In a synthesis task, which approach best demonstrates integration of sources?

In a synthesis task, which approach best demonstrates integration of sources?

• A. Summarizing sources without connecting them
• B. Synthesizing multiple perspectives to support a unified claim
• C. Quoting a single source exclusively
• D. Selecting one viewpoint and dismissing others

Answer: (B)

Integration happens when you bring ideas from several sources together to craft a single, coherent claim. A strong synthesis task doesn’t just summarize each source or quote from one text; it shows how different perspectives relate, contrast, or reinforce each other and uses that interplay to advance one clear argument. The evidence from multiple sources is stitched together with your own analysis, making explicit connections—for example, comparing how two authors address a common issue, or showing how one source fills a gap left by another. This demonstrates the ability to integrate rather than present isolated ideas. That’s why synthesizing multiple perspectives to support a unified claim is the best fit: it embodies combining sources to build a cohesive argument grounded in evidence from more than one place. As for the other approaches, summarizing without connecting leaves you with a list of points rather than a unified position; quoting from a single source doesn’t show integration across sources; selecting one viewpoint and dismissing others ignores the broader dialogue and undermines synthesis.

Integration happens when you bring ideas from several sources together to craft a single, coherent claim. A strong synthesis task doesn’t just summarize each source or quote from one text; it shows how different perspectives relate, contrast, or reinforce each other and uses that interplay to advance one clear argument. The evidence from multiple sources is stitched together with your own analysis, making explicit connections—for example, comparing how two authors address a common issue, or showing how one source fills a gap left by another. This demonstrates the ability to integrate rather than present isolated ideas.

That’s why synthesizing multiple perspectives to support a unified claim is the best fit: it embodies combining sources to build a cohesive argument grounded in evidence from more than one place.

As for the other approaches, summarizing without connecting leaves you with a list of points rather than a unified position; quoting from a single source doesn’t show integration across sources; selecting one viewpoint and dismissing others ignores the broader dialogue and undermines synthesis.