Unit 3 Skills: Building Relationships Among Arguments Through Source Synthesis

Argument (AP Lang)

A claim about a debatable idea supported by reasons and evidence, shaped to fit a rhetorical situation (writer, audience, purpose, context, sometimes genre).

Rhetorical Situation

The circumstances shaping a text’s choices—speaker/writer, audience, purpose, context, and sometimes genre.

Claim

The main position: what the writer wants the audience to believe, think, or do.

Reasons

The “because” statements that explain why the audience should accept the claim.

Evidence

The proof used to support reasons (e.g., data, examples, anecdotes, expert testimony, definitions, comparisons).

Line of Reasoning

The logical structure connecting reasons and evidence to the claim (and showing how points fit together).

Assumptions

Unstated beliefs the audience must accept for the argument to make sense (e.g., what counts as “progress” or “fairness”).

Rhetorical Choices

Deliberate decisions (tone, diction, detail selection, concessions, emotional appeals) that reveal purpose and audience awareness.

Topic

The subject area a text discusses (e.g., “social media”); not the same thing as the text’s claim.

Synthesis

Creating a new, coherent argument by putting multiple sources into conversation with each other and with your own reasoning.

Defensible Position

A clear, arguable, specific claim that can be supported and explained (often nuanced or conditional).

Working Claim

An early, tentative answer to the prompt that guides source selection and can evolve as you analyze.

Source Function (in synthesis)

The role a source plays in your argument (e.g., context, strong support, complication/limitation, alternative approach).

Conversation Moves

Sentences that explicitly relate sources (agreement, tension, complication, mechanism vs. impact, shared data/different interpretation).

Attribution

Clearly indicating which ideas come from which source (e.g., “According to Source C…”).

Paraphrase (Responsible)

Restating a source’s idea in new wording and structure while keeping the meaning accurate.

Quote-Dropping

Inserting a quotation without framing it or explaining its significance; weak integration of evidence.

Qualifiers

Words that limit a claim’s scope (e.g., “may,” “often,” “in some cases”) and change what the source actually asserts.

Scope (of an argument)

The range an argument addresses (group/time/place/level such as policy vs. personal choice; local vs. national).

Claim Relationship

How two arguments relate at the claim level—agreement, disagreement, partial overlap, or qualification.

Values/Priorities

What a writer treats as most important (e.g., safety, fairness, efficiency, tradition, autonomy), shaping reasons and conclusions.

Type of Proof

The kind of support an argument relies on (data, narrative, ethics, authority, definitions), reflecting standards of persuasion.

Concession

Acknowledging that an opposing view or evidence has some merit without abandoning your overall claim.

Rebuttal

A reasoned response showing why your claim still stands (through limits, assumptions, trade-offs, stronger evidence, or modification).

Straw-Manning

Misrepresenting an opposing argument as weaker or more extreme than it is, which damages credibility and analysis.