The thematic fit estimation task measures the compatibility between a predicate (typically a verb), an argument (typically a noun phrase), and a specific semantic role assigned to the argument. Previous state-of-the-art work has focused on modeling thematic fit through distributional or neural models of event representation, trained in a supervised fashion with indirect labels. In this work, we assess whether pre-trained autoregressive LLMs possess consistent, expressible knowledge about thematic fit. We evaluate both closed and open state-of-the-art LLMs on several psycholinguistic datasets, along three axes: (1) Reasoning Form: multi-step logical reasoning (chain-of-thought prompting) vs. simple prompting. (2) Input Form: providing context (generated sentences) vs. raw tuples . (3) Output Form: categorical vs. numeric. Our results show that chain-of-thought reasoning is more effective on datasets with self-explanatory semantic role labels, especially Location. Generated sentences helped only in few settings, and lowered results in many others. Predefined categorical (compared to numeric) output raised GPT's results across the board with few exceptions, but lowered Llama's. We saw that semantically incoherent generated sentences, which the models lack the ability to consistently filter out, hurt reasoning and overall performance too. Our GPT-powered methods set new state-of-the-art on all tested datasets.