My revised thesis statement for Essay 1 is that the politic system in Japan should be changed in order to make it easier for women to participate more in social leadership and the government should address the flaw in equality of the sexes. The three main supporting ideas for this thesis are as follows.
The first supporting point for my thesis is that the equality of sexes in politics should be achieved because it also means the equality of sexes in leadership.
The second supporting point for my thesis is that there is still much inequality of sexes in Japan. Compared with other countries, in Japan there is much less participation of women in the government.
The third supporting point is that the system used in the countries where women have made a success in the political field could be used also in Japan. It is possible to model Japan on these countries and make it easier for women to participate more in politics.
Therefore, because of these three supporting points above, I will assert that the politic system in Japan should be changed and the government should address the flaw in equality of the sexes.
We've talked about this thesis before, and I basically agree that it's a strong idea, but the way in which its phrased is problematic because the grammar indicates you are arguing two points, and that will be confusing to the reader. We need to have ONE main idea. Here, this is a rephrasing of the thesis that will limit it to ONE main idea.
返信削除The political system in Japan should be changed in order to make it easier for women to participate.
Now, let's add the supporting points in this way to the thesis.
The political system in Japan should be changed in order to make it easier for women to participate in order to 1) have more women in social leadership roles, 2) to have more equality between the sexes in society, and 3) because those countries that have empowered women more are more successful economically.
Frankly speaking, your third point doesn't work so well because it answers a how question, not a why question, so it doesn't work well as a reason to support an argument for why something should be done.
If any of this is confusing, ask me to discuss it with you.