A topic in the Open Knowledge Graph — a free, open map of 15,290 topics and the order to learn them in.
Paraphrasing translates a source's meaning into your own words at approximately the same length, summarizing condenses essential points, and synthesis combines ideas from multiple sources to create a new argument. Each technique serves a different rhetorical purpose and requires distinct skills. Paraphrase demands precise understanding, summary requires prioritization, and synthesis demands coherence across sources. Skilled writers choose the right technique for each purpose and always attribute ideas to sources.
Select a complex paragraph and write three versions: a paraphrase at the same length in your words, a summary that's one-third the length, and a synthesis combining it with another source. Check each for accidental plagiarism.
You've already worked with synthesizing multiple sources and integrating them into arguments. This topic sharpens three distinct tools that serve different rhetorical purposes — and knowing which to reach for is a core judgment call for any writer working with sources.
Paraphrase is the most demanding of the three because it requires you to fully understand a passage before you can translate it. A paraphrase runs roughly the same length as the original but uses entirely different sentence structure and vocabulary. If you find yourself keeping the same grammatical frame and just swapping synonyms, you haven't paraphrased — you've patchwritten. True paraphrase means comprehending the argument and rebuilding it in your own voice. The practical test: read the passage, close it, and write from memory. Paraphrase is most useful when the source's language isn't particularly quotable but the idea is important enough to develop at full length.
Summary compresses. You select only the essential points and discard elaboration, examples, and qualifications. Good summary requires judgment about what's load-bearing — which means understanding the source well enough to distinguish its central claims from their supporting scaffold. The discipline is to represent the source accurately while substantially reducing its length. Summary is most useful when you need to establish what a source argues without spending much space on it, or when preparing to synthesize it with other sources.
Synthesis is the most compositionally complex because it creates something new. Rather than representing one source, you're putting multiple sources in dialogue — finding where they agree, disagree, qualify each other, or speak to different facets of a question. A synthesis doesn't just stack summaries; it draws connections and generates a claim that emerges from the relationship between sources. Think of it as the difference between listing ingredients and cooking: synthesis produces something that didn't exist before. A common failure is synthesis that's really just juxtaposition: "Scholar A says X. Scholar B says Y." Real synthesis explains the relationship: "While A emphasizes X, B's account of Y reveals the limits of that claim in contexts where..." Connectives like "while," "however," "building on," and "complicates" signal synthesis; their absence usually signals mere list-making.