Read the draft first
The lesson below refers to this draft.
Study Room Demand
Overview
A synthesis connects relevant findings without treating two different kinds of evidence as interchangeable. First note each source's population, dates, measures, and limits. Then identify the relationship that can honestly be stated. Attribution tells the reader whose finding is being represented; it should not silently enlarge that finding.
In the study-room draft, the log records evening reservations, not attendance. The survey of twenty users identifies concern about group conversation in an open area, not inability to obtain a room. Together they justify investigating demand, but they do not prove a shortage. An accurate synthesis pairs common evening reservations with a reason to prefer separate space. Occupancy and unsuccessful requests would address the missing questions. Reporting that all library users lack rooms would inflate both the population and the conclusion.
The garden sources also answer different questions. A five-afternoon trial shows less surface moisture loss with cover under its conditions. The handbook advises checking beneath the surface and recognizing plant differences. Combining them supports observing conditions rather than enforcing one fixed daily rule. It does not establish that covered plots never need water. Equal starting water helps the trial's comparison; it is not a reason to dismiss its results. Limited evidence can guide action without determining every season or species.
For a new draft, write a separate accurate sentence for each source before combining them. Check whether the proposed synthesis adds attendance, causation, certainty, or a larger group that neither source measured. Phrases such as “suggest” can express an inference, but cautious vocabulary cannot rescue a misrepresented finding. A conclusion should use the evidence's actual reach and identify what further observation would resolve the remaining uncertainty.
Apply the method to a complete new context
Read the whole passage before choosing an answer.
Draft: Parking Downtown
Source A: A city survey of 150 downtown shoppers found that 62 percent arrived by car and 21 percent by bus.
Source B: A count of parked cars on three weekday afternoons found that the two downtown garages were never more than half full.
Draft: [1] The council is considering whether to build a third downtown garage. [2] Before voting, members should look closely at the available evidence. [3] (sentence to be added) [4] A count on weekends and evenings would show whether the garages fill at other times.
Which sentence, added as sentence 3, best combines the sources without overstating them? A. Most surveyed shoppers drove, yet the garages had spare space on the afternoons counted. B. Because most surveyed shoppers drive, the city should build another garage downtown soon. C. The garages stay half empty because most downtown shoppers have switched to the bus. D. Every downtown visitor drives, and the garages have room at all hours of every day.
The supported answer is A: Most surveyed shoppers drove, yet the garages had spare space on the afternoons counted. Each source is reported at its own scope: surveyed shoppers, and three weekday afternoons. Choice B uses Source A accurately but ignores Source B's finding of spare space, turning one source into a recommendation the combined evidence does not support.
Combine sources only after stating each finding at its own scope, and reject any synthesis that adds a cause or a larger group.