A presentation on writing a synthesis

1. Synthesis Paragraph
Two articles:
Deborah Temkin – Why Criminalizing Bullying Is the Wrong Approach
Mark O’Mara – It’s Time To Outlaw Bullying

2. A Claim
What not to do:
“O’Mara says that we should outlaw bullying but Temkin says we should not”
(Who?)
“Bullying is a big problem.”
(So? The articles deal with something specific.”
“Should we criminalize bullying or not?”
(Almost there)

3. Claim
While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how
strictly should it be punished?
For a synthesis paragraph like this, a good question sets up
the problem and the solution that will be explored.
It’s broad, but that’s okay – we have the big overall
question that both articles deal with.

4. Introducing Sources
What not to do:
Mark O’Mara wrote an article called “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying.”
Mark O’Mara, author of the article “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying,” says
In “It’s Time to Outlaw Bullying,” Mark O’Mara
Don’t quote entire titles
(This title does get to the point, but you can still say
it better)

5. Introducing Sources
Mark O’Mara, a writer for CNN,
Mark O’Mara, a writer and family lawyer,
Mark O’Mara, a writer for CNN and a lawyer,
Avoid weak verbs (“says, talks about”)
I’ve put the relevant information in commas, setting it apart, but still
clarifying who he is

6. USE STRONG VERBS (They Say I Say pp. 39-40)

7. The first sentence introducing research should set
up the argument clearly and specifically
While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be
punished? Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be
outlawed.
That’s short and sweet, and it gets to what his
title says without the long quote
The no-quoting title rule is more of my preference than a hard and fast rule. You might say:
As his title suggests, Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues “It’s
Time to Outlaw Bullying.”
(I just don’t like that as much – it’s a bit wordier)

8. Now we need to summarize the article
He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment
of an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes
heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though
he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop
bullying and its effects is through strict laws.
Three solid sentences – I’ve used
- A quote
- Parts of a quote
- Parts of another quote
It makes sense to the reader. There are things I’ve left out
(the details of the laws, the “sticks and stones” part, the details of the
photo project)
But that’s okay – for a summary paragraph, we’d get into it. In a synthesis paragraph, we don’t have that much space.

9. Now let’s move to the other writer
BUT –
You don’t have to end there
We could say a little bit more about O’Mara’s point and
comment on them.
My thought: because the writers disagree on such a
specific point, I want to introduce Temkin immediately,
because she has a valid argument.
Then I’ll deal with them both at the end. That’s the They
Say, I Say model, and it’s a good one.

10. Moving to a new author
Use a good transition! (From The UNC Writing Center)

11. So here’s how I start
However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is
a misdirection.”
I’ve decided to quote her here, because it clearly
sums up her opposition to his point, and I’m going
to develop this.
Maybe you would say something like like “DT of the HP
disagrees that criminalization actually solves the problem
of bullying.”
But both get the point across fairly well.

12. Next more summary
It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is
“amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying
before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and providing
consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.”
Temkin’s quotes are so good that I can let them
stand for themselves. Also, as you’ll see below, I’m
writing this paragraph as though I agree with her.
Also: O’Mara has summed up a problem that she’s
responding to, so I don’t need to spend as long on the point
of criminalization, just her argument against it.
- BUT, you could spend more time on Temkin than O’Mara, that’s up to you.

13. Here’s where I am so far:
1. CLAIM: While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it
be punished?
2. EVIDENCE 1: Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be
outlawed.
3. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of
an individual with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.”
4. He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with
bullying.
5. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to
stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws.
6. EVIDENCE 2: However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a
misdirection.”
7. It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.”
8. Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating
safe and supportive school climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair
relationships and environments.”
NOW, I have three sentences to analyze these points.

14. What not to do next
“Both Temkin and O’Mara make good/interesting points.” (boring!)
“Temkin and O’Mara have different views on bullying and how it can be
solved” (also boring)
“Temkin says that criminalization is wrong while O’Mara says that it is
right” (you’ve said that!)
“There are two sides to every coin” (no!!!!!!!)
“Bullying is a big problem that needs to be solved (you’ve said that)
Don’t be too vague – here’s where you can intervene.

15. Who do you agree with?
Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN,
argues that bullying should be outlawed. He
writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard
razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of
an individual with the intent to cause
substantial emotional distress.” He describes
heartbreaking examples of suicides and the
“invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though
he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,”
O’Mara contends that the best way to stop
bullying and its effects is through strict laws.
However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington
Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.”
It does not help those who are bullied, and the
definition of bullying is so “amorphous.”
Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to
prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe
and supportive school climates and providing
consequences that help restore and repair
relationships and environments.”
Part of the issue is with how it’s presented. As you can
tell, there’s a little bit of bias in the way I presented
this. It sounds like I’m agreeing with Temkin.

16. http://www.softwarethinktank.com/wp-
content/uploads/Unbiased-Software-
Selection1.jpg
You are going to be biased. You’re
going to be partial to one
argument over another. That’s
okay.
You shouldn’t tell the other side
they’re just flat wrong, but deal
with the argument you want to
make.
But try to avoid using first person
here. Make it sound like smart
analysis.

17. Big Don’t
“there’s lots of pros and cons and lots
of different opinions and the pros have
their cons and there are good points
there and bad points but the pros and
the opinions are cons are there too and
the pros have their points and other
people have good points and there are
bad points too and in everything there’s
good and bad and pros and cons and
positives and negatives and sometimes
positives are better than negatives but
that doesn’t mean cons are always
better than pros because my best friend
is a pro and that doesn’t mean he/she is
always right.”

18. Don’t
“There are two sides to every
coin, meaning every coin has a
pro and a con, or a head and a
tail, except this one coin that
my brother found and then he
said he’d flip me for dessert
and convinced me to choose
tails, but there wasn’t tails, and
he got Pudding and I had to
have a ****ing fruit cup”

19. Both sides have good points.
There are pros and cons for both sides.
The real issue between these two sides is . . .
While Temkin discusses the valuable need for psychological help,
O’Mara is actually dedicated to enforcing consequences…
While O’Mara thinks solving bullying through strong enforcements will
stop it from happening, he overlooks the crucial issue of mental health
. . .

20. Don’ts
Don’t start with “in conclusion”
Don’t just repeat what you’ve already
said.
Don’t just repeat what’s in the
introduction.
Avoid phrases like "in conclusion,"
"to conclude," "in summary," and
"to sum up." These phrases can be
useful--even welcome--in oral
presentations. But readers can see,
by the tell-tale compression of the
pages, when an essay is about to
end. You'll irritate your audience if
you belabor the obvious.

21. Analysis
Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let
bullying happen.
Here, I’m focusing on an issue that both writers tend
to agree with, and I’m going to go from there.
But, think about this – does what O’Mara propose
really deal with changing the “climate” that much?
His solution is punishing offenders, to get them out of
the climate. Does that stop future bullies? Maybe.
Temkin disagrees. I’m going to side with Temkin for the
rest of this paragraph.

22. Finishing up – Agreeing with an Opponent
(1) But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not
deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after the
fact with strict penalties. (2) While penalties are necessary, it is equally
valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out
effective punishments.
- Sentence 1: agrees with Temkin
- Sentence 2: agrees with Temkin and goes further

23. What I haven’t done
(1) I think O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does
not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only address them after
the fact with strict penalties. (2) I think penalties are necessary, it is equally
valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out
effective punishments.
I haven’t used first person. I’ve let the
argument speak for itself.
Make an argument: I’d rather disagree with you
than just have you tell me that you think
something

24. Here’s what I have:
1. While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how strictly should it be punished?
2. Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed.
3. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to
cause substantial emotional distress.”
4. He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying.
5. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop bullying and its effects is
through strict laws.
6. However, Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a misdirection.”
7. It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so “amorphous.”
8. Instead, Temkin proposes that we must “work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school
climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and environments.”
9. Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen.
10. But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only
address them after the fact with strict penalties.
11. While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure out effective
punishments.

25. And here’s the paragraph
While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed,
how strictly should it be punished? Mark O’Mara, a lawyer and writer
for CNN, argues that bullying should be outlawed. He writes, “It’s not a
little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic
harassment of an individual with the intent to cause substantial
emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples of suicides
and the “invisible pain” associated with bullying. Though he states “we
don’t want to outlaw childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way
to stop bullying and its effects is through strict laws. However, Deborah
Temkin of the Huffington Post states that “criminalizing is a
misdirection.” It does not help those who are bullied, and the definition
of bullying is so “amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must
“work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe and
supportive school climates and providing consequences that help
restore and repair relationships and environments.” Both Temkin and
O’Mara believe the problem is in the “climates” that let bullying
happen. But O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop
them does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they only
address them after the fact with strict penalties. While penalties are
necessary, it is equally valuable to understand the problems behind
bullying as it is to figure out effective punishments.
I think the end could be a
little stronger: it’s slightly
repetitive, but it’s a start,
and it gets the major
ideas down, as well as a
take on those ideas.

26. BUT – what if I agree with O’Mara?
Let’s start the same way:
While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed, how
strictly should it be punished?
It’s the same question, right?

27. BUT this time . . .
I’m going introduce Temkin first:
Deborah Temkin, a writer for the Huffington Post, argues that we should
understand why bullying happens rather than punish with something as
drastic as criminalization. She proposes that we must “work to prevent
bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school climates and
providing consequences that help restore and repair relationships and
environments.” Criminalizing bullying does not help those who are bullied or
the bullies themselves.
Why?

28. Sometimes it’s good to begin with your opponent’s argument, so you
can set it up before challenging it later. That way you end with the
strong point – the one you agree with.
On the other hand, you could begin with the stronger argument and
dismiss your opponent’s argument after it.
It’s up to you – when you look over the paragraph, think
about how it’s working! This is where revising comes in!

29. Moving to O’Mara
However, Mark O’Mara, a lawyer writing on CNN, argues that bullying should
be “outlawed” because “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard razzing. Bullying
is the systematic harassment of an individual with the intent to cause
substantial emotional distress.” He describes the heartbreaking images in a
photo project dedicated to ending bullying, as well as a recent suicide
involving a girl who was shamed on Facebook whose attackers charges
were dropped because bullying is not a crime. O’Mara suggest that many
opponents of criminalization take the “sticks and stones” approach, and
have “never had the chance to witness bullying.”
See the part I’ve highlighted? I’m trying to get a
response out of the reader by emphasizing a
powerful part that – in the other paragraph – I
overlooked.

30. Avoid phrases like "in conclusion," "to
conclude," "in summary," and "to sum up."
These phrases can be useful--even welcome-
-in oral presentations. But readers can see,
by the tell-tale compression of the pages,
when an essay is about to end. You'll irritate
your audience if you belabor the obvious.

31. Now a conclusion
Though Temkin is right that everyone involved should work to stop bullying
before it starts, the only way to stop it from happening is by letting bullies
know that their actions will not be tolerated. Temkin’s point that bullying is
“amorphous” because it has no clear definition is fair, but lawmakers should
work to define this rather than letting it stop them from doing anything at
all. In the photo project O’Mara describes, the brutal and sad images are
reminders of the actual damage that bullying causes every day. Treating it
too leniently will do little to stop it, and criminalization must be considered.
I’m coming down on the other side. I’m dealing with the strengths of
O’Mara’s argument rather than the weaknesses. Temkin is too soft; O’Mara
is stronger. Inthe other argument, I said O’Mara was being strong but not
effective, while Temkin was getting at what really mattered. See the
difference?

32. While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be addressed,
how strictly should it be punished? Deborah Temkin, a writer for
the Huffington Post, argues that we should understand why
bullying happens rather than punish with something as drastic as
criminalization. She proposes that we must “work to prevent
bullying before it starts by creating safe and supportive school
climates and providing consequences that help restore and repair
relationships and environments.” Criminalizing bullying does not
help those who are bullied or the bullies themselves. However,
Mark O’Mara, a lawyer writing on CNN, argues that bullying
should be “outlawed” because “It’s not a little harmless schoolyard
razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment of an individual with
the intent to cause substantial emotional distress.” He describes
the heartbreaking images in a photo project dedicated to ending
bullying, as well as a recent suicide involving a girl who was
shamed on Facebook whose attackers charges were dropped
because bullying is not a crime. O’Mara suggest that many
opponents of criminalization take the “sticks and stones”
approach, and have “never had the chance to witness bullying.”
Though Temkin is right that everyone involved should work to stop
bullying before it starts, the only way to stop it from happening is
by letting bullies know that their actions will not be tolerated.
Temkin’s point that bullying is “amorphous” because it has no clear
definition is fair, but lawmakers should work to define this rather
than letting it stop them from doing anything at all. In the photo
project O’Mara describes, the brutal and sad images are reminders
of the actual damage that bullying causes every day. Treating it too
leniently will do little to stop it, and criminalization must be
considered.
While bullying is definitely a problem that need to be
addressed, how strictly should it be punished? Mark
O’Mara, a lawyer and writer for CNN, argues that bullying
should be outlawed. He writes, “It’s not a little harmless
schoolyard razzing. Bullying is the systematic harassment
of an individual with the intent to cause substantial
emotional distress.” He describes heartbreaking examples
of suicides and the “invisible pain” associated with
bullying. Though he states “we don’t want to outlaw
childhood,” O’Mara contends that the best way to stop
bullying and its effects is through strict laws. However,
Deborah Temkin of the Huffington Post states that
“criminalizing is a misdirection.” It does not help those who
are bullied, and the definition of bullying is so
“amorphous.” Instead, Temkin proposes that we must
“work to prevent bullying before it starts by creating safe
and supportive school climates and providing
consequences that help restore and repair relationships
and environments.” Both Temkin and O’Mara believe the
problem is in the “climates” that let bullying happen. But
O’Mara’s argument that criminalizing bullies will stop them
does not deal with the reasons bullying happens, as they
only address them after the fact with strict penalties.
While penalties are necessary, it is equally valuable to
understand the problems behind bullying as it is to figure
out effective punishments.