Worked Example

Part 1: JSTOR Daily Summary:

This JSTOR Daily article (https://daily.jstor.org/the-hellfire-preacher-who-promoted-inoculation/) explains that the concept of inoculating against diseases is nothing new today, but it was new to the people in Boston in 1721. With smallpox spreading through their communities, Reverend Cotton Mather shared information (that he originally learned from an African man he enslaved, Onesimus) about how the disease could be prevented by intentionally giving it to some healthy individuals. This idea was so radical, however, that when Reverend Mather convinced local doctor Zabdiel Boylston to start inoculating people, others became enraged, including Benjamin Franklin’s older brother James. James Franklin wrote about his opposition to inoculation, Mather publically disagreed, community leaders forced Boylston to stop, but he continued, and eventually, the arguing became so intense that someone threw a bomb into Mather’s house.

Part 2: Research article:

The research article is found here (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5224/masshistrevi.14.1.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents). The second and third paragraphs of the article best encapsulate the main idea of the paper:

“The introduction of inoculation was an event that rocked Boston and nearby towns to their core. Clergymen and physicians argued for and against the procedure, government officials were beset by citizens demanding it cease, newspapers took sides, and pamphlets appeared one after another condemning those who favored it or those who opposed it. Violence was threatened and tempers ran short. Unfounded rumors, ad hominem attacks, and public disrespect for traditional leaders of the community made the controversy exceedingly distasteful.

Any smallpox epidemic can be dramatic, but the events of 1721 were particularly tumultuous because of four men at the center of the drama—four men whose words and deeds were known throughout the town and who epitomized the dilemma facing its inhabitants. Cotton Mather, the most prominent puritan minister in late-seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century Boston, was the first and most vociferous advocate of inoculation. Dr. William Douglass, a Scot recently arrived in town, became the leader of the opposition. Zabdiel Boylston, hitherto a surgeon and apothecary of no particular importance, dared to administer inoculations and emerged as the real hero of the story. James Franklin, radical editor of the New England Courant, used his newspaper—and his vituperative prose—to support the anti-inoculators and to criticize those who favored it. None of these men could have foreseen that the success of inoculation in Boston signified the beginnings of modern preventive medicine.”

I think the statement bolded above is the thesis statement of the research because the rest of the paper is organized around the idea that these four men played a large role in the drama surrounding the Boston smallpox epidemic. The author takes a stance in this sentence by saying that the epidemic was “particularly tumultuous” because of the four men, and she uses the body paragraphs to support her stance. There are headings within the article for each of the four men, and the content explains their unique roles and contributions to the drama.