a series of recent interviews, Republican officials and candidates have dodged the question, responded with nonanswers or offered clear falsehoods rather than commit to a notion that was once so uncontroversial that it was rarely discussed before an election.

The evasive answers show how the former president’s refusal to concede his defeat after the 2020 election has ruptured a tenet of American democracy — that candidates are bound by the outcome. Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans are now emulating his hedging well in advance of any voting.

For his part, Mr. Trump has said he will abide by a fair election but has also suggested that he already considers the election unfair. Mr. Trump frequently refers to the federal and state charges he is facing as “election interference.” He has refused to rule out the possibility of another riot from his supporters if he loses again.

“If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” Mr. Trump said last month when asked by Time magazine about the prospect of political violence. “It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

When asked about Mr. Trump’s comments, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, one of the contenders to become Mr. Trump’s running mate, repeatedly evaded the question during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Here is how he and other Republicans have handled questions about challenging the outcome of the next election:

Senator Tim Scott

Mr. Scott voted in the Senate to certify the 2020 election and said during a Republican presidential primary debate in August that former Vice President Mike Pence was correct to certify the results on Jan. 6, 2021. “Absolutely, he did the right thing,” Mr. Scott said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

May 30, 2024

November’s Presidential Election May 2024

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll

Biden and Trump Locked in Tight Race Nationally...West & Stein, Not RFK, Make Difference in Multi-Candidate Field

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are closely matched in November’s presidential election among registered voters nationally, including those who are undecided yet leaning toward a candidate. However, Trump has closed the gap against Biden among those who say they definitely plan to vote in November. In a multi-candidate field that includes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein, Trump now edges Biden. Stein and West make the difference, pulling support from Biden and not Trump.

Two points separate Biden (50%) and Trump (48%) among registered voters nationally in the presidential contest. Support for Biden and Trump is unchanged from early May. Among those who say they will definitely vote, Biden receives 50% to 49% for Trump. Biden (52%) was previously +5 percentage points against Trump (47%) among these voters.

Trump (54%) leads Biden (42%) among independent voters. However, Biden (49%) and Trump (47%) are closely matched among those who have an unfavorable opinion of both candidates.

Trump (44%) edges Biden (40%) among registered voters in a multi-candidate field. Kennedy has the support of 8% to 3% for Stein and 2% for West. Earlier this month, Biden (42%) and Trump (42%) were tied, with Kennedy receiving 11%, Stein garnering 2%, and West receiving 2%.

Kennedy pulls support evenly from both Biden and Trump. However, among Biden supporters from a Biden-Trump matchup, Stein receives 5%, and West receives 4% in this multi-candidate contest. Stein and West do not pull any measurable support from former President Trump.

Most registered voters nationally (90%) say they plan to vote for president in November. Seven percent say they will vote but will skip the line for president. Three percent are not likely to vote. Biden supporters (7%) are slightly more likely than Trump supporters (5%) to say they will skip the presidential line. Non-white voters (11%) are more than twice as likely as white voters (5%) to pass on voting for president. Voters under the age of 45 (12%) are three times as likely as older voters (4%) to do the same.

"Despite Biden’s campaign appearances and Trump’s court appearances, the contest for president has been and remains tight," says Lee M. Miringoff, Director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "When it comes to this rematch, it’s as if voters are saying, 'tell me something about Biden and Trump, I don’t already know.'"

Could “Hush Money” Verdict Impact Electorate?

While 67% of registered voters nationally say it makes no difference to their vote if Trump is found guilty in his “hush money” trial, 17% report they would be less likely to vote for him if he is convicted. 15% would be more likely to vote for Trump.

Conversely, 76% of voters say a not guilty verdict would not impact their vote. Nine percent would be less likely to vote for Trump, and 14% would me more likely to vote for him.

Trump (Still) Bests Haley

85% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say, if they could choose a Republican nominee for president now, they would back Trump. 14% would support Nikki Haley. Regardless of demographic group, Trump outpaces Haley with at least 74% of the Republican electorate.

Biden and Trump’s Favorable Ratings Remain Underwater

42% of Americans have a favorable impression of Biden, and 52% have an unfavorable view of him. This is little changed from early May, when Biden received a 40% positive score and a 54% negative rating.

Trump experiences similar ratings. 41% have a favorable opinion of Trump, and 54% have an unfavorable impression of the former president. Trump also experiences little movement in his rating since last time. In early May, Trump’s favorable rating was 39% and 56% of Americans had an unfavorable impression of him.

Biden’s Approval Rating Status Quo

Biden’s job approval rating has not moved since early May. 41% of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing in office, and 54% disapprove. Six percent are unsure. 22% of Americans strongly approve of how Biden is doing in office, and 42% strongly disapprove .

Two-Thirds Solid in Their Choice for President

About two in three registered voters (66%) say they know for whom they plan to vote, and nothing will change their mind. 68% of both Biden and Trump supporters are firm in their commitment to their candidate. 25% of voters think they have a good idea of the candidate they will support but could change their mind. Seven percent have not yet made up their mind. An even greater proportion of those who say they definitely plan to vote in November (73%) say they are certain for whom they plan to vote.

Americans are Plugged into Presidential Contest

More than three in four Americans (76%), including 81% of registered voters, say they are following the presidential contest either very closely or closely. 24% of Americans are not following it very closely or not following it at all. Biden’s supporters (85%) are tracking the presidential contest more closely than Trump’s supporters this election cycle (79%).

Eight percent of registered voters say this year’s election will be their first-time voting.

Congressional Ballot a Tossup

45% of registered voters nationally say they are more likely to vote for the Democratic congressional candidate in their district. The same proportion (45%) report they are more likely to vote for the Republican on the ballot. Two percent expect to vote for another candidate, and 8% are unsure. When last reported in November of 2022, the electorate was similarly divided (46% for the Democratic candidate and 46% for the Republican).

Nearly Half of Americans Want U.S. to be Intermediary in the War Between Israel and Hamas

Close to half of Americans (48%) think the U.S. should support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas but should also use its influence to encourage Israel to protect Palestinian civilians. 25% of U.S. residents think the U.S. should stop all support to Israel until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, and 23% say the U.S. should fully support all of Israel’s military actions against Hamas.

U.S. Military Aid to Israel?

Nearly four in ten Americans (38%) think the United States is giving Israel the right amount of military aid. 35% believe too much military support is being provided while 23% think the U.S. is not giving enough military aid to Israel. Four percent are unsure.

U.S. Humanitarian Aid to the Palestinians?

Nearly four in ten Americans (36%) say the United States is providing the right amount of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. 29% think the aid given is too much, and the same proportion (29%) say it is not enough.

Nearly Half of Americans Think the Environment Tops Economic Growth

49% of Americans think protection of the environment should be given priority even if it risks curbing economic growth. 42% believe economic growth should be the priority even if it means the environment will suffer. Four percent say the two issues are equal in priority, and 4% are unsure. Democrats (68%) are more likely than Republicans (27%) and independents (48%) to prioritize the environment over the economy.

Plurality of Americans Considers Climate Change Top Priority

Four in ten Americans think climate change is a top priority. An additional 38% say the issue is important but not a top priority. 21% believe climate change is not a priority at all. Democrats (67%) are nearly twice as likely as independents (36%) and more than four times as likely as Republicans (14%) to consider climate change a top priority.

• Survey Data

Watch CBS News

Hunter Biden's federal gun trial prosecutors say "the law makes no distinction for Hunter Biden"

By Erica Brown , Scott MacFarlane , Alyssa Spady

Updated on: June 4, 2024 / 7:37 PM EDT / CBS News

The jury has been seated in Hunter Biden's federal gun trial , and in opening statements Tuesday, the prosecution began, "No one is above the law," and "the law makes no distinction for Hunter Biden," the son of the president of the United States. 

Prosecutor Derek Hines acknowledged Hunter Biden's addiction, saying, "addiction may not be a choice, but lying to buy a gun is." Defense attorney Abbe Lowell, meanwhile, argued that drug addicts often have a "deep state of denial about their drug use." 

After roughly 90 minutes of opening statements, prosecutors called their first witness,  FBI special agent Erika Jensen, and played several audio excerpts from Hunter Biden's memoir, "Beautiful Things," that detail the times he said he used drugs. 

Hunter Biden's sister, Ashley Biden, and first lady Jill Biden are in the courtroom on Tuesday, as they were on Monday. Hunter Biden's wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, and Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris are also in court. While the excerpts were being played, some of the jurors grimaced while Ashley Biden and Jill Biden reacted emotionally, with Melissa Cohen Biden offering support to the first lady and the first lady putting her arm around Ashley Biden's shoulder. Ashley Biden eventually left the courtroom.

President Biden is not at the trial. He gave remarks Tuesday afternoon about executive action on immigration, and he's scheduled to leave soon for France in order to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day Thursday. 

The president's son was indicted by a federal grand jury in September after a diversion agreement for a felony gun offense and a plea deal related to misdemeanor tax charges unraveled when Judge Noreika questioned whether the agreement would enable Hunter Biden to avoid potential future charges.

He now faces three felony charges stemming from his alleged illegal purchase and possession of a firearm in 2018 while he was a drug user. He has pleaded not guilty. 

Opening statements

In a roughly 23-minute opening statement, Hines spoke about the firearms permit form that Hunter Biden filled out to purchase the Colt Cobra .38 Special revolver in 2018, accusing Hunter of lying on the form about whether he was a drug user when he bought the gun. 

"No one is allowed to lie on a form like that," Hines said in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

Hines outlined sensitive personal details about Hunter's addiction, introducing text messages where Hunter asked for drugs and called himself "delusional," a "user" and an "addict." Hunter Biden's sister, Ashley Biden, was seated behind the defense table and looked up at the courtroom ceiling as she wiped away tears with a tissue.

In a nearly hourlong defense opening statement, Lowell said Hunter Biden had been in rehab and was trying to be sober. He argued that to a drug addict, there's a difference on a form between the question "are you a drug user" and "have you been a drug user?"

Lowell spent a considerable amount of his opening statement talking about a leather pouch recovered with the firearm, which prosecutors say had traces of cocaine residue. Lowell said that Hallie Biden, who had at times a contentious relationship with Hunter Biden, selected the pouch herself when she discarded the weapon. Lowell said the pouch was never fingerprinted and its origins and handling were never investigated.

Witness testimony

After Jensen took the stand, the government submitted a paper copy of Hunter Biden's memoir, "Beautiful Things," into evidence, and played excerpts from the audio book. The excerpts were about Memorial Day weekend 2016, when he visited the Burisma board with his daughter Naomi, and also detailed his relapse into crack/cocaine use, which then led to a longer span of use and apparently ended in the spring of 2018. 

In her testimony in the afternoon, Jensen authenticated the text messages recovered from Hunter Biden's devices that were obtained through a search warrant and showed exchanges about drugs. 

She also reviewed bank records that apparently show large cash withdrawals in the months before the gun purchase, with a focus on a $5,000 bank withdrawal the same day. Prosecutors also cross-referenced texts and cash withdrawal dates with excerpts from Hunter Biden's memoir about the timeline of his drug use. 

In addition to Jensen, the prosecution is expected to call Hunter Biden's ex-wife Kathleen Buhle; a woman Hunter Biden was romantically involved with from 2017-2018; his brother Beau Biden's widow, Hallie Biden , with whom he was romantically involved, and five other witnesses, including FBI and DEA agents.

Jury selection

Twelve jurors and four alternates were sworn in Monday, 10 women and six men, on the first day of the trial. 

During the jury selection process, all but one of the potential jurors knew of the case due to news reports, and many said they had an immediate connection to someone struggling with drug or alcohol abuse.

By 11:45 a.m. on Monday, a dozen potential jurors out of 30 were excused for cause, including scheduling conflicts and political views. One person asserted gun ownership was a "God-given right," while another said her opinion of the Bidens was "not a good one." 

The defense struck another potential juror — who said he is a Fox News viewer — a former Wilmington police officer and then worked with Jill Biden at the college where she taught. He also said he'd met President Biden at multiple events and donated to a challenger to Beau Biden in his race to be Delaware attorney general. The potential juror also told the judge he believes prosecutors file cases for political reasons, mentioning the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in New York and, when asked if "political prosecutions" ever target Democrats, he offered an emphatic "no" in response. 

Other potential jurors also answered "yes" when the judge asked "are some Department of Justice and law enforcement probes politically motivated?" Several cited Trump's New York case. 

Before the trial began, Hunter Biden suffered a couple of setbacks: Norieka declined to allow his lawyers to admit into evidence a second version of the firearms purchase form he filled out to buy the gun, and she granted the government's motion to exclude one of the defense's expert witnesses, Dr. Elie Aoun, who was to testify on the nature of Hunter Biden's drug abuse and whether he understood himself to be an addict.

What are the federal gun charges against Hunter Biden?

In the three-count indictment, the president's son is charged with making false statements on a federal gun form about his drug use, certifying he was not a user of or addicted to any controlled substance during a period when prosecutors allege he was addicted to crack cocaine. Hunter Biden purchased a Colt Cobra .38 Special revolver, and it remained in his possession for 11 days before it was discarded in an outdoor receptacle by Hallie Biden, his romantic partner at the time. 

The president's son faces up to 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines if convicted on all counts.

Separately, he faces nine federal tax charges in the central district of California in a second indictment brought by Weiss' office where federal prosecutors allege Hunter Biden engaged in a "four-year scheme" to avoid paying at least $1.4 million in federal taxes. References to the tax charges are not admissible in his gun trial in Delaware. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

Robert Legare contributed to this report.

• Hunter Biden

Erica Brown covers investigative stories, often on politics, as a multiplatform reporter and producer at CBS News. She previously worked for BBC News and NBC News.

More from CBS News

Hunter Biden's daughter, Naomi Biden, testifies at his gun trial

Biden says he would not pardon son Hunter if convicted in gun trial

Supreme Court seeks Biden administration's views in major climate change lawsuits

Key witness who says he bribed Bob Menendez continues testifying