20 ChatGPT Prompts for Academic Writing

You are an academic writing assistant specializing in literature reviews. Your task is to create a comprehensive, well-structured literature review on [topic] within the field of [discipline].

The literature review should:

Organize sources thematically rather than chronologically, identifying major themes, debates, and trends in the existing research. Begin with a brief overview paragraph that contextualizes the topic and explains its significance in [discipline]. Then divide the body into 3-5 thematic subsections, each exploring a distinct aspect of the literature.

For each theme, synthesize findings from multiple sources rather than summarizing each source individually. Identify areas of consensus among researchers, highlight ongoing debates or contradictions, and note methodological approaches commonly used. Show how different studies build upon or challenge each other.

Include critical analysis throughout. Don’t just describe what researchers found—evaluate the strengths and limitations of their approaches, identify gaps in the current research, and explain what questions remain unanswered.

Write in formal academic language using third person perspective. Use appropriate transitional phrases to connect ideas between paragraphs and sections. Maintain an objective, analytical tone throughout.

The review should be approximately [word count] words and follow [citation style] format for all in-text citations. End with a brief paragraph that synthesizes the overall state of research and clearly identifies the research gap your proposed study would address.

Avoid: – Simply listing summaries of individual studies – Using first person pronouns – Including your personal opinions rather than scholarly analysis – Neglecting to show connections between different sources – Failing to identify gaps or limitations in existing research

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[word count]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an expert academic writing coach. Help me develop a clear, specific, and arguable thesis statement for my [type of paper] on [topic].

A strong thesis statement should:

Make a specific claim: State exactly what you will argue, not just announce your topic. Instead of “This paper discusses climate change,” your thesis should make a debatable assertion about climate change.

Be arguable: Present a position that reasonable people might disagree with. Avoid stating obvious facts.

Be specific and focused: Narrow your claim to something you can adequately support within the scope of your paper. Avoid vague or overly broad statements.

Provide a roadmap: Hint at the main supporting points or the structure of your argument when appropriate.

Based on my topic, generate three different thesis statement options that vary in approach or emphasis. For each option, briefly explain (in 1-2 sentences) what argumentative angle it takes and what type of evidence would be needed to support it.

After presenting the three options, recommend which one is strongest for a [paper length] paper and explain why.

Avoid: – Creating thesis statements that merely announce the topic without making an argument – Using vague language like “interesting,” “important,” or “good/bad” without specificity – Making claims that are too broad to support adequately – Starting with phrases like “In this paper I will…” or “This essay is about…” – Creating statements that simply list facts rather than making arguable claims

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[type of paper]:

[paper length]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an experienced academic researcher. Create a detailed research proposal on [research topic] within [academic field]. The proposal should convince reviewers that this research is worth pursuing and that I have a solid plan for conducting it.

Structure the proposal with these sections:

1. Title: Create a clear, descriptive title that accurately reflects the research focus

2. Introduction (300-400 words): Begin with context that establishes why this topic matters in [academic field]. Clearly state the research problem, explain its significance, and provide background information that helps readers understand the issue. End with your research question or hypothesis.

3. Literature Review (400-500 words): Summarize key existing research on this topic, organized thematically. Identify what scholars already know and, critically, what gaps exist in current knowledge. Explain how your proposed research addresses these gaps.

4. Research Questions/Objectives: List 1 primary research question and 2-3 specific objectives your study aims to achieve.

5. Methodology (400-500 words): Describe your research design, including whether you’ll use qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Specify your data collection methods, sampling strategy, and analytical approach. Explain why these methods are appropriate for answering your research question. Address potential limitations.

6. Timeline: Provide a realistic timeline breaking the research into phases with estimated completion dates.

7. Expected Outcomes: Explain what findings you anticipate and how they will contribute to [academic field].

Write in clear, formal academic language. Use [citation style] for all references. Make your argument compelling by emphasizing the significance and feasibility of the research.

Avoid: – Being vague about methodology or timeline – Overpromising results you cannot reasonably deliver – Neglecting to explain why the research matters – Using overly technical jargon that obscures your meaning – Failing to acknowledge limitations or challenges

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[academic field]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic writing specialist. Write a structured abstract for my research paper on [topic] in the field of [discipline]. The abstract should be exactly [word count] words and follow the [abstract type] format.

For a structured abstract, include these clearly labeled sections:

Background/Context: 1-2 sentences establishing why this research matters and what problem it addresses

Objective/Purpose: 1 sentence stating the specific aim of your study

Methods: 2-3 sentences describing your research design, data collection approach, and analytical methods. Be specific enough that readers understand what you actually did

Results/Findings: 2-3 sentences presenting your main findings. Include specific data points or key discoveries

Conclusion/Implications: 1-2 sentences explaining what your findings mean and why they matter to [discipline]

If writing an unstructured abstract instead, integrate the same information without section labels, maintaining a logical flow from context to conclusions.

Write in past tense for describing completed research (methods and results sections) and present tense for stating background and conclusions. Use active voice where possible. Every sentence should add essential information—avoid filler phrases.

The abstract must be completely self-contained, allowing readers to understand your study without reading the full paper. Include your most important keywords naturally throughout to improve searchability.

Avoid: – Including citations or references to other works – Using undefined abbreviations or jargon – Being vague about methods or results – Starting with unnecessary phrases like “This paper discusses…” or “The purpose of this study was…” – Including information not covered in the actual paper – Exceeding the word limit by even a single word

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[word count]:

[abstract type]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are a research methodology expert. Help me develop clear, focused, and researchable questions for my study on [topic] in [field of study]. The questions should be appropriate for [research level] research.

Start by generating one primary research question that:

– Addresses a significant gap or problem in current knowledge – Is specific enough to be answerable within a typical research project – Is open-ended, requiring more than a yes/no answer – Uses clear, precise language without ambiguity – Is feasible given typical time and resource constraints

Then create 3-4 secondary research questions or sub-questions that:

– Break down different aspects of the primary question – Can be addressed through specific research methods – Collectively help answer the primary question – Progress logically from descriptive to more analytical

For each question you generate, provide a brief explanation (2-3 sentences) of:

1. What type of data or evidence would be needed to answer it 2. What research methods would be most appropriate 3. How answering this question contributes to the overall study

Also identify any potential challenges or limitations in addressing each question and suggest how these might be mitigated.

Format your response with clear headings for the primary question and secondary questions. Use proper formatting for easy reading.

Avoid: – Questions that are too broad to address in a single study – Yes/no questions that don’t require investigation – Questions with obvious answers that lack scholarly value – Multiple questions bundled into one (questions with “and” connecting multiple inquiries) – Vague or ambiguous wording that could be interpreted multiple ways – Questions that make unsupported assumptions

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[field of study]:

[research level]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic writing expert. Craft a compelling introduction for my [type of paper] on [topic] within [discipline]. The introduction should be approximately [word count] words.

Structure the introduction using the funnel approach, moving from general to specific:

Opening hook (2-3 sentences): Begin with context that captures interest and establishes the broader significance of your topic. This could be a surprising statistic, a thought-provoking observation, or a statement about current debates in [discipline]. Make readers understand why they should care.

Background and context (3-4 sentences): Provide essential background information readers need to understand your topic. Define key terms if necessary. Explain the current state of knowledge or practice related to [topic].

Problem statement or research gap (2-3 sentences): Clearly articulate the specific problem, question, or gap in research that your paper addresses. What remains unclear, contested, or unexplored? Why does this matter?

Purpose statement (1-2 sentences): State explicitly what your paper will do—your objectives or aims.

Thesis statement (1-2 sentences): Present your main argument or central claim. This should be specific and debatable.

Brief roadmap (1-2 sentences, optional): For longer papers, preview the main sections or arguments that will follow.

Write in formal academic language using [citation style] for any sources referenced. Use third person perspective. Create smooth transitions between each component so the introduction flows naturally rather than feeling like disconnected sections.

Each sentence should serve a clear purpose—eliminate any redundancy or filler.

Avoid: – Starting with dictionary definitions or overly generic statements – Using personal anecdotes or informal language – Including detailed literature review (save that for its own section) – Being vague about what your paper will accomplish – Announcing your intentions with phrases like “In this paper, I will…” – Introducing ideas or arguments you won’t develop in the paper

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[type of paper]:

[word count]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic research assistant. Create an annotated bibliography for my research on [research topic] in [field]. I need annotations for [number of sources] sources following [citation style] format.

For each source entry:

Citation: Provide the complete, properly formatted citation according to [citation style].

Annotation: Write a 150-200 word annotation with these three components:

1. Summary (50-75 words): Concisely describe the source’s main argument, purpose, and scope. What question does the author address? What is their central claim or finding? What type of source is it (empirical study, theoretical analysis, review article, etc.)?

2. Evaluation (50-75 words): Assess the source’s credibility and quality. Consider the author’s credentials, the publication’s reputation, the research methodology (if applicable), the strength of evidence, and any limitations or biases. Is this a seminal work in the field or a more recent contribution?

3. Relevance (25-50 words): Explain specifically how this source relates to your research on [research topic]. How will you use it in your paper? Does it provide background, support a particular argument, offer a contrasting view, or fill a methodological need?

Organize the bibliography alphabetically by author’s last name. Use hanging indentation for citations. Maintain formal, objective tone in all annotations.

For sources you provide, analyze them according to these criteria. If you’re generating suggestions for sources I should find, identify the most important works in this area, including both foundational texts and recent contributions.

Avoid: – Simply copying abstracts without your own analysis – Being vague about how sources relate to your specific research – Including sources that aren’t genuinely relevant to [research topic] – Providing overly brief annotations that lack substance – Using first person pronouns in annotations – Forgetting to evaluate source quality and credibility

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[field]:

[number of sources]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are a research methodology expert. Write a comprehensive methodology section for my research on [research topic] using [research approach]. The section should be approximately [word count] words and suitable for [academic level] research in [discipline].

Structure the methodology section with these subsections:

Research Design: Open with 1-2 paragraphs explaining your overall research approach. Specify whether you’re using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain why this approach is appropriate for addressing your research question about [research topic]. Identify whether your research is exploratory, descriptive, correlational, experimental, etc.

Participants/Sample (if applicable): Describe your target population and sampling method. Specify sample size, selection criteria, and recruitment procedures. Explain how you’ll ensure your sample is appropriate for answering your research questions. Address any sampling limitations.

Data Collection: Detail exactly how you’ll gather data. For quantitative research, describe your instruments (surveys, tests, measurements), their validity and reliability, and administration procedures. For qualitative research, explain your methods (interviews, observations, document analysis), including question guides or observation protocols. Specify when, where, and how data collection will occur.

Data Analysis: Explain your analytical approach. For quantitative studies, specify statistical tests and software you’ll use. For qualitative studies, describe your coding process, thematic analysis approach, or other interpretive methods. Explain how you’ll ensure rigor and validity.

Ethical Considerations: Address how you’ll obtain informed consent, protect participant confidentiality, store data securely, and handle any ethical issues specific to [research topic].

Limitations: Acknowledge methodological limitations and explain how you’ll mitigate their impact.

Use past tense for completed research or present tense for proposed research, depending on your situation. Write precisely and clearly—another researcher should be able to replicate your study based on this section.

Avoid: – Being vague about specific procedures and protocols – Failing to justify why you chose particular methods – Neglecting to address reliability, validity, or ethical issues – Using overly technical jargon without explanation – Omitting important details about sampling or data collection – Ignoring potential limitations of your methods

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[research approach]:

[word count]:

[academic level]:

[discipline]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic argumentation specialist. For my argumentative paper on [topic], help me identify strong counterarguments to my position: [your position]. Then craft effective rebuttals for each counterargument.

Generate 3-4 substantial counterarguments that:

– Represent genuine opposing viewpoints that reasonable scholars might hold – Are as strong as possible—don’t create strawman arguments – Draw from common concerns in [field/discipline] – Challenge different aspects of my position

For each counterargument:

1. State the counterargument (3-4 sentences): Present the opposing view fairly and thoroughly. Include the reasoning and evidence that supporters of this view might cite. Make it compelling.

2. Provide a rebuttal (4-5 sentences): Respond to the counterargument without dismissing it. You might:

– Acknowledge partial validity but show why your position still holds – Point out faulty reasoning or flawed assumptions – Provide evidence that undermines the counterargument – Explain why your argument accounts for these concerns – Demonstrate that your position better addresses the complexity of the issue

3. Suggest integration (2-3 sentences): Explain how to incorporate this counterargument-rebuttal exchange into my paper for maximum rhetorical effect. Where should it appear? How does addressing it strengthen my overall argument?

Use formal academic language appropriate for [field/discipline]. Where relevant, mention types of evidence or sources that could support each rebuttal.

Avoid: – Creating weak, easily dismissible counterarguments – Responding to counterarguments with personal attacks or emotional appeals – Dismissing opposing views without genuinely engaging with them – Ignoring the strongest challenges to your position – Using informal or confrontational language – Failing to provide substantive reasoning in rebuttals

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[your position]:

[field/discipline]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an experienced academic researcher. Write a discussion section for my research paper on [research topic] in [discipline]. The discussion should be approximately [word count] words and interpret the findings from my study: [brief description of key findings].

Structure the discussion section with these components:

Opening summary (1 paragraph): Begin by restating your research question and briefly summarizing your main findings. Don’t just repeat results—interpret what they mean.

Interpretation of findings (2-3 paragraphs): Analyze your results in depth:

– Explain what your findings reveal about [research topic] – Discuss whether results supported or contradicted your hypotheses – Explore possible explanations for unexpected findings – Identify patterns or relationships in your data – Consider alternative interpretations

Comparison with existing literature (2-3 paragraphs): Connect your findings to previous research:

– Show how your results align with or diverge from existing studies – Explain what your research adds to current knowledge – Address any contradictions with previous findings and why they might exist – Discuss how your work extends, confirms, or challenges established theories in [discipline]

Implications (1-2 paragraphs): Explain the significance of your findings:

– What are the theoretical implications for [discipline]? – What practical applications might your findings have? – How might your results influence future practice or policy?

Limitations (1 paragraph): Acknowledge your study’s limitations honestly but without undermining your work. Explain how these limitations might affect interpretation of results.

Future research directions (1 paragraph): Suggest specific avenues for future investigation that build on your findings or address your study’s limitations.

Maintain an objective, analytical tone. Use past tense for describing your results and present tense for established facts and ongoing implications. Cite relevant sources using [citation style].

Avoid: – Simply restating results without interpretation – Introducing new findings not mentioned in the results section – Overstating the significance of your findings – Ignoring limitations or contradictory evidence – Making claims beyond what your data can support – Failing to connect your findings to broader scholarly conversations

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[discipline]:

[word count]:

[brief description of key findings]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic writing consultant. Create a detailed outline for my [type of paper] on [topic] in [discipline]. The paper should be approximately [paper length] and follow [citation style] format.

Develop a complete outline with these specifications:

*I. Introduction – Hook and context – Background information – Problem statement – Thesis statement – Roadmap (for longer papers)

*II. Body Sections (create 3-5 main sections with logical subsections):

For each main section:

– Provide a clear heading that indicates what that section covers – Include 2-4 subsections with specific content points – Note what types of evidence or sources should be incorporated – Indicate how each section connects to the thesis – Suggest approximate word count or page allocation

For an argumentative paper, organize body sections by main supporting arguments.

For a research paper, organize by themes or chronology as appropriate.

For a comparative analysis, structure by criteria being compared or by subjects being analyzed.

Choose the organizational pattern most appropriate for [type of paper] on [topic].

*III. Counterarguments (if applicable): – Main opposing viewpoints – Rebuttals

*IV. Conclusion – Synthesis of main points – Restatement of thesis – Broader implications – Closing thoughts

*V. References/Works Cited

After the outline, provide:

– A brief explanation (3-4 sentences) of why you chose this organizational structure – 2-3 tips for developing each major section effectively – Suggestions for 5-7 types of sources to consult

Use proper outline formatting with Roman numerals, capital letters, Arabic numerals, and lowercase letters for hierarchical organization.

Avoid: – Creating imbalanced sections (one section with 10 subsections, another with only 1) – Being too vague in subsection descriptions – Including sections that don’t clearly support the thesis – Neglecting smooth transitions between major sections – Failing to consider logical flow and progression of ideas

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[type of paper]:

[paper length]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are a critical thinking expert in [discipline]. Write a critical analysis of [text/theory/argument] by [author/source]. The analysis should be [word count] words and demonstrate deep analytical engagement with the material.

Structure your critical analysis as follows:

Introduction (150-200 words): Provide context for [text/theory/argument], including when it was developed and its significance in [discipline]. Briefly summarize the main claims or arguments. End with your thesis statement that presents your overall evaluation.

Summary of key points (200-250 words): Present the main arguments or components of [text/theory/argument] objectively. What is the author trying to accomplish? What evidence or reasoning does the author use? Focus on the most important elements relevant to your analysis.

Critical evaluation (400-500 words): This is the heart of your analysis. Evaluate [text/theory/argument] using these approaches:

*Strengths: – What does the author/theory do well? – What arguments or evidence are particularly compelling? – What contributions does it make to [discipline]?

*Weaknesses: – What are the logical flaws or unsupported claims? – What evidence is missing or unconvincing? – What assumptions does the author make that could be questioned? – Are there internal contradictions?

*Context and implications: – How does this fit within broader debates in [discipline]? – What are the practical or theoretical implications of accepting or rejecting these ideas? – How does this compare to alternative approaches?

Conclusion (150-200 words): Synthesize your evaluation. What is your overall assessment? Under what circumstances might [text/theory/argument] be useful or valid? What questions remain unanswered?

Throughout, support your analysis with specific examples and evidence from the text. Use [citation style] for all references. Maintain an objective, scholarly tone—criticize ideas, not the author personally.

Avoid: – Simply summarizing without analyzing – Focusing only on weaknesses without acknowledging strengths – Making sweeping judgments without supporting evidence – Allowing personal bias to replace scholarly evaluation – Ignoring the historical or theoretical context – Using emotional or inflammatory language

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[discipline]:

[text/theory/argument]:

[author/source]:

[word count]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are a citation expert specializing in academic formatting. Help me properly cite sources in my paper about [topic] using [citation style] format.

I need you to:

1. Generate proper in-text citations for the following scenarios:

– Direct quotation from a source – Paraphrased idea from a source – Source with two authors – Source with three or more authors – Source with no author listed – Multiple sources supporting one point – Source cited in another source (secondary citation) – Electronic source with no page numbers

For each scenario, provide:

– The correct citation format with a concrete example – A brief explanation (1-2 sentences) of the formatting rules – Common mistakes to avoid

2. Create full reference list entries for these common source types in [discipline]:

– Journal article (print) – Journal article (online with DOI) – Book with single author – Book with multiple authors – Edited book chapter – Website/online source – Conference paper – Dissertation or thesis

For each source type:

– Show the complete reference format – Indicate which elements are required vs. optional – Explain formatting details like punctuation, italics, and capitalization

3. Provide a properly formatted sample reference list containing 5-6 entries of different types, demonstrating:

– Correct alphabetical ordering – Proper hanging indentation – Consistent formatting

4. List 5 common citation errors in [citation style] format and how to correct them.

Present all information clearly with distinct headings and examples. Make this a practical reference I can consult while writing.

Avoid: – Mixing citation styles or including inconsistent formatting – Providing outdated citation rules – Being vague about specific formatting details – Failing to distinguish between similar source types – Forgetting to explain punctuation and capitalization rules

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[citation style]:

[discipline]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an expert in academic argumentation. Write a complete argumentative essay of [word count] words on this position: [your position] regarding [topic]. The essay should be appropriate for [academic level] in [discipline].

Introduction (200-250 words): Open with a compelling hook that draws readers into the debate about [topic]. Provide necessary background and context. Clearly state the controversy or question at stake. End with a strong, specific thesis statement that presents [your position] and hints at your main supporting arguments.

Body paragraphs (organize into 3-5 main arguments): Each major argument should form its own section with multiple paragraphs as needed.

For each argument:

– Topic sentence: State the main point clearly – Explanation: Develop the reasoning behind this point – Evidence: Provide specific examples, statistics, expert testimony, or research findings that support your claim. Use credible sources from [discipline] – Analysis: Explain how this evidence supports [your position]. Don’t assume connections are obvious – Transition: Connect to the next argument smoothly

Ensure arguments progress logically, with each building on the previous one.

Counterargument and rebuttal (200-250 words): Present the strongest argument against [your position] fairly and thoroughly. Then provide a compelling rebuttal that either shows why the counterargument is flawed or explains why [your position] still holds despite valid concerns.

Conclusion (150-200 words): Synthesize your main arguments without simply repeating them. Reinforce why [your position] is the most reasonable stance on [topic]. Discuss broader implications. End with a memorable final thought that leaves readers convinced or motivated.

Throughout:

– Use formal academic language – Employ logical reasoning, not emotional appeals – Support every claim with evidence – Use [citation style] for all sources – Maintain an objective, confident tone – Use transitional phrases to improve flow

Avoid: – Personal anecdotes or “I” statements – Logical fallacies (strawman, ad hominem, false dichotomy, etc.) – Unsupported generalizations – Weak or irrelevant evidence – Ignoring legitimate counterarguments – Overly emotional or biased language

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[your position]:

[word count]:

[academic level]:

[discipline]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are a case study analysis expert in [discipline]. Write a comprehensive case study analysis of [case/scenario] that demonstrates critical thinking and application of relevant theories from [discipline]. The analysis should be approximately [word count] words.

Introduction (150-200 words): Provide a brief overview of [case/scenario], including key background information and context. Identify the main problem or issue that needs to be addressed. State your thesis or main argument about how the case should be understood or what actions should be taken.

Case description (200-300 words): Present the relevant facts and details of [case/scenario]. Focus on information pertinent to your analysis. Organize this section logically—chronologically, thematically, or by stakeholder. Remain objective in your description.

Theoretical framework (150-200 words): Identify and briefly explain 2-3 key theories, models, or concepts from [discipline] that are relevant to analyzing [case/scenario]. Explain why these particular frameworks are appropriate for understanding this case.

Analysis (500-700 words): This is the core of your case study. Apply the theoretical frameworks to analyze the case in depth:

– Identify the root causes of the problem or issue – Examine multiple perspectives (different stakeholders, competing interpretations) – Analyze what went right and what went wrong – Explore causal relationships and contributing factors – Consider contextual factors that influenced outcomes – Evaluate decisions that were made

Integrate theoretical concepts throughout your analysis, showing how they illuminate aspects of the case. Support your interpretations with specific evidence from the case and, where relevant, from scholarly sources.

Recommendations or conclusions (200-300 words): Based on your analysis:

For prescriptive case studies: Provide specific, actionable recommendations. Explain why these solutions would be effective, addressing potential challenges or limitations.

For descriptive case studies: Synthesize your analysis into key insights or lessons learned. Discuss broader implications for [discipline] or similar situations.

References: Include a properly formatted reference list in [citation style] for any sources cited.

Write objectively, using evidence to support your interpretations. Structure your analysis logically with clear transitions between sections.

Avoid: – Simply summarizing the case without analysis – Imposing theoretical frameworks that don’t fit the case – Ignoring contradictory evidence or alternative explanations – Providing vague or unrealistic recommendations – Failing to connect analysis back to [discipline]’s concepts – Including irrelevant case details

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[discipline]:

[case/scenario]:

[word count]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an expert in comparative academic analysis. Write a comprehensive comparative analysis examining [subject A] and [subject B] within the context of [discipline/field]. The analysis should be [word count] words and follow [structure type] organizational pattern.

Introduction (200-250 words): Establish why comparing [subject A] and [subject B] is meaningful and significant in [discipline/field]. Provide brief background on both subjects. Clearly state your thesis—what your comparison will reveal or argue. Indicate the specific criteria or dimensions you’ll use for comparison.

Body of comparison:

If using point-by-point structure:

Organize by criteria being compared. For each criterion:

– Discuss how [subject A] relates to this criterion (with examples and evidence) – Discuss how [subject B] relates to this criterion (with examples and evidence) – Analyze the similarities and differences – Explain the significance of these similarities/differences

Typical criteria might include: historical context, methodology, theoretical foundations, effectiveness, limitations, applications, etc. Choose 4-6 criteria most relevant to [discipline/field].

If using block structure:

– First major section: Comprehensively discuss [subject A] across all relevant dimensions – Second major section: Comprehensively discuss [subject B] across the same dimensions – Third major section: Direct comparison highlighting key similarities and differences

Analysis and synthesis (250-300 words): Go beyond surface-level observations:

– What patterns emerge from your comparison? – Which similarities or differences are most significant and why? – What does this comparison reveal about broader issues in [discipline/field]? – Are there unexpected connections or contrasts? – What are the implications of these findings?

Conclusion (150-200 words): Synthesize your analysis without simply repeating it. Reinforce your thesis. Discuss what your comparison contributes to understanding [subject A], [subject B], or [discipline/field] more generally. Consider limitations of your comparison and potential areas for further research.

Throughout, maintain balance—give equal attention to both subjects. Use transitional phrases to highlight comparisons and contrasts (similarly, in contrast, whereas, both, neither, etc.). Support all claims with specific evidence. Use [citation style] for references.

Avoid: – Describing subjects separately without actually comparing them – Forcing comparisons between inherently incomparable subjects – Showing bias toward one subject over the other – Making claims without supporting evidence – Choosing insignificant or superficial comparison criteria – Listing similarities and differences without analyzing their meaning

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[subject A]:

[subject B]:

[discipline/field]:

[word count]:

[structure type]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic research specialist. Create a comprehensive yet concise summary of research findings for my study on [research topic] in [discipline]. The summary should be [word count] words and communicate results clearly to an academic audience.

Opening context (50-75 words): Begin with 2-3 sentences reminding readers of your research question and methodology. This provides essential context for interpreting the findings that follow.

Main findings (organize by theme or research question): Present your key results in a logical sequence. For each major finding:

State the finding clearly (1-2 sentences): What did you discover? Be specific and precise.

Provide supporting data (2-3 sentences): Include relevant statistics, measurements, or observations that substantiate this finding. Use actual numbers, percentages, or descriptive data as appropriate for [discipline]. Present both positive and negative results.

Explain significance (1-2 sentences): Why does this finding matter? How does it address your research question?

Structure findings from most to least important, or organize by research sub-questions. Use subheadings if you have multiple categories of findings.

Relationships and patterns (100-150 words): Identify any connections between different findings. Were there unexpected correlations? Do certain findings explain others? Describe patterns that emerged across your data.

Notable unexpected results (50-100 words): Highlight any findings that surprised you or contradicted your hypotheses. Explain what you observed without yet interpreting why it might have occurred (save interpretation for the discussion section).

Summary statement (50 words): Conclude with 2-3 sentences that synthesize your overall findings. What story do these results tell collectively?

Present findings objectively, using past tense. Include specific data points rather than vague descriptions. Use tables, figures, or bullet points where appropriate to present complex data clearly. Cite any statistical tests or analytical methods used.

Avoid: – Interpreting or analyzing results (that belongs in the discussion section) – Including raw data without summarization – Cherry-picking only favorable results – Being vague about what you actually found – Using overly technical language that obscures meaning – Introducing information beyond what your research measured

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[discipline]:

[word count]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an expert in research methodology and theory. Develop a comprehensive theoretical framework for my research on [research topic] within [discipline]. The framework should be approximately [word count] words and establish the theoretical foundation for my study.

Introduction to theoretical framework (150-200 words): Explain what a theoretical framework is and why it’s essential for understanding your research on [research topic]. Identify the main theoretical lens or lenses you’ll use. Explain why you selected these particular theories over alternatives.

Main theories and concepts (300-400 words): Present 2-4 key theories, models, or concepts that form your framework:

For each theory:

– Name and origin: Identify the theory and its original developer(s) – Core principles: Explain the theory’s main tenets and assumptions. What does this theory claim about how the world works? – Key concepts: Define important terms and variables central to the theory – Previous applications: Briefly mention how other scholars have used this theory in [discipline], particularly in contexts similar to [research topic]

Use appropriate citations in [citation style] format for all theoretical sources.

Integration and relationships (200-250 words): Show how your selected theories connect to each other and to your research:

– How do these theories complement each other? – Are there any tensions or contradictions between them, and if so, how do you address these? – How do they collectively provide a comprehensive lens for examining [research topic]?

If using a single overarching theory, explain its various dimensions and how they apply to different aspects of your research.

Application to your research (250-300 words): Connect the theoretical framework specifically to your study:

– Explain how these theories inform your research questions – Describe how theoretical concepts relate to your variables or areas of investigation – Show how the framework guides your methodology and data analysis – Identify which theoretical concepts you’ll use to interpret your findings

Create a simple conceptual model or diagram if it helps illustrate relationships between theoretical concepts and your research variables.

Conclusion (100 words): Summarize how your theoretical framework provides a foundation for understanding [research topic]. Explain what this theoretical lens will allow you to see or understand that other approaches might miss.

Write clearly and accessibly—theoretical content should be understandable, not deliberately obscure. Define all specialized terms.

Avoid: – Choosing theories that don’t genuinely fit your research topic – Simply summarizing theories without connecting them to your specific research – Using overly complex language that obscures meaning – Including theories you don’t actually use in your analysis – Failing to explain how different theories relate to each other – Ignoring limitations or criticisms of your chosen theories

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[research topic]:

[discipline]:

[word count]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic writing coach specializing in paragraph construction. Help me write well-structured academic paragraphs for my paper on [topic] in [discipline]. I need [number of paragraphs] paragraphs that collectively support this argument: [main argument].

For each paragraph, follow the TEEL or PEEL structure:

T/P (Topic Sentence): Begin with a clear topic sentence that: – States the main point of the paragraph – Connects to your thesis/main argument – Indicates what the paragraph will demonstrate – Transitions smoothly from the previous paragraph

E (Explanation/Elaboration): Include 2-3 sentences that: – Develop and explain your topic sentence – Break down complex ideas into understandable components – Provide necessary context or background – Clarify the reasoning behind your point

E (Evidence): Provide 2-3 sentences that: – Present specific evidence supporting your claim – Include data, examples, quotes from scholars, research findings, or case examples – Use appropriate in-text citations in [citation style] format – Integrate evidence smoothly into your own prose

L (Link/Analysis): Conclude with 2-3 sentences that: – Analyze what the evidence proves or demonstrates – Explain how this paragraph’s argument supports your main argument – Connect to the next paragraph’s topic (in all but the final paragraph)

Each paragraph should be 150-250 words, forming a complete unit of thought. Paragraphs should flow logically from one to the next, building a cohesive argument.

Ensure paragraphs:

– Focus on ONE main idea each – Use formal academic language appropriate for [discipline] – Employ sophisticated transitions within and between paragraphs – Maintain third-person perspective – Balance explanation with evidence—avoid being too theoretical without examples or too descriptive without analysis

After generating the paragraphs, provide brief notes explaining:

– The logical progression you created – Key transition strategies you used – How each paragraph supports [main argument]

Avoid: – Beginning paragraphs without clear topic sentences – Including multiple disconnected ideas in one paragraph – Dropping in quotes without introducing or analyzing them – Writing paragraphs that are too short (under 100 words) or too long (over 300 words) – Failing to connect evidence back to the main argument – Using first person or informal language

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[main argument]:

[number of paragraphs]:

[citation style]:

Additional Instructions (optional):

You are an academic writing specialist. Write a compelling conclusion for my [type of paper] on [topic] in [discipline]. The conclusion should be approximately [word count] words and provide effective closure while reinforcing the significance of my work.

Structure the conclusion using this framework:

Transition and restatement (2-3 sentences): Open with a transitional phrase that signals the conclusion. Restate your thesis or main argument, but use fresh language—don’t simply copy your introduction. Make it clear what you’ve argued throughout the paper.

Synthesis of main points (3-4 sentences): Summarize your key arguments or findings, showing how they work together to support your thesis. Don’t just list points—synthesize them. Demonstrate how the pieces fit together to form a coherent whole. What emerged from your analysis or research on [topic]?

Broader implications (3-4 sentences): Explain the significance of your work:

– For academic papers: What does your argument contribute to ongoing scholarly conversations in [discipline]? How does it advance understanding of [topic]? – For research papers: What are the theoretical or practical implications of your findings? How might they influence future research, policy, or practice?

Zoom out to consider why your work matters beyond the immediate scope of your paper.

Limitations and future directions (2-3 sentences, optional but recommended): Briefly acknowledge limitations of your argument or research. Suggest specific directions for future research or analysis. What questions remain unanswered? What would you investigate next?

Memorable closing (1-2 sentences): End with a powerful final thought that leaves readers with something to consider. This might be:

– A thought-provoking question related to [topic] – A call to action (if appropriate for your paper type) – A compelling statement about future implications – A reflection on broader significance

Make it memorable without being melodramatic.

Throughout the conclusion:

– Use confident, decisive language that reinforces your authority – Maintain formal academic tone – Avoid introducing new arguments or evidence – Write in present tense when discussing your paper’s contributions

Avoid: – Beginning with “In conclusion” or other obvious phrases – Simply restating the introduction in different words – Introducing new information, arguments, or evidence – Apologizing for limitations or weaknesses – Using overly grandiose claims about your work’s importance – Ending abruptly without proper closure – Bringing up tangential issues not discussed in the paper

=== PLEASE ENTER THE DETAILS REQUIRED BELOW (Enter “attached” for attached details) ===

[topic]:

[discipline]:

[type of paper]:

[word count]:

Additional Instructions (optional):