Use the guide to draft or revise an opinion article: identify its stance, find factual claims, and decide what support each claim requires.
1. A stance is a position; a factual claim says what is true
An opinion article takes a position on a question. That position is the writer’s stance: a judgment, recommendation, or interpretation that readers could reasonably debate. For example, “Our school should keep the library open during lunch” is a stance. It argues for a choice; it is not established merely by stating it.
A factual claim, by contrast, asserts something that could be checked against evidence. “The library is currently closed during lunch” is a factual claim. So is “Most students use the library at lunch.” The second sentence may sound plausible, but plausibility is not proof. A reader could ask how the writer knows, when the observation was made, and what counts as “most.” That makes it a claim needing support.
Some sentences mix the two. “Because the library is closed at lunch, the school should open it” contains a factual premise and a recommendation. Separate those parts when revising. The recommendation is the stance; the statement about the library’s hours is a factual claim to verify. A responsible article can take a clear position while being careful about what it presents as true.
2. Sort each sentence before you draft further
Use a three-step check. First, ask what the sentence asks readers to accept. If it asks them to agree with a recommendation or judgment, label it stance. If it says something happened, exists, is common, or causes an effect, label it factual claim. If it does both, split it into parts.
Second, ask what would settle the question. A stance is assessed through reasons and values: readers may weigh convenience, fairness, or competing priorities differently. A factual claim calls for relevant evidence. Depending on the claim, that might mean checking a current school notice, a policy document, or a clearly described observation. These are possible kinds of support, not evidence you may pretend to have collected. If you do not have suitable support, narrow the statement, verify it, or remove it.
Third, check the wording. Words such as “all,” “never,” “most,” and “always” often make a claim broader than the available support can justify. Words such as “should,” “ought,” and “a better choice” often signal a stance, though the sentence may also contain factual premises. Do not rely on signal words alone: classify the sentence by what it asserts.
3. Worked demonstration: mark the parts
The following miniature example is fictional. The school, proposal, and sentences are invented for practice; no real school or research is being described.
Draft: “The school should open the library during lunch because students have nowhere quiet to work. Everyone would use it, and grades would improve.”
The first clause, “The school should open the library during lunch,” is the stance. The phrase “students have nowhere quiet to work” is a factual claim about available spaces. “Everyone would use it” is another factual prediction, and an unusually absolute one. “Grades would improve” predicts an outcome and implies a connection that would need strong, relevant support. None of those claims becomes established just because it supports the recommendation.
A writer might not have evidence for those statements. The responsible move is not to decorate them with certainty. Instead, revise the argument so its stance rests on a clearly framed reason that does not pretend an unsupported fact is known. For instance, the writer could explain why access to a quiet place would be valuable, while acknowledging that the proposal’s actual use and effects are unknown. If the article needs to claim that students lack space or that grades would change, the writer must obtain suitable evidence or leave those claims out.
4. Revise without weakening the position
Before: “The school should open the library during lunch because students have nowhere quiet to work. Everyone would use it, and grades would improve.”
After: “The school should consider opening the library during lunch as an additional place where students could choose to work quietly. A quiet option may be useful to students who want to read or finish assignments, but I do not know how many students would use it or whether it would affect grades. Before making a firm prediction, the school would need to check practical questions such as supervision, staffing, and student interest.”
This revision keeps a definite direction: consider opening the library. It changes the unsupported claim that students have nowhere to work into a modest description of what the proposal could offer. “Could choose” describes an option, not a proven outcome. The writer also removes “everyone” and the promised grade improvement rather than presenting guesses as facts. Naming what remains unknown is not a retreat from having an opinion; it helps readers see which parts are the writer’s judgment and which parts would require information.
The revised passage still needs care. If the article states that the library is available, that it can be supervised, or that staffing is feasible, those are factual claims to check. A useful revision does not make every sentence automatically reliable. It makes the remaining factual questions easier to spot and investigate.
5. Check the article, then practise
Before finishing an opinion article, underline each sentence that could be checked: schedules, counts, costs, rules, descriptions of what people do, and predictions about effects. For each one, ask, “What support would let a reader check this?” Confirm that the support actually addresses the claim and is current enough for the situation. If you cannot support it, remove it, qualify it honestly, or describe it as a question to investigate—not as an established fact.
Then circle the stance. Can a reader state what you want them to agree with? Check that your reasons connect to that position, and that your factual premises are supported rather than hidden inside persuasive wording. Finally, look for sweeping language and causal promises. Replace certainty with precise limits when appropriate, but do not use cautious wording to disguise a claim for which you have no basis.
Practice: In the fictional sentence “The school should add a covered place to wait because students get soaked every rainy day,” identify the stance and the factual claim. Then revise it so the position remains clear without asserting an unsupported frequency.
Self-check answer: The stance is that the school should add a covered place to wait. “Students get soaked every rainy day” is a factual claim about what happens and how often. A responsible revision could be: “The school should consider adding a covered place to wait; it could give people shelter in wet weather. Before claiming how often students need it, the writer should check relevant observations or records.” The answer preserves the recommendation, avoids presenting frequency as known, and identifies what would need support.
The revision, explained
The school should open the library during lunch because students have nowhere quiet to work. Everyone would use it, and grades would improve.
The school should consider opening the library during lunch as an additional place where students could choose to work quietly. A quiet option may be useful to students who want to read or finish assignments, but I do not know how many students would use it or whether it would affect grades. Before making a firm prediction, the school would need to check practical questions such as supervision, staffing, and student interest.
The revision preserves the stance while removing unsupported claims about students’ current options, universal use, and improved grades. It distinguishes a possible benefit from a proven result, states what the writer does not know, and points to questions that would need checking before making stronger factual claims.
Try the idea.
In the fictional sentence “The school should add a covered place to wait because students get soaked every rainy day,” identify the stance and the factual claim. Revise the sentence to keep the stance clear without asserting an unsupported frequency.
See the self-check +
The stance is that the school should add a covered place to wait. “Students get soaked every rainy day” is a factual claim about what happens and how often. A responsible revision is: “The school should consider adding a covered place to wait; it could give people shelter in wet weather. Before claiming how often students need it, the writer should check relevant observations or records.” This keeps the recommendation while avoiding an unsupported statement about frequency.