english

synthesis_describing_relationships.pdf

Questions to Consider for Synthesis Here are some questions to help you synthesize information as you work with your sources:

1. What central issues, problems, or controversies do your sources address? 2. What else do your sources have in common? Are there any ideas found in more than

one source, including facts, examples, or statistics? Do two or more authors rely on similar sub claims to support their main claim, and if so, what is the similarity in the detail behind their claim?

3. What significant differences, stances, positions, evidence, or purposes do you find among sources?

4. How can you use some of the information from outside sources to support an argument of your own?

5. How can you add to, limit, complicate, or modify what others have said? 6. How do nuances and details within others’ arguments support, illustrate, or complicate

your own sub claims or main claim, and how can you use that information to develop your own argument, an argument that differs from what others have said?

The goal is to make sense of this information and connect the data that you acquire from these articles to an argument of your own. Here are some questions that can help you move from the ideas contained in the sources to ideas that you will write about:

1. What information do you find most relevant, useful, and persuasive? 2. How can you expand (add to), qualify (limit), or otherwise revise what others say? 3. What viewpoints do you most agree with? Disagree with? Why? 4. What conclusions can you draw from the ideas and information you’ve learned from

your sources? What discoveries have you made in studying these sources, and what new ideas have they led you to?

5. Do any of your sources raise questions that you can pursue further? 6. Have you encountered any ideas that you would like to build upon or challenge? 7. From everything you have read, what is the significance of the topic you are

researching? Who cares, and why does it matter? The following definitions are a series of verbs that can be used to describe the relationship between texts. Use these verbs to articulate and locate exactly how two or more texts share similarities or differences, and use these verbs to conceptualize how you can clarify, illustrate, complicate, qualify, or extend what other people have argued. In writing an argument in this way, you contribute to the ongoing conversation, put in your oar, establish your niche, and create an argument of your own.

Describing relationships between texts

How texts “illustrate,” “clarify,” “complicate,” “extend,” or “qualify” other texts

Academic writing requires that you build arguments by synthesizing information from multiple texts. To do this effectively, you have to compare/contrast the information that you have gathered, recognize the differences and similarities so that you can use them for your own argument, and describe the relationships between these different texts/claims/evidence/facts or describe how your ideas relate for your overall argument. What follows is a list of terms (verbs) that will help you to think about and understand how one text relates to another text:

Clarify: When a source helps explain, simplify, illuminate, or elucidate a text, we say that it clarifies the text.

 Frequently authors will state the claim differently. If the second source makes the original claim or argument easier to understand, this is an example of clarification.

 Other examples of clarification include providing evidence, examples, stories, cases or support that make something easier to understand.

Illustrate: When a source provides examples, additional evidence, cases or arguments that help explain a position we say that the source illustrates an argument.

 Illustrating an argument means to present additional examples that illustrate or support a claim or argument. The illustration may not be explicitly mentioned by the original author.

Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source clarifies or illustrates a text include: illuminates, exemplifies, explicates, confirms, supports, etc.

Complicate: When a source presents evidence, arguments or claims that are at odds with full extent of an author’s position, we say that one text complicates another.

 Complicating an author’s argument is not quite the same as disagreeing with it, although disagreement may be involved.

 It usually involves suggesting that an author has not dealt with the full complexity of an issue, has failed to consider relevant evidence, or that there is a gap, shortcoming or limitation in an author’s account.

 Complicating an argument may involve exposing problems, contradictions, or presenting counterexamples and counterarguments that challenge some part of the argument.

Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source complicates a text include:

challenges, contradicts, disagrees, locates problems with, identifies shortcomings, notes that X fails to account for, notes that X ignores A, suggests that X’s account is exaggerated, is vulnerable to counterarguments/counterexamples, rests on several highly questionable assumptions

Qualify: When a source presents evidence/claims that suggest an author’s argument goes too far, is too strong, or overgeneralizes, we say the source qualifies the author’s argument. When a source limits the scope or extent of claims in an argument, we say that the source qualifies the argument. Example of unqualified argument: All video games incite violence and should be banned.

Qualified argument: Miller asserts that certain extreme video games may desensitize impressionable young people to violence and advocates a ban on these types of games. However, Jenkins points to evidence from MIT demonstrating that most games are innocent fun and may even teach useful skills. Nevertheless, he acknowledges Miller’s concerns and suggests that only games that realistically simulate murder should be banned. In addition, he limits the ban to children under the age of 14. Thus, Jenkins qualifies Miller’s claims.

Extend: When a source advances, develops, expands, or take further some element of an existing argument, we say that the source extends an argument.

 Extending an argument involves presenting additional evidence or reasons that are in line with the original argument but go beyond it.

Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source extends a text include: Gives additional evidence, develops, elaborates, expands, extrapolates, teases out, advances, takes further, provides additional evidence/support, supplements, etc.

NOTE: As with most sets of terms, there is some overlap between them. For example, something that illustrates an argument may also clarify it. An element of an argument can thus do more than one thing. The important part of this analysis is to try to figure out the general relationship between texts/parts of texts/ideas.

EXAMPLE: While Chua sees conflict between ethnicities in developing countries as driven largely by globalization and democratization, others believe that poor government is the main culprit. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John Bowden argues that many countries composed of diverse ethnic groups have avoided conflict because their governments have created “multiethnic coalitions” which encourage different groups to “seek the large electoral middle ground.” The countries he uses as examples are all democracies. Bowden thus complicates Chua’s argument by suggesting that democracy, properly run, can prevent ethnic violence, and that the solution is thus renewed commitment to democracy rather than a retreat from it. This contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where there is a “market

dominant minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and some form of “backlash” is very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic conflict exists only when ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when destructive “political choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present challenges to peace, and that certain other factors can make conflict likely. …However, Bowden insists that democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the kind of problems Chua outlines, and that we must focus on the underlying factors that are the real drivers of violence. Bowden thus complicates Chua’ argument in several ways; firstly, he presents evidence that is at odds with Chua’s thesis, and which can be read as questioning the extent to which it is true. Secondly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua’s position is overstated and needs to be severely qualified. Lastly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua has failed to deal with the full complexity of what causes ethnic violence in developing countries.

DRAFTING BODY PARAGRAPHS

MAKING THE CONNECTION: BODY PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE FOR SYNTHESIS 1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to focus on in this

paragraph. Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can be added later.

2. State central claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid example/quote/phrase of this claim in the central text, and explain the quotation.

3. Transition into secondary source. Explain how the secondary text relates to the claim in the primary text.

4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and the project and argument.

5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis 6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of

your “quotation sandwich” 7. The HOW/WHY. Return to primary text. How does this information connect to the

primary text? [The outside source] challenges/illustrates/extends/qualifies/complicates the primary text’s claim OR argument because …

8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both primary and secondary sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer the questions: So what? Who cares?

Paragraph Template and Sample Body Paragraphs (Bolded words are templates taken from They Say/I Say)

1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to do in this paragraph. Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can come later. In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that Asians are good at math. 2. State primary text claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid example/quote/phrase of this claim in the primary text. Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between languages. This, Gladwell claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like addition easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture of many Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor intensive than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that the combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math. 3. Transition into secondary source. What is the common ground between the two texts? Or, put another way, how does the secondary text relate to the claim in the primary text? Gladwell is not the only one who’s examined the Asian proclivity towards math. 4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and the project and argument. New York Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For Immigrant Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown newspaper to find a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members were Asian. Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math club 94.4 percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians gravitate to math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip). 5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis Most interestingly, many of the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of the few subjects where their grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses and school club helped to build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants with whom they could connect (Winerip). 6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of your “quotation sandwich” In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted in the desire to adapt and succeed in America.

7. The HOW/WHY. Return to primary text (Gladwell). How does this information connect to the primary text? [The outside source] challenges/illustrates/extends/qualifies/complicates Gladwell’s claim OR argument because … Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim because he offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would point to their home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much more motivated by their immediate social surroundings. 8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both primary and secondary sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer the questions: So what? Who cares? Use templates from Chapter 7 of They Say/I Say (91-95). On one hand, readers might say that the students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another stereotype—that teenagers are more concerned with their social status and thus they could be overlooking their innate cultural legacy. But on the other hand, these students make readers question how much cultural legacy functions on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather than the desire to work hard, is primary. In fact, the article implied that the white students interested in the math club don’t stay long in the club because it has become the “de facto Asian social club” and feel as if they don’t belong (Winerip).

Sample in Paragraph Form In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that

Asians are good at math. Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between languages. This, he claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like addition easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture of many Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor intensive than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that the combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math.

Gladwell is not the only one who is examined the Asian proclivity towards math. New York Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For Immigrant Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown newspaper to find a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members were Asian. Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math club 94.4 percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians gravitate to math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip). Most interestingly, many of the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of the few subjects where their grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses and school club helped to build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants with whom they

could connect (Winerip). In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted in the desire to adapt and succeed in America.

Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim because he offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would point to their home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much more motivated by their immediate social surroundings. On one hand, readers might say that the students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another stereotype—that teenagers are more concerned with their social status and thus they could be overlooking their innate cultural legacy. But on the other hand, these students make readers question how much cultural legacy functions on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather than the desire to work hard, is primary. In fact, the article implied that the white students interested in the math club don’t stay long in the club because it has become the “de facto Asian social club” and feel as if they don’t belong (Winerip).

Critical Note About the above Paragraph Construction: Paragraph Focus and Length You may be confused by the fact that the paragraph, which appears to be one paragraph in template form, has been split into three body paragraphs. This seemingly simple comparison paragraph has been split into three paragraphs because a paragraph should be no longer than a full page when double spaced. This large comparison paragraph would have been longer than a full page double spaced, so the paragraph was split into three paragraphs, each with a different focus that is clearly stated by the topic sentence. The first paragraph is an account/explanation of Gladwell’s claim, the second paragraph is an account explanation of Winerip’s claim, and the third paragraph is a full discussion about the relationship between the two and why it matters for this argument. Each paragraph has a focus with a clearly defined topic sentence and conclusion. Remember, your topic sentences should always state the focus of the paragraph, and the concluding sentence should look up to what the paragraph has said.

Words for Signaling Connections

Some connective words for expressing relationships between your ideas/the views of authors you are discussing Connecting words are signposts that signal to the reader where your ideas are going or what you want the reader to focus on. Connecting words are used to organize the transitions in your writing. They can be compared to signs on the road – when you see a road sign showing men at work, telling you to stop, telling you that an exit is coming up, or that there is a HOV lane ahead, this helps you know what to expect and get to your destination. Connecting words are important not only as a way of indicating where your ideas are going, but

also as a way of adding variety to your style. Here are some common words and phrases used to orient readers.

1. DEVELOP (To Add/Explain how an author’s point develops) a) Furthermore, b) Moreover, c) In addition, d) Additionally, e) What’s more, f) Equally important

2. CONNECT (To show how your point connects with a preceding point/an author’s point OR to show how one author’s point is similar to another author’s point.)

a) Correspondingly, b) Similarly, c) Equally, d) Likewise, e) In the same way, f) Author A’s argument is homologous with that of author B, who states… g) Smith’s argument parallels that of Jones who claims that… h) Jones’ argument is congruent with/echoes/is aligned with that of Smith…

3. CHANGE DIRECTION (To show that one of your ideas contrasts with another author’s OR to explain how one author’s point contrasts with another author’s point.)

a) In contrast, Smith denies that Jones claims are accurate. b) While Jones argues that media violence seriously affects children, Smith suggests that

the risks of media violence have been vastly overstated. c) Whereas Jones states that media violence seriously affects children, Smith suggests… d) In opposition to Smith’s claims regarding media violence, Jones argues… e) Contrastingly, Jones argues…. f) Contrary to Jones’ argument concerning media violence, Smith states… g) On the other hand,… h) Although this may be true… i) By comparison j) Where author X says Y...

4. TO ILLUSTRATE (To Provide an example) For instance…Take the case of…To illustrate,…As an illustration of X…For example… To demonstrate…Consider the case of Y.

5. To Repeat or add Emphasis As I have said…As mentioned previously…As we have seen…As noted previously…In other words… Indeed… Surprisingly…Certainly…Undeniably…Always… Unquestionably…Without doubt…

6. TO CONCLUDE In conclusion…In sum…To conclude…Thus…Therefore…Hence…In brief…Summing up…Consequently...Finally.

7. TO CONCEDE/QUALIFY A POINT It must be acknowledged…It must be conceded that…It is of course true that…Granted…to be fair…there is some truth to…It’s hard to argue with X that…

8. TO REBUT A POINT Nonetheless…However…Nevertheless…In spite of X’s claim…Even though…Conversely…

Attributions/Talking about Authors In this section, I will talk about how the reporting verbs you use to describe an author’s claims indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with him/her and the degree of certainty you attribute to her/his claim. A) Reporting verbs that imply you agree with the author Smith reveals Smith shows Smith uncovers Smith proves Smith makes clear that Smith confirms Smith points out B) Reporting verbs that may indicate you disagree with the author Smith alleges Smith assumes Smith contends Smith implies Smith claims C) Frequently used reporting verbs that are neutral with respect to your agreement (i.e. you may or may not agree with the author) Smith states, Smith argues,

Smith asserts, Smith examines, Smith analyzes, Smith advances the claim that, Smith maintains, Smith suggests Smith maintains Smith avers Smith notes Smith remarks

D) Reporting verbs that may indicate you think the author is presenting a qualified claim (i.e. is not entirely sure about the claim) Smith proposes Smith suggests Smith raises the possibility Smith estimates Expressions Often Used When Analyzing Authors/Engaging in Critique Discussing Weaknesses Smith’s argument is vulnerable to several potential counterarguments… Smith’s argument rests on several highly questionable assumptions… Jones’ argument suffers from a number of limitations… The evidence presented by Gaines is too anecdotal, too dependent on the idiosyncratic experiences she had while watching daytime talk shows… Jones fails to account for/ignores/does not account for… Smith presents insufficient evidence The examples presented are neither typical nor accurate… The authorities drawn on lack credibility/are not relevant in this context… The analogies Smith uses are deeply problematic The basic categories proposed by Smith fail to get to grips with…. Jones claims that X is the case. But it does not follow, as he suggests, that Y is also the case… Discussing Strengths Rigorous, carefully qualified, scholarly, sound, significant, well supported, nuanced, responds well to counterarguments, reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched, etc.

Additional Samples of Body Paragraphs that Analyze Relations between Texts SAMPLE 1: Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Libertarian Cato Institute, complicates Moore’s argument for the ‘right’ to universal health care, by posing logistical questions that he claims Moore has failed to consider. In a short section entitled, “A Right to Health Care? Moore assumptions,” adapted from a book that he co-authored, Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It, Cannon queries, “Medical care can be as essential to survival as food. But does it follow that people have a right to medical care? Would creating a legally enforceable ‘right’ to health care solve America’s health-care difficulties, as Moore supposes? Or would it add to them?” Cannon acknowledges that medical care is essential to human life, as does Moore, but suggests that providing this care is not as simple as merely declaring it to be a human right. There are many important, logistical elements that are missing from Moore’s supposed solution, including where the money to subsidize health care will come from, who will be given the ‘power’ to conceptualize this program, and how one might define the scope of a ‘right’ to unlimited, free medical care. Cannon asserts, “with the wide variety of tests and treatments, someone must decide where the right to health care ends, less the nation be bankrupt…most nations hand that power to unelected bureaucrats, who ration medical care- often by making even seriously ill patients wait for care.” In Cannon’s view, the conception of universal health care is perhaps not quite as flawless as Moore portrays in the ‘traveling’ vignettes in Sicko. He exposes the problems of cost efficiency and care rationing, stating that while policy makers are deciding how to provide equal care for every citizen, those who are in dire need of receiving it, might die waiting for an answer. Essentially, Cannon complicates Moore’s ‘assumption’ of a right to health care, by considering the difficulties associated with assigning this privilege, and demonstrating how Moore has failed to acknowledge the complexity of implementing universal medical care. SAMPLE 2 Michael Moore vehemently claims that America should adopt a universal health care system with free medical insurance for all. Jacob S. Hacker, author of "Healing Our Sicko Health Care System," complicates Moore's claim by suggesting that his argument's limitation lies in the fact that Moore fails to provide a realistic solution. Hacker argues that Moore's position should be revised to include a more realistic plan for free health care and faults Moore's choice to ignore the Medicare system. Hacker then extends Moore's argument by providing his own solution to the problems Moore discusses in his film . Hacker believes Medicare has "controlled expenses better than the private sector, spends little n administration, and allows patients to seek care from nearly every doctor and hospital" (735). Hacker agrees that change is necessary, but furthers Moore's original argument by providing what he believes to be a suitable and real solution to the health care crisis. SAMPLE 3: Liz Mair complicates Michael Moore’s claim that adoption of a universal health care system is an almost flawless solution to the crisis by challenging that “its depiction of systems of socialized medicine is far off base.” Mair, a former member of the NHS (British National Health Service) believes that Moore fails to address all of the facts regarding socialized health care capturing on ly the good, while editing out the bad. One particular area of neglect is the incredible amount of wait time often required for NHS patients to see a doctor. Mair illustrates, “in September 2006, more than 6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed by their doctors”. Moore’s camera only focuses on the patients’ laughter and confusion whenever he asks

how much they had to pay for their hospital visit but fails to consider that it takes much longe r to receive treatment under this socialized system. Another problem with NHS that Sicko neglects to mention are the cases where people have been denied life-saving medical treatment because the government controls and limits access to it. Mair points out that Moore fails to mention “stories such as those widely publicized in 2006 and 2007 about cancer patients who were denied access to life - saving cancer drugs by the NHS, which had refused to make them available because they were not “cost-effective” (i.e., cheap).” Mair uses these factual examples and more to show the inefficiencies of NHS that Moore purposefully leaves out of his film. While Moore depicts American insurance companies as the money hungry monster whose goal is financial gain more than quality of care, Mair’s examples seem to suggest that he has not dealt with the full complexity of the issue as it is obvious that NHS is capable of the same. Although Moore’s interviews may be accurate they fail to look at some of NHS’ inefficiencies and only highlight its strengths.