A New Approach to Writing and Thinking Education(Excerpt)
Paul Lai
Nagoya University
As AI tools in assisting academic writing become increasingly prevalent, the evolution of academic
writing education demands a paradigm shift from a traditional language-centric focus to a more
profound emphasis on thinking skills. While language proﬁciency remains important, the future ofacademic writing hinges on nurturing clarity and convincingness in thinking skills. This shift
requires a recalibration of educational priorities to instill a thinking-focused approach in bothhuman writers and AI systems. This paper, excerpted from a textbook presenting a practicalargument construction guide, highlights the main features of this new approach to writing andthinking education.
1. The Construction Approach
The thinking skills in question belong to what I term the "construction approach" ofargumentation, or simply the construction approach. This approach diﬀers from the assessment
approach commonly found in traditional argument studies. Instead, it is tailored to assist research
writers across academic disciplines in constructing clear and convincing arguments for their papers
starting from scratch. While they are specially designed for writing an argumentative paper, thethinking skills fostered by this approach are applicable to various scenarios involving argument
construction.
The main focus of the construction approach is a type of argument called the practical argument.
As I will explain below, constructing a practical argument entails a cyclic process that involves
transforming a hypothetical claim into a conﬁrmed conclusion. The transformation is facilitatedby the development of two types of premises: the Premise of Proof and the Premise of Defense,
both of which contribute to conﬁrming the hypothesis. Once the premises for the hypothesis are
successfully established, and the hypothesis is conﬁrmed, the construction of the practicalargument will be complete. The construction process of a practical argument is illustrated in thefollowing diagram.

2. Beginning with a hypothetical conclusion
As depicted in the diagram, the construction of a practical argument entails a cyclical processthat commences and concludes with the development of the argument's conclusion, which is also
known as the thesis statement in the context of an argumentative research paper).
The construction process is distinguished by its outset, which involves crafting a simple
sentence—a sentence that will ultimately evolve into the conclusion of a practical argument. This
starting point eﬀectively bridges the gap in understanding how an argument can be constructedfrom scratch. However, it also presents the primary challenge to the construction approach: how the
simple sentence can be transformed into a fully developed argument. As will be elucidated in mybook, the key to overcoming this challenge lies in the formulation of the initial sentence.
Very brieﬂy, in order to be seamlessly integrated into an argument, the sentence must be
formulated as a logical statement. And for the reasons that will be elaborated in my book, thissentence should remain as simple as possible, comprising no more than four essential elements: a
subject (S), an object (O), the relationship connecting the subject to the object (R), and thecircumstances under which this relationship holds true (Z). Despite its simplicity, this sentence
should succinctly encapsulate the central thesis of the research, as it serves as the hypotheticalconclusion of the argument.
The hypothesis plays a crucial role in initiating and guiding the subsequent research process.
This process involves identifying relevant previous studies, formulating a research question basedon background studies, and collecting data necessary to establish supporting premises, among othertasks. Throughout this process, the content within the SROZ elements may undergo changes asnew information becomes available. However, the hypothesis is expected to adhere to the form: "Sis Related to O in Z," unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Once suﬃcient evidence is gathered to support the hypothesis, ensuring that the claim can beconvincingly proven as well as defended, the hypothesis is transformed into a conﬁrmed
conclusion. However, if the hypothesis cannot be adequately supported, it may need to be modiﬁed
or rejected.
3. Building the premises for and from a hypothetical conclusion
Following the formulation of a hypothetical conclusion, the subsequent phase of constructing
a practical argument involves establishing the premises that support the hypothesis. The primary
aim of constructing these premises is to provide substantiation for the hypothesis. It is important tonote that the concept of support within a practical argument signiﬁcantly diﬀers from that in aconventional argument. In a conventional argument, the premises act as the foundation from which
the argument's conclusion is inferred, irrespective of whether the statements are factually true or
not. However, in a practical argument, the premises must consist of evidence capable of proving
and defending the hypothesis, enabling its transformation into a conﬁrmed conclusion. Thus, in apractical argument, the conclusion is not merely an inferential outcome of the premises but also
forms the basis upon which the proof and defense are constructed. The content of the premises
within a practical argument needs to be directly relevant to the content of the conclusion.
Speciﬁcally, the premises' content should demonstrate that S is in fact Related to O in Z.
4. The Premise of Proof (POP)
There are two types of premises that need to be constructed in a practical argument. The ﬁrst
is termed the Premise of Proof (POP). As the name suggests, POP basically functions to prove thehypothetical conclusion. Broadly speaking, it is the premise that supplies the data for the researchclaim. However, POP diﬀers signiﬁcantly from a typical premise in the conventional assessment
approach. Apart from serving as the ground for inferring a conclusion, POP also demonstrates thatthe inference is based on real-world facts. In other words, the primary function of POP is not only
to infer but also to prove that the central claim of a research paper is true (or likely true) by reference
to the facts that can substantiate the claim. Speciﬁcally, if the claim asserts that S is Related to O
in Z, then the function of POP is to demonstrate that S is in fact Related to O in Z. To achieve this,POP cannot simply be "asserted to be true"; it must be grounded in veriﬁable truth. The inferential
link between the premise and the thesis statement cannot be purely formal. The content of thepremise matters to the construction of an argument; it should consist of factual evidence capableof proving and substantiating the argument's conclusion. The content of the hypotheticalconclusion plays a pivotal role in determining the relevance of the content of POP.
5. The Premise of Defense (POD)
The second type is known as the Premise of Defense (POD). As its name implies, POD servesto defend the hypothetical conclusion from potential counterarguments that could disprove it. Inscientiﬁc research, it would be impossible to solely rely on ﬁnding the proof that can provide theperfect support for the argument’s conclusion. Even if there is compelling evidence that proves thetruth of a claim, as long as the possibility for the claim to be false remains unchecked, the truth is
not fully conﬁrmed. This poses a risk of violating the principle of non-contradiction. Brieﬂy, theprinciple of non-contradiction states that two contradictory statements, such as "S is Related to O
in Z" and "S is not Related to O in Z," cannot both be true simultaneously. Accordingly, to conﬁrm
the truth of "S is Related to O in Z," its contradictory statement, "S is not Related to O in Z," mustbe simultaneously proven false. Defending the hypothetical conclusion from potential
counterarguments is basically about ﬁnding ways to demonstrate that it is implausible that S is not
Related to O in Z. Note that simply defending a hypothesis against contradiction is not suﬃcient
to prove its truth. However, if the defense fails to refute the contradictory claim, it guarantees therefutation of the defended claim. By defending the research claim from the possibility of falsity,
POD justiﬁes the assertion of the claim, regardless of whether compelling evidence exists to prove
it. In this sense, POD plays a more fundamental role than Premise of Proof (POP) in supporting athesis statement; it provides a necessary condition for the claim to be true. No argument is complete
without a premise capable of defending its conclusion against the possibility of falsity.
6. The order of the premises construction
In the construction process, the order in which the two premises are established does not adhere
to a strict order. Scientiﬁc research commonly follows the practice of formulating a hypothesis ﬁrst
and subsequently seeking evidence to substantiate it. Hence, it is customary to begin with POP
before addressing POD. Nonetheless, there are situations where direct evidence proving ahypothesis is not readily available. In such instances, it may be more advantageous to commencewith POD before constructing POP.
7. The components of an argumentative paper
So far I have outlined the components of a practical argument in the construction approach. Now
I need to broaden the scope to include the components of an argumentative paper. An
argumentative research paper is a piece of academic writing that presents a speciﬁc argument.
What distinguishes such a paper is its focus on conveying new research ideas and justifying
them. Examples of argumentative research papers include dissertations, journal articles,
conference papers, grant proposals, and other writings aimed at communicating original researchideas to readers. For a focused elucidation, we will focus on the process of building a dissertation,although the principles discussed can be applied to other types of argumentative writing.
Let us start with a template that provides an overview of the essential components required tocreate a clear and convincing dissertation.

While various academic disciplines may prescribe diﬀerent formats and styles for dissertations,
utilizing appropriate terminologies and phraseologies, most disciplines agree on the necessity of
the components outlined in the research writing template provided here. It is crucial to understandthat each of these components should be imbued with fundamental ideas essential for developing
a clear and convincing dissertation. They should not be confused with the speciﬁc words, styles,
and formats used to articulate these ideas. For instance, the "thesis statement" component serves
as the space designated for the central research idea of a dissertation. In many argumentative papers,a thesis statement is not explicitly presented. Thus, no question is raised as to how the researchclaim should be properly phrased or formatted in a dissertation. However, if a thesis statement ismissing altogether from an argumentative paper, then the paper would be pointless and doomed to
be unsatisfactory.
To visualize where an argument is among the research writing components, let me introduce theresearch writing diagram, which is an elaboration of the diagram of the practical argument
construction process seen earlier.

8. The Research Writing Diagram8.1 Preliminary thesis statement (objective)
First and foremost, you need to begin your dissertation by thinking about a research objective,
or what your dissertation aims to accomplish. At this stage, the research objective may be an
intuitive and preliminary idea. But it should reﬂect what your dissertation basically aims to argue
for; i.e., the central claim or thesis statement of the argumentative paper. To ensure adequacy, theobjective must exhibit a clear focus on your research, likely entailing a speciﬁc subject of inquiry
and its relationship to a particular object. Furthermore, it is important to make the objective
realistic by setting a modest boundary for your research. What lies within the boundary is theconcern of your current research endeavor, and what lies outside is not. As we shall see, the essential
elements of a research objective resemble those of a preliminary thesis statement.
8.2 Background
The research background is closely linked to the research objective. It explains the rationale
behind your research endeavor. Speciﬁcally, it delineates the historical context that has led to theformulation of your present research objective. Besides demonstrating your mastery of the
background knowledge within your research ﬁeld, the primary purpose of including the researchbackground in a dissertation is to lay the groundwork for the development of your researchoriginality. A crucial aspect of developing research originality involves showcasing how yourresearch diﬀers signiﬁcantly from previous studies within the same ﬁeld. To accomplish this, it isessential to begin by outlining the background that has informed your current research, identifying
those previous studies that were conducted prior to yours.
8.3 Problem
The "problem" in this context refers to the shortcomings, deﬁciencies, or limitations identiﬁed
in previous work that directly inﬂuenced your own research. This problem may not be publicly
acknowledged and could be based solely on your own suspicion or conjecture. Articulating the
problem that your research seeks to address constitutes the second and most crucial aspect of
introducing the background of your research. Merely presenting previous studies in your researchbackground is insuﬃcient; they must be contextualized within the framework of a problem.
Understanding the achievements of previous research in the ﬁeld is important, but it is equally
essential to explain how these studies can be further reﬁned or advanced. If previous research were
ﬂawless, there would be little justiﬁcation for conducting new research. Thus, the problem
identiﬁed in previous research serves as the rationale for your own research. It acts as the link thatconnects previous research to your own.
8.4 Question
As the research problem serves as a bridge connecting previous research to your own, it must
be directly relevant to the topic you intend to investigate. Essentially, it should form the foundation
for formulating a central research question for your study. Ideally, during the analysis of the
problem, you should already have a research question pertaining to the identiﬁed problem. Askingthe right question is indispensable for conducting eﬀective and meaningful research. Researchinherently involves inquiry, aiming to uncover new discoveries by seeking speciﬁc informationthat addresses a particular question. The type of information obtained ultimately depends on thequestion being posed. For example, the question of "why" you are writing a dissertation diﬀers
signiﬁcantly from the question of "how" you are writing it, as they lead to diﬀerent directions ofinquiry. While the former addresses the rationale behind writing the paper, the latter pertains to themethodology employed in its execution.
8.5 Hypothesis or claim (thesis statement)
Arguably, the term "hypothesis" is predominantly utilized in empirical sciences. For
humanities and other disciplines that do not rely on empirical methods to conduct research, they
may prefer to use a diﬀerent term, such as “claim” or “main point”. However, whether termed asa "hypothesis" or a "claim," the concept represents a hypothetical answer to a research question. Itshould embody the originality of your research and serve as the foundation for constructing themain argument of the research. This is the most crucial part of a dissertation, and where logicalthinking skills are mostly needed. Every satisfactory dissertation should feature an original claim.
During the initial stages of the writing process, a claim functions as a preliminary research
hypothesis awaiting conﬁrmation. Subsequently, the writing process entails establishing logicalsupport for the claim. In the ﬁnal stages of writing, once all premises supporting the claim are
adequately established and the claim is conﬁrmed, it transforms into the research conclusion of thedissertation.
8.6 Premise of Proof
While an original research claim forms the core of a dissertation, its eﬀectiveness hinges on its
convincingness. For instance, asserting that a day will extend to 36 hours in a billion years may
seem intriguing, but without credible evidence to substantiate it, the claim holds little weight. Thus,
substantiating a claim with evidence is just as crucial as formulating the claim itself. Evidence,comprising data collected from experiments, interviews, questionnaires, literature reviews, orother research methods, constitutes the backbone of proof. A premise of proof is simply a premisethat presents this evidence. To convincingly support a claim, there must be an inferential relation
linking the premise of proof to the claim; in other words, the premise of proof should logically infer
the claim.
8.7 Counterargument
In scientiﬁc research, no hypothesis can be deﬁnitively proven to be 100% true. Regardless ofthe credibility of supporting evidence, absolute conclusions cannot be drawn. There always
remains the possibility for a claim to be false. Such a possibility represents the counterargument to aclaim. Thus, merely providing evidence for a claim is insuﬃcient; it is also necessary to anticipate
the possibility for the claim to be false. As will be elaborated later, a counterargument manifests as
a form of disagreement. However, it's essential to recognize that not all disagreements constitutecounterarguments. Understanding what constitutes the counterargument to a claim fundamentallyrelies on the same logical principles as understanding what constitutes proof for the claim. Theyboth stem from the same logical basis.
8.8 Premise of Defense
Given the inherent possibility for a research claim to be false, understanding how to defend aclaim against its counterargument is just as crucial as acquiring evidence to substantiate it. Indeed,
the ability to construct a premise of defense may prove more valuable in building a logicalargument, as locating deﬁnitive evidence for a claim can be challenging. Compared to constructing
a premise of proof, constructing a premise of defense demands a higher level of logical thinking
skills. It necessitates the ability to anticipate a counterargument and subsequently counter it. The
support for a claim is comprehensive when both the premise of proof and the premise of defense
for the claim are adeptly constructed.
8.9 Conclusion
Once both the premise of proof and the premise of defense are meticulously constructed, theresearch claim being supported can be transformed into the conclusion of an argument, marking thecompletion of the argument construction process. Note that the conclusion may diﬀer from theoriginal hypothesis, although it is also possible for them to align.
8.10

Other components

Once you have completed the process of proving and defending your research claim, you enter
the stage of ﬁnalizing your dissertation. Depending on the requirements of your academic
discipline, this stage may entail providing a Discussion section to accompany the ﬁnal conclusionof your research, based on the results collected and assembled for the premise of proof and premiseof defense. For instance, if the conclusion signiﬁcantly deviates from the original hypothesis, itwould be necessary to explain this diﬀerence and delineate how the transition was made from the
hypothesis to the conclusion. The discussion may also address any limitations inherent in yourpresent research. Every research endeavor operates within a ﬁnite period of time, and consequently,
limitations are inevitable in some form or another. By specifying the limitations of your present
research, you lay the groundwork for future steps and avenues of inquiry.
To facilitate the thinking skills training, special recipes and templates are provided in my book.
The recipes provide step-by-step and systematic guidance on how to build a thesis statement,
establish the research background, identify the research problem, and formulate a researchquestion. The templates provide a coherent framework for connecting diﬀerent thought
components together. The integration of both templates and recipes provides research writers witha systematic and coherent framework for thinking with clarity and convincingness. For more details,
please contact me to get a copy of my book.

Reference
Lai W. L. (2024) Begin with one simple sentence: The argument construction guide. In press.