Overview
- Worth 6 points (out of 18 total FRQ points, one-third of your free-response score)
- Budget about 40 minutes including the 15-minute reading period (out of 2 hours 15 minutes total)
- You'll synthesize material from at least 3 of 6 provided sources
- Sources include at least one visual and one quantitative source
- Each text-based source is about 500 words
The synthesis question opens your essay journey strategically - it provides structure while demanding independent thinking. You'll work with six sources, each offering different perspectives on a central issue. Your task goes beyond just summarizing; you must weave these voices into a cohesive argument of your own. Think of it as joining a conversation where others have already spoken - your challenge is to moderate their discussion while adding your own voice.
Strategy Deep Dive
In synthesis, you become the conductor of an argument. Six sources serve as your instruments, each contributing different elements to the whole. The readers know what's available; they want to see your interpretation. Analysis shows that meaning comes not from individual points but from how you arrange and connect them.
The 15-Minute Reading Period: Your Foundation
The reading period is your analytical foundation - a time gift that requires strategic use. Here's a key insight: thorough reading rarely leads to complete understanding. Writers create meaning through selection and emphasis, not by including everything. Approach these texts as a critic, not a note-taker.
Begin by carefully examining the prompt's structure - understand what it's asking. The phrase "develop your position" signals more than just a task; it invites you to take ownership. Mark this requirement clearly. Next, survey your sources through their attributions. These introductory notes are interpretive keys - an academic's viewpoint differs fundamentally from a statistician's data-driven approach. Writers create perspective through their positions.
Now comes the crucial part: you need to read with a purpose. As you work through each source, ask yourself: What position does this source take? What evidence does it offer? How might I use this in my essay? I physically mark sources with "+", "-", or "?" based on whether they support, challenge, or complicate my emerging position. Don't get bogged down in details during this first pass. You're mapping the terrain, not memorizing every tree.
The visual and quantitative sources deserve special attention. Students often underuse these, but they're usually the most powerful evidence you have. A graph showing a clear trend can be worth a paragraph of explanation. A political cartoon can capture a counterargument more vividly than any written source. These sources are there for a reason - use them.
Developing Your Position: The Critical Move
Strong arguments go beyond simple yes/no thinking - precision matters when building nuanced positions. Analysis shows that compelling arguments acknowledge complexity. Perhaps you support the goal while questioning its putting in place. Perhaps the whole discussion needs reframing. The strongest voices find balance within apparent contradictions, creating arguments that acknowledge complexity while staying coherent.
Whatever position you take, it must be defensible with the sources provided. This doesn't mean the sources need to explicitly state your position - in fact, they rarely will. But you need to be able to use evidence from them to build your case. If you find yourself struggling to support your position with the provided sources, that's a sign you need to refine your stance.
Evidence Integration: The Art of Synthesis
Analysis reveals a common writing failure: mistaking quotation for synthesis. Simply citing sources meets basic requirements but misses the real potential. True synthesis happens when you orchestrate dialogue - sources must converse, challenge, and illuminate each other within your argument. Think of yourself as a host facilitating meaningful exchange.
Consider these different levels of source use:
Elementary: "Source A advocates for libraries."
Developing: "Source A emphasizes traditional literary repositories, while Source C's data reveals 73% have evolved into multifaceted community centers."
Sophisticated: "The author of Source A crafts an elegiac defense of libraries as temples of contemplation, while Source C's statistical narrative reimagines them as dynamic community catalysts. This rhetorical tension illuminates a deeper cultural negotiation between preservation and transformation. Source E's Orland Park case study demonstrates that architectural spaces, like compelling arguments, can honor tradition while embracing innovation."
Writing sophistication comes through analyzing relationships. You create synthesis not by reporting but by revealing connections between texts - how they speak to, against, and through each other. Your argument gains power by illuminating these conversations between sources.
Rubric Breakdown
Understanding the rubric is crucial because synthesis has the most specific requirements of all three essays. Let me decode what each point really means:
Thesis (0-1 point)
"Responds to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position."
The key word here is "defensible." Your thesis can't just restate the prompt or present an obvious fact. It needs to take a position that could reasonably be argued using the provided sources. But Consider this's crucial: your thesis should preview your line of reasoning. Don't just state your position; indicate how you'll develop it.
Weak thesis: "Libraries should continue to exist in the future." Strong thesis: "While digital resources have transformed information access, public libraries must evolve into multifaceted community centers that address the digital divide, foster civic engagement, and provide inclusive spaces for lifelong learning."
Evidence and Commentary (0-4 points)
This is where most points are won or lost. The rubric rewards both the quality of your evidence selection and the sophistication of your commentary. Here's the progression:
1 point: You reference at least two sources but mostly summarize without connecting to your argument. 2 points: You use at least three sources and explain how some evidence relates to your argument, but your line of reasoning is unclear or faulty. 3 points: You use specific evidence from at least three sources to support all claims in your line of reasoning, with some explanation of how evidence supports that reasoning. 4 points: All of the above, plus you consistently explain how your evidence supports your line of reasoning.
The jump from 3 to 4 points is about consistency and sophistication. Every piece of evidence needs to clearly serve your argument, and you need to explain those connections explicitly. The readers shouldn't have to guess why you included a particular quote or statistic.
Sophistication (0-1 point)
This point rewards "sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation." In practice, this means doing one of these things well:
- Crafting a nuanced argument that explores tensions or complexities across sources
- Situating your argument within a broader context (historical, social, philosophical)
- Making strategic rhetorical choices that strengthen your argument's force
- Employing a consistently vivid and persuasive style
Most students who earn this point do so through the first method - exploring complexities. If sources disagree, don't just pick a side. Explore why they disagree. What assumptions underlie different positions? What values are at stake?
Common Synthesis Patterns
Year after year, synthesis prompts follow recognizable patterns. Understanding these helps you prepare mentally for what you'll encounter:
Technology and Society Topics
These ask you to evaluate how some technological change affects society. Recent examples include social media's impact on democracy, automation's effect on employment, and digital learning versus traditional education. The sources typically include enthusiastic early adopters, skeptical traditionalists, empirical research, and real-world case studies. Your job is to move beyond "technology good" or "technology bad" to a nuanced position about benefits, costs, and putting in place.
Values in Conflict Topics
These present a situation where important values clash - individual freedom versus collective good, economic growth versus environmental protection, security versus privacy. The sources offer different ways of prioritizing these values. Strong responses acknowledge the legitimacy of competing values while arguing for a particular balance or resolution.
Policy Proposal Topics
These ask whether some proposed policy or change should be implemented. Should schools start later? Should governments regulate social media? Should we eliminate standardized testing? The sources typically include research on effectiveness, stakeholder perspectives, cost-benefit analyses, and comparison cases. Your task is to weigh evidence and propose a path forward.
Time Management Reality
Forty minutes feels both generous and constraining. The reading period gives you time to think, but once you start writing, the clock moves fast. Here's a realistic timeline:
Minutes 1-15 (Reading Period): Read the prompt carefully (2 min), survey all sources (3 min), read sources more carefully while planning your position (8 min), outline your essay (2 min).
Minutes 16-20: Write your introduction with a clear thesis. Don't agonize over the perfect opening - you can always revise if time allows.
Minutes 21-35: Write body paragraphs. Aim for 3-4 paragraphs that develop your argument using source evidence. This is the meat of your essay where you earn most points.
Minutes 36-40: Write conclusion and review. Check that you've cited at least three sources, that your argument flows logically, and that you've explained your evidence clearly.
The reading period transforms everything. While other students are still figuring out what sources say, you're already writing. But here's the trap: don't get so attached to your reading period plan that you can't adapt. Sometimes your argument evolves as you write. That's fine - even good - as long as you maintain coherence.
Time-saving citation hack: Just write "Source A" or "Source B." I watched someone spend 30 seconds per citation writing out full names and credentials. That's 3 minutes of writing time gone! "Source A argues" gets you the exact same points as fancy attribution. Work smarter, not harder.
Final Thoughts
Often: synthesis is college writing with training wheels. In college, you'll hunt down your own sources and pray they're credible. Here, they hand you six pre-vetted perspectives and say "make something interesting." It's like Iron Chef but for arguments - here are your ingredients, now cook.
Want to ace synthesis? Start reading op-eds differently. Don't just absorb the argument - dissect how writers juggle different voices and evidence. Watch how the pros make sources talk to each other instead of taking turns like kids at show-and-tell. Train yourself to see the gray areas because that's where sophisticated arguments live.
Quality beats quantity every time. I watched kids try to cram all six sources into their essays like they were collecting Pokemon. Meanwhile, I took three sources, made them dance together, and walked out with a 9. The readers want to see you think deeply, not count loudly.
The third of your free-response score that comes from synthesis is the most predictable. Master the format, understand what synthesis really means, use that reading period strategically, and you'll find this essay becomes almost formulaic - in the best possible way. You're not reinventing the wheel; you're showing that you can join an intellectual conversation with grace and insight.