Complete Guide to Ensuring Argument Rigidity with Claude: Master 3 Advanced Strategies.
Today, A Jiu will share how to use Claude to ensure the argument rigidity of your thesis, quickly elevating the quality of your paper.
Regarding how to use Claude to enhance the argument rigidity of the final draft, I have summarized a 3+2 model, which consists of 3 key techniques and 2 considerations.
This model was validated through the guidance of nearly 50 master’s and doctoral thesis revisions by A Jiu.
What are the three key techniques?
First: Use the parallel validation method, allowing Claude to play the roles of both supporter and opponent.
Second: Utilize abductive reasoning, prompting Claude to work backward from the conclusion to the argument process.
Third: Employ interdisciplinary cross-validation to make the argument more comprehensive and in-depth.
At this point, A Jiu can’t help but recall a case I guided last week.
A doctoral student wrote a thesis on urban renewal, believing her argument was already quite solid.
However, after applying A Jiu’s parallel validation method, she found many loopholes in her argument chain.
How to do it specifically?
First, input your thesis paragraphs into Claude, then instruct it: Please question and suggest improvements to my argument from both supporting and opposing perspectives.
The supporter’s perspective should identify and strengthen the highlights of the argument, while the opponent’s perspective should find possible loopholes and shortcomings.
To help everyone better grasp this technique, A Jiu has prepared a set of parallel validation prompt templates suitable for different disciplines for annual core members.
This template has greatly helped many members improve the argument quality of their papers.
The second technique is abductive reasoning.
This method is particularly suitable for testing whether your argument can stand on its own.
The specific steps are as follows: first, tell Claude your research conclusion, then ask it to deduce backward: Please deduce the possible argument paths and necessary supporting evidence based on this conclusion.
Then compare this deduction process with my thesis to identify missing links in the argument.
A recent master’s student I guided used this method to discover that his thesis lacked two crucial supporting arguments.
By supplementing these arguments, the quality of his thesis improved significantly.
The third technique is interdisciplinary cross-validation.
Many people may wonder why cross-disciplinary validation is necessary.
In fact, this is a very advanced technique.
For example, if you are researching educational innovation, you can ask Claude to examine your argument from psychological, sociological, and economic perspectives.
The specific instruction is: Please analyze my argument from the perspective of [specific discipline] to see if there are any blind spots and what supplementary suggestions there are.
Now let’s discuss two considerations: First: When using these techniques, divide your thesis into small paragraphs for validation.
Do not input too much content at once, as Claude’s feedback will be more targeted.
A doctoral student doing cultural research recently input an entire chapter for Claude’s validation.
As a result, Claude’s suggestions were very vague and did not capture the key points.
Later, following A Jiu’s advice to validate in segments, the results improved significantly.
Second: After Claude provides suggestions, do not rush to adopt them all.
You should first ask it to explain the reasoning behind each suggestion: Please explain in detail why such modifications are necessary and how this modification enhances the argument’s rigidity.
A Jiu suggests that after receiving the explanation, you should ask a key question: Will this modification affect other parts of the thesis?
If so, what specific impact will it have?
This can help avoid unintended consequences.
At this point, A Jiu recalls an interesting case.
A doctoral student researching the impact of climate change on agriculture used the cross-disciplinary validation method, and Claude proposed several previously unconsidered argument dimensions from an ecological perspective.
These new perspectives immediately elevated the quality of his thesis.
By combining these three techniques, the argument rigidity of the thesis can be significantly enhanced.
We should be adept at utilizing Claude’s powerful analytical capabilities, making it a valuable assistant in refining our papers.
—————–
PS. How to obtain “one-on-one research consulting guidance” or “latest academic AI model accounts” and watch A Jiu’s “internal high-level techniques for academic papers”?
The exclusive advanced Claude application course taught by A Jiu, along with domestic Claude account pools and even better Claude accounts, are all available here. Please note “Claude” and it will be processed within 10 minutes.
