My logical fallacies thesis is as followed:"In today’s society, logical fallacies in the media have overlapped and corrupted the way communication is interpreted and expressed by many individuals". How can I make this a stronger thesis?
I think a thesis has to be clearly provable or disprovable which I don't think yours is. Maybe if you talk about how logical fallacies have overlapped and corrupted communication.
Try to narrow down what you're trying to assert in the thesis. Ask yourself questions like: -What types of communications are being corrupted? -What type of corruption is occurring? Is it that people are falling for bad polls/stats they see on the news, or that they're picking up talk-radio hosts' tendencies to oversimplify and use strawman arguments (if you don't listen to talk radio, listen for just a few minutes. You'll find some frighteningly irrational stuff no matter which end of the political spectrum is talking)? -What type of "overlapping" are we talking about? If you can distill these into something like "With the recent alarming proliferation of unscientific Pew polls and other questionable statistics in the mainstream media, it's no surprise that current undergraduates score significantly lower than past generations in the XYZ Logical Aptitude Test and do poorly in their PDQ subject assessments. This are signs of a disturbing trend: logical fallacies becoming ever more commonplace in our daily media consumption, and the resulting drop in our ability to rationally, logically communicate with others." Whatever you do, try to set up your above thesis to be more specific. A thesis is something that you can argue *for* or *against*, which means that it needs to be narrow enough that someone could go "well, I think you're wrong because..." Hope this helped!
this is something problem statement but not hypothesis go for something more argumental
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!