GoKelisi logo
C2 · Unit 6
Critical synthesis · publishable argument
Back to C2 Program Next Unit →

Critical Synthesis II

This unit pushes beyond “compare sources” into publishable argument: evaluate evidence, address counterarguments, and build an original position that is logically tight, ethically fair, and stylistically polished.

Objectives From Map → Position Evaluation Original Position Publishable Structure Argument Language Practice Final Task Materials

SWBAT (Objectives)

  • Evaluate sources for credibility, relevance, limitations, and logical strength.
  • Synthesize 3–5 sources into a single argument organized by ideas, not source order.
  • Formulate an original position that responds to evidence and addresses uncertainty.
  • Integrate counterarguments fairly and rebut them with strong reasoning.
  • Revise for publishable style: coherence, precision, register control, and rhetorical clarity.

From Map → Position (The C2 Leap)

Step 1: Identify the “core tension”

What do sources disagree about? Often it’s not facts—it’s definitions, values, or predicted consequences.

Step 2: Rank evidence

Which evidence is strongest? Which is weak, outdated, biased, or limited? Your position must reflect that.

Step 3: Make a “bounded claim”

C2 claims are precise: where, when, for whom, and under what conditions. Strong writing avoids overreach.

Rule: If your claim is broader than your evidence, tighten the claim. If your evidence is strong, strengthen the claim.
Position Builder (PDF) Core Tension Finder (PDF)

Evaluation (Credibility + Limits)

Evidence quality checklist
  • Authority: who, expertise, conflicts of interest?
  • Method: how was the claim tested/measured?
  • Relevance: does it actually support this point?
  • Representativeness: sample size, context, generalizability
  • Limitations: what is uncertain or missing?
Evaluation language

“A key limitation is…” · “The evidence is suggestive, though not conclusive…”
“This finding may not generalize to…” · “This argument rests on the assumption that…”

Fairness standard

State opposing views in their strongest form (steelman), then respond with reasons—not dismissal.

Evaluation Rubric (PDF)

Original Position (Your Contribution)

Three ways to be “original” (without inventing facts)
  • Synthesis: connect ideas across sources to produce a new conclusion.
  • Boundary setting: define when/where the claim holds (conditions).
  • Framework: propose a decision rule or evaluation standard (what counts as success).
Position statement templates

“Although A and B disagree on __, the evidence indicates __ under __ conditions.”
“A more defensible position is __, because __; however, __ remains uncertain.”
“The most pragmatic approach is __, provided that __ is measured and __ is mitigated.”

Position Templates (PDF)

Publishable Structure (Not “Source 1, Source 2…”)

1) Lead + thesis

Hook with the problem. Define terms. State a bounded thesis (your position).

2) Two–three idea-based sections

Each section answers a “why” question and integrates multiple sources as evidence.

3) Counterargument + rebuttal

Present the strongest opposing view, concede valid points, then respond with logic/evidence.

4) Implications + conclusion

What should change (policy, practice, research)? End with a clear takeaway.

Publishable Outline (PDF)

Argument Language (C2)

Integrating sources

“A converges with B on…” · “C challenges this by noting…” · “Taken together, these findings suggest…”

Hedging (accurate strength)

“appears to” · “is likely to” · “is consistent with” · “cannot be ruled out” · “remains unclear”

Counterargument moves

“A reasonable objection is…” · “This concern is valid; however…” · “Even if X, it does not follow that Y…”

Argument Phrasebank (PDF)

Practice (Writing + Argument)

Practice 1: Evidence ranking

Rank evidence from 3 sources and write a 2–3 sentence justification for each ranking.

Practice 2: Thesis tightening

Turn broad claims into bounded, evidence-matched theses (where/when/for whom/conditions).

Practice 3: Counterargument paragraph

Write one steelman + one rebuttal paragraph using hedging and precise logic.

Practice Worksheet (PDF) Sample Response (PDF)

Final Task: Publishable Synthesis Argument

Deliverable
  • Write 650–900 words integrating 3–5 sources.
  • Organize by ideas (not one paragraph per source).
  • Include evaluation of evidence quality and limitations.
  • State an original, bounded position with clear implications.
Required components
  • Thesis in the intro (1–2 sentences)
  • 2–3 body sections with integrated evidence
  • 1 counterargument + rebuttal section
  • Conclusion with recommendation / implication
  • Clear citation language (teacher’s format)
Success criteria
  • Claim strength matches evidence
  • Counterargument is fair (steelman)
  • Coherence and transitions are smooth
  • Register is controlled and consistent
  • Final draft is “publication-ready” (polished, precise)
Task Sheet (PDF) Rubric (PDF)

Materials & Downloads

  • Unit 6 Slides — PPTX
  • Position Builder — PDF · Core Tension Finder — PDF
  • Evaluation Rubric — PDF
  • Position Templates — PDF
  • Publishable Outline — PDF
  • Argument Phrasebank — PDF
  • Practice Worksheet — PDF · Sample Response — PDF
  • Task Sheet — PDF · Rubric — PDF

Swap placeholders with real file paths. Keep links consistent: /levels/c2/assets/.