again, muchas gracias Senora deWinter; Spring 2008
Writing the Controversy Analysis
due Thursday 3.31
Goal: create a 3-4 page synthesis paper that rhetorically analyzes a current controversy of your chosen topic.
Your Controversy Analysis is a synthesis paper. Synthesis papers are designed to bring together
multiple sources into a single document and articulate those sources together. It might be easier to say
that syntheses put sources into conversation with one another so that we can see, in a single document,
the discourses surrounding a particular topic. Otherwise, the sources are too dispersed, and we might not be
able to see trends or debates that appear obvious when placed together.
We see syntheses in many different places (I only brainstormed a few of the places that I commonly see
them):
 The literature review of longer researched documents
 Editorials and political texts that attempt to bring together a lot of information to show trends or patterns
 Scientific reports that situate research into larger scientific contexts
 Encyclopedia entries
 Essay exams
 Business proposals that outline multiple options before presenting the best one
The trick to writing a synthesis paper is correct use of internal transition markers—that is, words and
phrases that explicitly show the connections between the quotations and paraphrases that you have chosen
to incorporate into your synthesis paper. Let’s take a look at an example:
Rhetorical criticism is, in its most umbrella-like form, simply criticism that
attends to rhetoric. For Charles Stewart it is “the study of man’s past attempts to
change the behavior of fellow man primarily through verbal symbols” (1). Further,
in “Words Like Most Things,” Leff and Sachs define rhetorical criticism (and the
critic’s role) as the following: “Working from the evidence within the text, the critic
proceeds to make inferences about what the work is designed to do, how it is
designed to do it, and how well that design functions to structure and transmit
meanings within the realm of public experience” while framing that discourse within
its context (256). And, as Black tells us, “[r]hetoric is an architectonic art, ‘an art of
structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing, and making’—meaning
that it is everywhere, that it saturates human activity,” which means that rhetorical
criticism analyzes all human activity (Prospect 23). Brummett, like Black, argues in
Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture that rhetoric infuses all culture (including
popular culture), but he works to demarcate the different types of rhetoric to make
them more accessible for analysis. The three levels Brummett identifies are exigent,
quotidian, and conditional, with exigent operating on the surface in an obvious way,
conditional working at the level of ideology, and quotidian functioning at a level
between the two extremes.
The danger of rhetorical criticism, notes McGee, is that when the emphasis is on
“criticism,” making rhetoric subordinate to that term, one of two things can happen:
“From one angle, emphasis on ‘criticism’ dissolves rhetoric into philosophy. [. . .]
From another angle, the emphasis on ‘criticism’ dissolves rhetoric into literary
theory” (“Text” 275-76). McGee is interested in keeping the orality and
performativity of rhetoric alive during the process of rhetorical criticism: “Rhetoric is
artful, but it is artful as a performance, not as an artifact. When rhetoric dissolves into
literary criticism, the performative skills of the rhetorician are devalued, buried in
literature’s deep association with religion and the sacred text” (276). Therefore, the
rhetorical critic needs to attend to the historical and cultural situation within
which rhetoric is performed, for as Herzberg argues in “Foucault’s Rhetorical
Theory,” “Foucault makes it clear that the notion of argument and persuasion must
be contextualized within discursive formations supported by systems of authority and
control. Context itself has been a key term in the development of critical rhetoric” or
rhetorical criticism for that matter (78).
You still need topic sentences
that tell the reader what the
controlling theme is in the
paragraph.
It is important to emphasize
the author of certain ideas,
which you can see are part of
the text and not sidelined into
the citation parentheses.
Note the use of transitional
phrases in the first paragraph,
highlighted in bold.
In addition to transitional
phrases, you will want phrases
that show relationships. This
one shows agreement, but you
can show disagreement in the
same way.
Note the way in which a full
phrase, not just a word, is
needed to show the
relationship between these two
author’s ideas.
again, muchas gracias Senora deWinter; Spring 2008
How to Write your Controversy Analysis as a Synthesis Paper
You have already conducted most of your research and collected it together in your Annotated
Bibliography. What we do now is articulate those sources together into a single document that shows
relationships among ideas.
Some notes before you start your writing process:

While you are responsible for defining and controlling the focus of your Controversy Analysis, a
synthesis paper is about what other people say. So other than a statement of your thesis and your
topic sentences, most of your paper’s material will originate from your sources.

Because syntheses are one of the few genres that are about other people’s ideas, it is okay to end
paragraphs with quotations or paraphrases (whereas normally, you need to embed your evidence into
your own ideas.
Study these recent student examples of complete Controversy Analyses:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Here are some general steps that you might want to follow:
1. Go through your sources and highlight key sentences that illustrate the author’s argument
a. Try to limit your highlighting to about 3-6 sentences in the entire text. These are the sentences
that might make good quotations.
b. You can also highlight sub-arguments, but remember that when you go to write the synthesis,
you will need to situate any and all sub-arguments into the overall argument.
2. Annotate the argument
a. Next to each key sentence, write a quick 1-2 sentence summary about how that particular
argument is developed.
3. Type out all of the quotations or relevant paraphrases.
a. Make sure to include the author and page number after each quotation or paraphrase, even if you
have multiple quotations from the same author (just type the information again).
4. Print your quotations and paraphrases, cut them up, and sort them into different piles based on
topic
a. As you do this, begin a labeling system for your topic-based piles—what is the connecting
theme?
b. Are there any quotations that do not fit with others?
i. Make a decision if this means that you do not need to explore this line of reason, or if it’s
necessary or relevant to your topic, that you need to do a little more research to find
related sources.
5. Write a thesis statement & a series of topic sentences for your synthesis paper (a 1-2-sentence
statement that reflects what your researched argumentative paper might explore).
a. This should express the central idea of your argument as you began to define it in your proposal
and thought through in researching for your annotated bibliography.
b. The topic sentences should reflect the topics that you created in categorizing your research
6. Write a draft of your synthesis
a. Because this is such a short assignment, your thesis may appear in your first or second
sentence.
again, muchas gracias Senora deWinter; Spring 2008
b. Introductory materials that situate the research should actually come from the resources
themselves.
c. Do not just use your topic sentences without writing transitions between each paragraph; use the
topic sentences that you previously created as a rough, rough draft that you will then revise to
show progression of thought.
d. Organize your sources so that the order that you present them in each paragraph makes sense.
e. Make sure to put your sources into conversation with each other—explain where then agree,
disagree, build off one another, and so on.
f. Ensure that you get all of your sources into the document.
7. Revise your synthesis
a. Use transitional words—See Hacker’s Rules for Writers for specifics and the transitions handout.
b. Paraphrase where necessary—See The Student’s Guide.
c. Avoid short, choppy sentences.
d. Check your style.
e. Check your grammatical correctness.
A Checklist for Your Writing Process:
 My essay is in MLA format (correct heading and header, title, font in Times New Roman 12-point,
everything double-spaced, margins are 1”)
 My essay is at least 3 pages but no more than 4 pages
 My essay has gone through at least one revision
 My essay includes a Works Cited page that correctly lists my 5 sources
 My essay shows thoughtful content changes based on the in-class revision that I did, and my rough draft
helps show my revision
 My essay has attended to stylistic and grammatical concerns learned in class, which include:
o Coordinating conjunctions and commas, integrating quotations, MLA
o Conjunctive adverbs, strong verbs and ethical subjects, and no “you”
o Introductory clauses and commas, and the grammatical rules concerning “which” and “that”
 I understand that if I have any questions or technological problems, that it is my responsibility to contact
my instructor before the rough draft and final draft due dates
As always, if you have any questions, set up an appointment to meet with me or email me; I will be happy
to work on your ideas with you.
And remember the free writing help via the Writing Center at the Think Tank …
And the organizational tools to ease your research and writing:
--- the web plug-in citation manager Zotero
--- the library’s online citation manager RefWorks/Write-N-Cite
Works Cited
DeWinter, Jennifer. “A Bibliographic Synthesis of Rhetorical Criticism.” Rhetoric Review 25.4 (2006):
388-407.