Short on time? This page is the recap. For explanations and worked examples, use the full study guide.
Recap
- Effectively entering into an ongoing conversation about a subject means engaging the positions that have already been considered and argued about.
- Two jobs: know the positions (listen) and engage them (respond).
- On the synthesis question, the sources are the conversation; in your own essays, the debate around the prompt is.
- A claim that ignores the conversation tends to repeat points already answered.
Key relationships
| Step | What to do |
|---|---|
| 1. Map | For each position: claim, reasoning and evidence, what it disagrees with, what it assumes |
| 2. Represent fairly | State it so its holder would recognise it; attribute it; use a fitting signal verb |
| 3. Place your claim | Agree and extend, disagree, qualify, or add something new |
| 4. Say so | Make the relationship clear in the thesis |
| Signal verb | Suggests |
|---|---|
| argues, claims | a position |
| illustrates, shows | evidence |
| concedes, admits | a grant against its own side |
| assumes | an unproven premise |
| overlooks | an omission (use only if true) |
| qualifies | limits or conditions |
Public-domain anchor
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others, Declaration of Sentiments (1848): “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.” The writers take up the 1776 Declaration’s words and add “and women”. The echo accepts the principle the audience honours, and the addition exposes where it has not been applied.
Worked mini-example
Topic: whether pupils should wear uniforms.
- Position A (school): uniforms improve discipline.
- Position B (pupils’ group): uniforms limit self-expression.
- Position C (researcher): the evidence on results is mixed.
- Claim placing itself (Marlbridge): “Because the evidence on results is mixed, as the researcher argues, schools should keep uniforms only where pupils and families have a say in the policy, since the main disagreement is about expression, not achievement.”
The claim agrees with C, takes up B’s concern and moves A’s debate to a new question: who decides.
Mistakes to avoid
- Describing the sources without a claim of your own.
- Caricaturing an opposing view.
- Vague attribution (“some people say”).
- Using “overlooks” or “ignores” about a source that does address the point.
- Treating the debate as two sides when it has several positions.
- Starting as if no one had spoken before you.
Quick self-check
- What two things must you do to enter a conversation well? (Know the positions already argued, and engage them.)
- Name two ways your claim can relate to an existing position. (Any two: agree and extend, disagree, qualify, add something new.)
- Why is a fair summary of an opposing view good for your own argument? (Readers trust a writer who understands the other side, so the later response seems more credible.)
Next: practice questions.