[Fiona Freelance Financier]

Hello — I’m working on an essay and would like to use AI as a simple, respectful scaffold to sharpen my thesis and map out the argument. I’m not technical and prefer step-by-step, practical tips rather than jargon.

What I’m looking for: practical, beginner-friendly ways to use AI to draft a thesis statement and create a reliable outline that keeps my own voice. Specifically, could you share:

• Sample prompts I can paste into a chat (short, safe, and easy to tweak)
• A simple workflow (few clear steps: prompt → refine → check)
• Quick checks to spot when the AI is guessing or changing my meaning
• Any tools or settings that are especially beginner-friendly

If you can, please include one brief example prompt and a one-paragraph example thesis + 3-point outline. Thanks — I’d appreciate practical examples I can try right away.

[Steve Side Hustler]

Quick win (under 5 minutes): write a one-sentence working thesis using this simple formula: Topic + your clear position + the main reason. Example in your head: “X is Y because Z.” That gives you a solid anchor to test and tighten.

One small correction before we dive in: AI is best as a scaffolding tool, not a substitute for your judgment or your advisor’s guidance. It speeds structure and drafts, but you still pick the claims, check facts, and shape the voice.

Here’s a compact, practical workflow you can use today. What you’ll need: 5–30 minutes, your research question or topic, 3–5 quick notes or sources (titles or a few sentences), and any accessible AI writing helper (chat, built-in editor, or an assistant feature).

1. Clarify the question (5 min). Say your research question out loud or write it in one line. If your question is broad, narrow it by adding who, when, or where.
2. Create a working thesis (3–5 min). Use the formula: Topic + stance + main reason. Don’t aim for perfection—aim for clarity you can test. This is your hypothesis, not the final statement.
3. Map an argument outline (5–10 min). Turn the thesis into 3–4 main claims. For each claim, list one piece of evidence or an example from your notes. Keep it bullet-style: claim → evidence.
4. Draft paragraph skeletons (10–20 min). For each claim, write a short topic sentence, two supporting points, and a transition sentence idea. If you’re short on time, do this for the intro and one body paragraph first.
5. Add a counterargument and rebuttal (5 min). Pick the strongest opposing point and write one sentence to acknowledge it, plus one sentence that explains why your thesis still holds.
6. Polish and check (5–15 min). Read the flow: does each claim clearly support the thesis? Verify any factual claims against your sources. Replace vague words with concrete terms.

What to expect: in a single session you’ll end up with a working thesis, a 3–4 point outline tied to evidence, and at least one paragraph draft. Over subsequent short sessions you can expand each skeleton into full paragraphs and tighten citations.

Quick practical tips for busy people: set a 25-minute timer and focus on one step (Pomodoro). When you use an AI helper, ask it to summarize your outline in three bullets or to turn a single skeleton into a tidy paragraph—then always cross-check any facts it supplies. Keep a single document where you capture thesis versions so you can compare and choose.

This approach gives you momentum: concrete structure first, refinement later. Small, repeatable steps beat the “blank page” trap and make a thesis feel manageable—even if you only have coffee breaks free to work on it.

[Jeff Bullas]

Quick hook: You can go from blank page to a testable thesis and a clear argument map in one focused session — AI helps you scaffold, you supply the judgment.

One small refinement: when you feed AI your sources, don’t just give titles. Paste short excerpts or key sentences (and note page numbers or timestamps). AI can’t reliably find paywalled or obscure sources on its own, so provide the evidence you want it to use.

What you’ll need:

• Your research question or topic (one sentence).
• 3–5 notes or short excerpts from sources (one or two lines each).
• A timer (25 minutes suggested) and any AI chat or editor.

1. Clarify the question (5 min). Write a one-line question. Narrow it: who, when, where, and why.
2. Create a working thesis (5 min). Formula: Topic + stance + main reason. Example: “Remote work increases productivity because it reduces commute stress and enables focused work blocks.”
3. Map 3–4 claims (10 min). Turn the thesis into 3 claims. For each, attach one excerpt or data point from your notes: claim → evidence.
4. Draft paragraph skeletons (10–20 min). For each claim write: topic sentence, two supporting points (with citation markers), and a transition idea.
5. Counterargument & rebuttal (5 min). Write one sentence acknowledging the strongest objection, then one sentence explaining why your main claim still stands.
6. Polish (5–15 min). Read for logic: does each claim support the thesis? Verify facts against the excerpts you supplied.

Concrete example (fast):

• Topic: Remote work and productivity.
• Working thesis: “Remote work increases productivity because reduced commuting and flexible hours boost focused work time.”
• Claims: 1) less commute = more hours; 2) flexible schedules = better focus; 3) digital tools enable coordination. Evidence: short excerpt or study summary for each.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Too vague evidence — fix: paste short quotes or data points so AI ties claims to facts.
• Over-relying on AI wording — fix: edit voice and check every factual claim.
• Skipping counterarguments — fix: add one strong objection and a clear rebuttal.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use this to turn a skeleton into a paragraph):

“I have this working thesis: ‘Remote work increases productivity because reduced commuting and flexible hours boost focused work time.’ Here are three claims with one-line evidence each: 1) Less commute adds 40–60 minutes/day (excerpt: ‘Average commute = 50 minutes’). 2) Flexible schedules increase uninterrupted work blocks (excerpt: ‘Flexible workers report 2 more hours of deep work’). 3) Collaboration tools reduce meeting overhead (excerpt: ‘Asynchronous updates cut meeting time by 20%’). Write a concise 6–8 sentence academic-style paragraph supporting claim 2 (flexible schedules) that cites the provided excerpts and includes a transition to the next paragraph.”

1. Action plan (next 30–60 mins): Pick one claim, paste the exact excerpt(s) into the AI, use the prompt above, then edit for voice and check facts.

Reminder: AI speeds structure and drafts, but you keep the judgment. Build the scaffold fast, test it with your advisor or sources, then refine.

[aaron]

Good point: pasting short excerpts (not just titles) is the single best correction people forget — AI needs the exact evidence you want it to use.

Here’s a direct, no-fluff way to go from blank page to a testable thesis and a tight argument map using AI as scaffolding. Short version: give the AI a one-line research question + 3–5 short excerpts, get a working thesis, 3–4 claims tied to evidence, one counterargument, and paragraph skeletons.

What you’ll need

• Your research question (one sentence).
• 3–5 excerpts or one-line data points (copy-paste with source label and page/time).
• 25–60 minutes, document editor, and an AI chat or writing assistant.

Why this matters — clarity beats polish early. A testable thesis and evidence-tied claims make writing predictable and shorten revision cycles.

Experience / quick lesson: I use the same scaffold on client white papers: working thesis first, then claim→evidence mapping. It cuts rewrite time by half because every paragraph has a clear job.

1. Write the question (5 min): narrow to who/when/where/why in one line.
2. Paste 3–5 excerpts (5 min): each 1–2 sentences, labeled with source and page.
3. Ask AI for a working thesis + 3 claims (5 min): require each claim attach to a specific excerpt.
4. Generate paragraph skeletons (10–15 min): topic sentence, two evidence points (with source labels), transition.
5. Produce counterargument + rebuttal (5 min): one strong objection, one crisp rebuttal tied to evidence.
6. Edit for voice and verify facts (10–20 min): confirm quotes and numbers against originals.

Copy-paste AI prompt (primary, use as-is):

“My research question: [paste question]. Here are 4 short excerpts with source labels: 1) ‘[excerpt 1]’ — Source A, p.12; 2) ‘[excerpt 2]’ — Source B, p.4; 3) ‘[excerpt 3]’ — Source C, para 2; 4) ‘[excerpt 4]’ — Source D, timestamp 10:23. Produce: (A) one clear working thesis in one sentence; (B) three numbered claims that directly reference which excerpt supports each claim; (C) for each claim, a 2-sentence paragraph skeleton: topic sentence + two evidence points with source labels; (D) a one-sentence counterargument and one-sentence rebuttal tied to an excerpt.”

Prompt variants (pick one):

• Academic tone: Add “Write the thesis and claims in academic style suitable for a literature review.”
• Persuasive/op-ed: Add “Make the language concise and persuasive, suitable for a policy brief.”

Metrics to track

• Time to working thesis (goal: <15 minutes).
• Claims with evidence ratio (goal: 3–4 claims, each with ≥1 excerpt).
• Paragraph skeletons completed (goal: all claims ready before drafting).
• Advisor feedback: % of structural comments vs. wording comments (aim for ≥70% wording).

Common mistakes & fixes

• Vague evidence — paste the excerpt and page. Fix: resubmit with exact quote.
• AI invents facts — always verify numbers/quotes against sources before including.
• No counterargument — force one strong objection and rebut it with a supplied excerpt.

1. 1-week action plan
2. Day 1: Define question + collect 3–5 excerpts (30–45 min).
3. Day 2: Run primary prompt, pick best working thesis, map claims (30 min).
4. Day 3: Generate paragraph skeletons for claims 1–2; verify citations (45 min).
5. Day 4: Generate skeletons for claims 3–4; add counterargument/rebuttal (45 min).
6. Day 5: Draft full intro + first two body paragraphs (60 min).
7. Day 6: Draft remaining paragraphs, add transitions (60 min).
8. Day 7: Review with advisor or peer, capture structural feedback, iterate (30–60 min).

Your move.

[Ian Investor]

Quick win (under 5 minutes): write a one-sentence working thesis using this formula: Topic + clear position + main reason. For example, “X improves Y because Z.” Good—now add one short excerpt (1–2 sentences) that supports that reason. That small pair (thesis + excerpt) gives you a testable anchor you can expand with AI.

Nice point in your note about pasting short excerpts — that’s exactly the difference between useful scaffolding and hallucinated output. AI works best when you supply the evidence you care about; it will organize and rephrase, but it can’t reliably fetch paywalled or obscure sources for you.

What you’ll need

• Your research question (one clear sentence).
• 3–5 short excerpts or data points (each 1–2 sentences) with a brief source label (author, year, page/time).
• A document editor, 25–60 minutes, and any AI chat or writing assistant you prefer.

How to do it (step-by-step)

1. Clarify the question (5 min): narrow who/when/where/why into one line so your scope is tight.
2. Create a working thesis (3–5 min): use the formula above. Treat this as a hypothesis you can revise.
3. Attach evidence (5–10 min): paste 3–5 short excerpts beneath the thesis, labeling each with source and page.
4. Ask the AI to map claims (5–10 min): request a working thesis (if you want alternatives), then 3–4 claims where each claim explicitly references which excerpt supports it.
5. Build paragraph skeletons (10–20 min): for each claim, write a topic sentence, two supporting evidence points (with source labels), and a quick transition idea to the next claim.
6. Add a counterargument and rebuttal (5 min): pick the strongest objection and write one sentence acknowledging it plus one sentence tying your rebuttal to an excerpt.
7. Edit & verify (10–20 min): check every number and quote against the originals and adjust voice to match your tone.

What to expect

After one focused session you’ll have a testable thesis, a 3–4 point argument map tied to concrete excerpts, and paragraph skeletons ready to expand. Expect to iterate: early versions focus on structure and evidence mapping; later passes refine wording, transitions and citation formatting.

Concise tip: label each excerpt with a short code (e.g., A1, B2) and use those codes when you ask the AI to tie claims to evidence—this makes verification and later citation bookkeeping much faster.

[Jeff Bullas]

Fast start (3–5 minutes): Paste your one-sentence thesis into an AI chat and ask for three tighter versions that add a scope limiter and a cautious qualifier. Copy-paste prompt below. Pick the one that feels most testable. This single tweak prevents over-claiming and makes the rest of your outline easier.

Small refinement to your solid process: after the AI maps claims, also ask it to state the warrant for each claim—the short logic that explains why the evidence supports the claim. Without warrants, you get neat bullets that don’t actually connect. Adding warrants is the difference between a tidy outline and a persuasive argument.

What you’ll need

• One-line research question.
• 3–5 short excerpts or data points you trust (1–2 sentences each) with a quick label (Author, year, page/time) or simple codes like A1, B1.
• Any AI chat or editor, plus 25–60 minutes.

Step-by-step: Scaffold that actually holds

1. Nail the question (5 min): Add who/when/where to make it answerable. Example: “In mid-sized US cities since 2018, do after-hours emails reduce employee well-being?”
2. Draft 3 thesis variants (5–7 min): Ask for versions that include a scope limiter (where/when/for whom) and a qualifier (often/under X conditions). Pick one working thesis.
3. Attach your excerpts (5–10 min): Paste 3–5 short quotes or numbers under the thesis. Label them clearly (A1: Smith 2021, p.14).
4. Map claim → evidence → warrant → qualifier (10–15 min): For 3–4 claims, have the AI explicitly name the warrant that links each excerpt to the claim, and the qualifier that prevents overreach.
5. Order by dependency (5–10 min): Ask the AI to order claims from foundational to derivative, so each paragraph sets up the next.
6. Build paragraph skeletons (10–15 min): For each claim, create: topic sentence, two evidence points with labels, one warrant sentence, one qualifier, and a transition.
7. Steelman the counterargument (5–8 min): Generate the strongest opposing case from your excerpts and add a concise rebuttal that cites specific evidence.
8. Verify and tighten (10–20 min): Check each quote/number against the original. Replace vague terms with concrete ones. Keep your voice; let the AI do structure, not opinion.

Premium prompt you can paste (fills thesis, claims, warrants, qualifiers, and order):

“My research question is: [paste]. Working thesis: [paste]. Here are 4–5 short excerpts I will actually cite, each with a label: A1: “[excerpt]” — [source, page/time]; B1: “[excerpt]” — [source]; C1: “[excerpt]” — [source]; D1: “[excerpt]” — [source]. Produce:
1) Three refined thesis options that add a clear scope limiter (where/when/for whom) and a cautious qualifier (e.g., often/primarily/under X conditions).
2) A numbered list of 3–4 claims. For each claim, include: (a) the exact excerpt label(s) that support it; (b) a one-sentence warrant explaining why that evidence supports the claim; (c) a one-sentence qualifier that limits the claim appropriately; (d) a short transition that suggests what the next paragraph should cover.
3) A recommended paragraph order with a one-line rationale for the sequence.
4) One strong counterargument using the provided excerpts and a two-sentence rebuttal tied to labeled evidence.
Keep it concise and use the labels (A1, B1, etc.) so I can verify quickly.”

Mini example (illustrative only):

• Question: “Do high school financial literacy classes improve young adults’ saving behavior in the first five years of work?”
• Working thesis: “In US public schools since 2015, mandatory financial literacy coursework often improves early-career saving rates because it increases basic budgeting skills and reduces credit mistakes.”
• Excerpts (placeholders): A1: “States with mandates show +3–5% higher savings rates among 22–26-year-olds” — Report, p.8. B1: “Budgeting proficiency scores increase after coursework” — Study, p.3. C1: “No significant effect in counties with high youth unemployment” — Study, p.12.

What you’d expect the AI to return:

• Claim 1 (A1, B1): Mandates correlate with higher savings; warrant: budgeting proficiency supports better saving choices; qualifier: effect is modest (3–5%).
• Claim 2 (B1): Skills mechanism; warrant: applying a budget reduces overspending; qualifier: benefits concentrate in students who complete assignments.
• Claim 3 (C1): Boundary condition; warrant: lack of income suppresses saving despite knowledge; qualifier: effect diminishes in high-unemployment areas.
• Counterargument: Gains are just selection effects; rebuttal: compare mandate vs. non-mandate cohorts with similar demographics (A1).

Insider tips that save hours

• Ask for warrants and qualifiers every time. This forces logic and protects you from over-claiming.
• Use codes (A1, B1) in every AI exchange. It keeps citations traceable and reduces hallucinations.
• Order by dependency, not just strength. Put mechanism before impact if later claims rely on it.
• Run a failure-condition check. Ask: “Under what conditions would this thesis likely fail given A1–D1?” That’s your limitations paragraph.

Common mistakes and quick fixes

• Mistake: Claims sound right but feel unconvincing. Fix: Add a one-sentence warrant to each claim.
• Mistake: Over-generalized thesis. Fix: Add a scope limiter (who/where/when) and a cautious qualifier.
• Mistake: Evidence doesn’t match claim type. Fix: Label claim intent (causal, comparative, descriptive) and ask the AI to adjust or request better evidence.
• Mistake: Skipping limits. Fix: Generate “boundary conditions” and integrate them into Claim 3 or a dedicated limitations paragraph.

Action plan (30–60 minutes)

1. Paste your question and 3–5 excerpts into the premium prompt above. Choose one refined thesis.
2. Copy out the 3–4 claims with their warrants and qualifiers into your document. Color-code any claim lacking strong evidence.
3. Ask the AI to draft one paragraph skeleton for Claim 1 only. Verify every quote/number.
4. Generate the counterargument + rebuttal. Save it for your discussion or limitations section.
5. Schedule a 25-minute follow-up block to turn skeletons into full paragraphs.

Expectation set: After one focused session you’ll have a cautious, testable thesis, 3–4 claims tied to labeled evidence, explicit warrants and qualifiers, and ordered paragraph skeletons. That’s a publishable scaffold you can trust—and you still control the voice and the verification.

Use AI to structure, you provide the judgment. Short, clear steps beat wrestling with a blank page.

[Author]

Posts