StudyPebble

SAT Synthesis: Emphasize a Similarity

Rhetorical synthesis questions give a list of bullet notes and a stated goal, such as emphasizing a similarity between two studies. The correct sentence has to be factually consistent with the notes and has to accomplish that exact goal. Most wrong answers are accurate and accomplish something else.

The rule

Convert the stated goal into a checklist of what the sentence must contain, then eliminate every choice that misses an item.

Read the goal before you read the notes. The goal is the only thing that distinguishes the right answer, since every choice will be built from true details. If the goal is to emphasize a similarity, then the correct sentence must mention both subjects and point out something they share.

That gives you a shape to look for. A sentence about only one of the two subjects cannot emphasize a similarity, no matter how accurate it is. A sentence mentioning both but highlighting how they differ accomplishes the opposite goal. Eliminating on shape alone usually removes two choices before you check any facts.

Then check factual consistency against the notes. The choices sometimes recombine details incorrectly, attaching one study's finding to the other researcher's name, or turning a figure from one bullet into a claim the notes do not support. Read the relevant bullets again rather than trusting your memory of them.

Watch for choices that state the similarity so vaguely that nothing is emphasized. Saying two studies both examined plant growth is technically a similarity and usually far weaker than a choice naming the shared result. When two choices both satisfy the goal, pick the one that makes the connection specific.

The same method covers the other goals in this family. To emphasize a difference, you need both subjects and a contrast. To introduce a subject to someone unfamiliar with it, you need identifying information rather than a detailed finding. Always convert the goal into a checklist of what the sentence must contain, then test the choices against the checklist.

The trap

Choosing a factually correct sentence that discusses only one of the two subjects when the goal requires a comparison.

Try it

Try one
Real question

While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes: - Eero Vasara's concert hall in Turku opened in 1969 after four years of construction and two budget overruns. - Local newspapers called its concrete exterior brutal and unfinished, and one called for its demolition. - The city council voted twice in the 1980s to demolish the building by narrow margins after long public hearings. - The hall was given protected status in 2004. - It now appears on the cover of the city's tourist guide.

The student wants to emphasise how the building's reputation changed. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?

Notes: • Writer Daniel Cho published a novel set during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, which killed more than 100,000 people. • The novel draws on survivor testimony collected in government archives in the years after the disaster. • Critics have called the book an example of "documentary fiction," a form assembled from archival record rather than invention. • Cho has said he wanted to give ordinary voices equal weight with official accounts of the disaster. • The government archives also contain seismic data and damage assessments.

The student wants to emphasize the source material for Cho's novel. Which choice most effectively uses the notes?

  • A) Daniel Cho drew on survivor testimony collected in government archives to write his novel set during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. ✓
  • B) Government archives contain survivor testimony, seismic data, and damage assessments from the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, which critics recognized as essential to Cho's documentary fiction.
  • C) Daniel Cho's novel draws on government archives and is an example of documentary fiction because he wanted to balance ordinary voices with official accounts of the earthquake.
  • D) Because Cho wanted to give ordinary voices equal weight with official accounts, he drew on government archives containing survivor testimony, seismic data, and damage assessments.

Why: The stem asks specifically for the source material behind Cho's novel, and the correct choice names it precisely: he "drew on survivor testimony collected in government archives." The option "Government archives contain survivor testimony, seismic data, and damage assessments from the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, which critics recognized as essential to Cho's documentary fiction." adds the unsupported claim that critics called the archives "essential"; the notes only say critics labeled the result "documentary fiction," not that they judged the archives essential. The option "Daniel Cho's novel draws on government archives and is an example of documentary fiction because he wanted to balance ordinary voices with official accounts of the earthquake." turns Cho's personal motivation into the stated cause of the archival research, when the notes present his intentions and his use of archives as separate facts. The option "Because Cho wanted to give ordinary voices equal weight with official accounts, he drew on government archives containing survivor testimony, seismic data, and damage assessments." also makes his motivation the explicit reason for using the archives and blurs the source material with unrelated archive contents like seismic data, rather than emphasizing the specific testimony he used.

Practice more of these free

Questions students ask

Do I need to use all the bullet points?

No. The correct sentence usually draws on only the bullets relevant to the goal. Using more information is not better, and a choice that crams in extra details often stops accomplishing the specific purpose the question named.

Can the correct answer add information not in the notes?

No. Everything in the sentence has to be supported by the bullet points. A choice that introduces a cause, a comparison, or a conclusion the notes never state is wrong even when it reads well.

Guides that cover this

More on rhetorical synthesis