Research Argument Builder

Example 1 — Undergraduate humanities paper

Input: "My paper argues that Shakespeare's *Hamlet* develops the theme that indecision is more destructive than action, even wrong action."

Step 1 — Claim classification: Evaluation claim — judging *Hamlet* against a criterion (indecision as a form of destruction).

Step 2 — Specificity/significance check:

Step 3 — Reasons: 1. Each time Hamlet delays, the direct result is a preventable death (Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, himself). 2. The characters who act decisively — Fortinbras, Laertes, even Claudius — achieve their immediate objectives. 3. Hamlet explicitly diagnoses his own problem as over-thinking, not lack of moral clarity.

Step 4/5 — Evidence check:

Storyboard fragment:

MAIN CLAIM: In Hamlet, indecision is more destructive than action because
every delay produces a preventable death while decisive action — however
morally compromised — consistently achieves its objective.
Claim type: evaluation
REASON 1: Each of Hamlet's delays directly precedes a death he could have prevented.
  Evidence: Scene-by-scene textual analysis (Acts 3–5)
  Quality: Sufficient only if all major deaths are covered; representative
  Acknowledgment needed: Yes — "Hamlet could not have acted without more information earlier"

Example 2 — Policy research

Input: "I want to argue that universities should require a one-semester research methods course for all undergraduates."

Step 1 — Claim classification: Policy claim — requires a chain of sub-arguments.

Step 2 — Sub-claims needed: 1. Most undergraduates currently lack basic research skills (fact) 2. The lack is caused by no structured instruction in research methodology (cause) 3. A required methods course would close that gap (cause/consequence) 4. The course is feasible and its benefits outweigh its costs (evaluation)

Step 3 — Reasons for sub-claim 1:

Step 4/5 — Evidence: