Dr.

Hirth
ENC 1102
Argument
Review

Part 1:

Thesis statements should state the topic and an opinion. These statements should address the
“how?” or “why?” of something that should or should not be done.
.

Yes/No: Are these acceptable thesis statements for an argument?

For the “No” statements, why not?
Label, yes.
Or,
Label, no, and state why. For example:

"This essay will look at AI in nursing."

No: too broad and also an announcement of a paper’s topic.

"I think AI could be useful for coaching."

No: - does not address how AI will be useful

- no need to state “I think” in an argument (it’s redundant because arguments should
be claims)

"People have varying views on AI's role in nursing."

No: broad and vague. What people? What views? Also, a fact.

"While AI can enhance efficiency in nursing, its implementation poses significant ethical
challenges that must be addressed to ensure patient-centered care."

No: vague terms: “efficiency in nursing” (what efficiency?)

“implementation” (how will it be implemented?)

"AI-powered adaptive learning systems should be widely adopted in K-12 education to

personalize instruction and improve student outcomes."

Yes. Also, not a split focus because personalized instruction will lead to improved student
outcomes.
"Despite concerns about creativity, AI tools in art design can augment human capabilities,
leading to innovative artistic expressions that blend technology and human imagination."

Yes

"There are different opinions about AI in education."

No: broad, vague, and factually true.

"The integration of AI in sports coaching, particularly for performance analysis and training
optimization, will revolutionize athlete development but risks dehumanizing the coach-athlete
relationship."

Yes

"The use of AI in art has been debated for some time."

No: broad, vague, and factually true.

"Nursing schools must incorporate comprehensive AI training into their curricula to prepare
future nurses for the technological demands of modern healthcare."

Yes

"The use of AI in education exacerbates socioeconomic disparities by disproportionately

benefiting well-funded schools, necessitating policy interventions to ensure equitable access."

No: first, this is basically “word salad”: what “socioeconomic disparities”? What “well-
funded schools”? But also, isn’t that true? (Schools with more money can afford more
technology.). So, what is the claim? Why should there be policy interventions? Who is
denied “equitable access”?

"There are three ways AI is changing education."

No: broad, vague, and will lead to a list.

"AI-generated art should be recognized as a legitimate form of artistic expression and included in
major art exhibitions to reflect the evolving nature of creativity in the digital age."

Yes

"Artificial intelligence is being used in many fields including nursing."

No: a fact.
"While AI can provide valuable insights in coaching, it should be limited to a supportive role
rather than replacing human coaches to maintain the essential emotional and motivational aspects
of coaching."

Yes

"AI coaching tools are becoming more common."

No: a fact.

"The implementation of AI in nursing practice will significantly reduce medication errors and
improve patient safety, outweighing concerns about job displacement."

No: a split focus between reducing medication errors and patient safety versus concerns
about job displacement. These ideas also don’t have that much in common, which creates a
list.

"Ethical guidelines for AI use in education must be established to protect student privacy and
prevent the perpetuation of biases in algorithmic decision-making."
No: a split focus between bettering student privacy and preventing algorithmic decision-
making. The paper would not have anything to build on but these two very different points.
Is the following source acceptable for use in an academic argument?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X23000784
Yes, clearly an academic and peer reviewed source.
Is the following source acceptable for use in an academic argument?

https://www.carnegielearning.com/blog/making-the-most-of-chatgpt/
No, a blog. The blog is also written by someone who teaches math and not writing.
Carnegie Learning also sells educational products.
Check the following outline:
Thesis: Although AI tools are widely available and promise to make learning easier, students
should be aware of the limitations that AI poses and the potential harm it can cause their
learning.
Supporting point 1: AI tools are free and easily accessible, which makes students believe they are
a great resource for learning.
Supporting point 2: However, current LLMs, such as Claude and ChatGPT, have been trained
mostly on informative writing and general webpages on the Internet, which results in flawed
argumentation and even grammar errors. Students should realize that these tools cannot be used
to construct their writing without severe learning deficits.
Supporting point 3: To be clear, students need a firm base for understanding academic writing to
use LLMs well; however, many students will just copy from these tools without thinking.
Supporting point 4: When students merely copy from AI, not only do they not learn how to write
but they also risk completely misunderstanding the various genres of writing by reproducing
flawed models.
Supporting point 5: The real harm can appear in the form of misinformation that students
mistakenly, and blindly, share from LLMs.
Counterargument: Some writing professors may use AI to help students with the prewriting
process, which helps students to move past “writer’s block” and early obstacles.
However, these writing professors are negating the purpose of a writing course: to learn how to
think, which involves some learning struggles.

Are the thesis statement and supporting claims argumentative?

Yes, the writer is arguing that students need to be aware that AI is not advanced and can
cause some issues with their learning.
All persuasive wording is highlighted.
Do these statements logically fit together to form a coherent discussion?
Yes, because the claim that students think AI is a great resource leads to the claim that AI
is actually not a good learning resource.
This claim that AI produces flawed models leads to students not having a firm base of
understanding for writing.
The lack of a firm base for understanding writing and copying AI output means that
students will learn about writing from bad examples.
These bad examples will mean that students will not learn to write, and they could also be
sharing a dangerous form of misinformation (because they do not know what writing is
supposed to look like if they rely on AI).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: when I asked Claude if “he” liked the thesis statement in this outline, “he” suggested
revision to:
"While AI-powered learning tools like intelligent tutoring systems promise to enhance education,
students must critically understand their limitations, particularly in developing critical thinking skills and
fostering deep, contextual understanding."
Wow, thanks for the word salad, bot.
Claude also made a few grammar errors in just one sentence. “He” scans the whole Internet, which
includes Reddit, and the like, in which few people are writing like poet laureates.
Leverage LLMs with a grain of salt.