Paragraph Structure for Real Synthesis: Modified Version of Barclay Barrios’s "Super-Secret Formula"

• Professor Barclay Barrios, in his book Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers, suggests a structure for working with multiple sources in a paragraph.

• If you learn this structure, you will likely face a lot of future writing challenges in and out of college with more confidence and skill.

• This is a lot like learning to play four chords on a guitar, then being able to branch out from that foundation and play hundreds of songs.

Write your synthesis paragraphs in this order, making these moves:

Required or Optional	Move	Content and Advice
Required	Move #1: What is the big idea of this particular conversation?	Clearly identify a big idea, theme, or important point that at least two sources have something important to say about, whether that means they agree or disagree or agree for different reasons, etc. Weaker drafts or submissions tend to omit this move.
Required	Move #2: Set up and bring in the first voice in this conversation.	Introduce first bit of source material to attribute it, e.g., “According to…,” “As ___ puts it,...,” “X contends,” etc. Use summary, paraphrase, or a short quotation (not a big block quote) with in-text attribution in MLA, APA, AMA, etc. format.
Required	Move #3: Explain the first voice in this conversation.	Explain what that first voice in the conversation means in terms of understanding that source’s perspective on the big idea. Example starter phrases to try: “Thus, for Smith, …,” “In Jones’s view, then,…,” “From this point of view,…,” “So as Brown would have it,…”
Required	Move #4: Transition to and set up the second voice in this conversation, then bring it in.	Choose transitional words and phrases carefully based on the relationships among the ideas expressed by the voices in this conversation. Bring in a second bit of source material—again as summary, paraphrase, or short quotation— with in-text attribution in MLA, APA, AMA, etc. format.
Required	Move #5: Explain the second voice in this conversation.	Explain what that second voice in the conversation means in terms of understanding that source’s perspective on the big idea. Example starter phrases to try: “Thus, for Smith, …,” “In Jones’s view, then,…,” “From this point of view,…,” “So as Brown would have it,…” Hint: use different phrases from the ones you used earlier in the paragraph.
Optional	(Repeat above moves for a third or fourth voice in the conversation on this big idea)	←
Required	Move #6: The finishing move: develop what emerges from putting these voices together.	Explain how the connections between the sources you have integrated into the paragraph show something important about the big idea in the first sentence. This last part of the paragraph positions you as a textual “conversation partner.” Offer your interpretation: What do you think about the big idea and the sources’ discussions? How do your views align or contrast? The finishing moves set up the final section of the paper: your full argument.

Example of synthesized paragraph (with made-up sources and assuming MLA format)

The debate over the best approach to combating climate change highlights the tension between scientific recommendations and economic feasibility. While reducing fossil fuel consumption is widely acknowledged as necessary, implementing effective policies remains a challenge. According to Alan Smith, cutting fossil fuel use is the most critical step in addressing climate change. His research demonstrates that carbon emissions are the primary driver of rising global temperatures and warns that without immediate action, the effects will become increasingly severe (42). From Smith’s perspective, a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption is not merely an option but a necessity for slowing global warming, as scientific data overwhelmingly supports the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (45). However, Sally Brown complicates this perspective by emphasizing the economic and political barriers to immediate fossil fuel reduction. While she acknowledges the importance of cutting emissions, she argues that such policies can trigger economic instability, particularly in developing nations reliant on fossil fuel industries (88). Brown contends that while the science may call for aggressive action, real-world implementation must balance environmental goals with economic realities and account for country-specific contexts (92). Together, these perspectives underscore a central tension in climate change policy: while scientific evidence demands urgent action, economic and political factors constrain feasibility. For meaningful progress, climate strategies must bridge the gap between necessity and practicality, ensuring policies that are both environmentally sustainable and economically viable.