Submit a Perfect Synthesis Essay and Get the Best Grade!
What is a synthesis essay?
Basically, this paper is a written discussion that aims to incorporate support for different views from different sources. When working on such a paper, you will need to work with a great number of credible academic sources and find evidence that will back up your arguments.
Synthesis techniques are widely used in:
- Analytical papers that evaluate different theories;
- Research papers that explore important topics with the help of credible academic sources;
- Argumentative papers that provide solid evidence for supporting the arguments;
- Business reports that explore different ideas that are blended into a coherent plan.
As you can see, you will need to learn how to write a synthesis essay to be able to cope with other papers in your academic curriculum.
How to Write a Good-Looking Synthesis Essay? Efficient Tips
- Clearly define your purpose to figure out the way you would like to develop your thesis. Pay attention that the thesis paper is the central idea of your paper that should appear at the end of your introductory paragraph;
- Go to the library and select the sources that will familiarize you with the findings of other researchers. Pay attention that all the citations you are going to present in your paper should not be separated from your ideas. On the contrary, they serve to back up your arguments. When evaluating your sources, try to find the main similarities and differences in the approaches and analyze them in your essay;
- Develop a plan. Without having a good plan, you will find it pretty difficult to organize your ideas in a logical way. Therefore, you will need to create an outline that will include all the sources, arguments, and ideas in the appropriate order;
- Make sure to document your sources putting all the bibliographical information into the reference list. If you fail to include all sources you have used in your work, you will be accused of plagiarism.
Main Strategies for Synthesis Essay Organization
Problems solution. First, you need to suggest a problem and then provide a couple of efficient solutions for addressing it;
Compare and contrast. In such a paper, the writer should compare two or more different issues/objects/events based on their main similarities and differences;
Climactic order. In such a paper, you are supposed to arrange the information based on its importance starting from the most meaningful pieces of information.
Synthesis Essay Sample
Explanatory Synthesis on Wealth and Poverty
There is a substantial amount of scholastic material on wealth and poverty, often taking radically contrasting sides to definition, meaning and indicators of poverty. Poverty is largely understood as multidimensional, as the consequent of multiple deprivations. The global state of poverty takes into account the notions of deprivation of, and limitation to resources, most often focused on lack of access to food or income, but including other social, psychological, and material deprivations that affect well-being. Much attention is directed to the burdens that poverty places on household and on individuals. As a result, current paper provides background knowledge on poverty in the context of Karl Marx and Conley Dalton works.
According to Karl Marx, a renowned German economist, in our societies, poverty grows at the same time as wealth grows. He maintains that in a capitalistic economy, scarcity does not prevail. On the contrary, it brings about wealth in the form of enormous accumulation of commodities. According Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher, the aforementioned statement is certainly as true today as it was during the Marx’s time, by even a superior level of magnitude.
As Karl Marx points out, the real measure of wealth is the free time to enjoy the fruits of labor and, under no circumstance will it be measured with respect to working hours. On the contrary, when labor expenditure creates wealth, then the employee with not be the subject of wealth, but a means to an end. According to the economist, the more is expended on labor, the more the wealth in this society, and poverty is the basis of wealth. According to Marx, if wealth means labor, then laborers must work as intensely and as long as possible. This creates an economic necessity for expanding a working day. In this society, wealth is based on increasing laborers’ lifetime under work, to the degradation of being mere workers. The author affirms that this is good for the capitalist companies that use workers to gain profits. This is a workable plan since workers are committed to working to an extent that it will be no longer necessary to produce the monetary value of their remunerations. It is solely in this way, they create profit. According to Wheen, the opposite is true for entrepreneurs if they let workers work for fewer hours; there will be a need to produce because of meager profits.
According to Marx, prevalence of poverty is as a result of a shortage in consumer commodities. If it was the primary goal of production, the topmost level of productive forces would have made it a possible problem from the need to consumption, leisure and work. He observes that the world is instead divided between the poor and rich lines, and poverty as well is still prevalent in the rich states. Not only pensioners and unemployed people are considered as unacceptable burden on the society’s economy, so is true for the employed who are still not far from becoming working poor. With respect to his observations, it was clear that the prevalence of poverty was not as a result of natural factors, limits associated to nature or inability of production forces in controlling nature. Instead, it lies in character of wealth within our society.
Max characterizes wealth as an accumulation of consumer goods. Marx affirms that labor efforts exerted by individual producers do not determine the size of a product’s value. Individual variations in the workforce as well as the degree of exertions do not concern in any way the buyer and, hence, need no consideration. Workers are considered equal; therefore, each is able to produce value only to the level that they function as socially average workforce. Similarly, the value of a commodity is not considered with respect to man-hours, but principally the numbers of hours required producing in the socially average man-hours. How and whether much value could be translated into results can be known only when goods are transformed on the market into cash.
Conley Dalton asserts that in order to understand what many require to thrive and succeed, it is necessary to move beyond income as the only measure of quality of life and economic stability. As Dalton observes, governments still rely on household incomes as the solo measure of poverty, whilst there is the robust public discourse regarding the levels of income that constitute poverty. He goes ahead to conclude that overdependence on income as the only measure of well-being hides the whole truth regarding opportunities, which the American people and their children have. He advocates that informed public discourse on opportunities would certainly focus on wealth, measure of what people own as opposed to just income, which only provides a description of what people earn. According to the author, wealth is capable of providing information regarding financial and economic health of Americans, which certainly cannot be provided by income. For instance, families can be insulated against financial instability by wealth unlike income. Both job losses and economic downturns instantly impact on a family income, but for wealth households, job losses cannot ruin future opportunities or financial well-being.
Further, Dalton adds that wealth is an impetus for families to open up novel opportunities to the future generation since families have the propensity of leveraging their assets to finance post-elementary education. In this way, wealth bolsters economic stability of people while promoting financial and economic mobility for the future generations. However, Dalton states that a critical analysis of income and wealth reveals a murkier picture. Using the outcomes of a study of income dynamics, the author is alarmed that many families do not accumulate wealth, and save enough to pass to the next generations. Dalton observes that race is a huge factor on wealth and poverty, and for African Americans, family background has a big say on the individual’s wealth. However, this does not imply that they are extremely upward economically. To the contrary, they most often experience downward mobility with respect to wealth. Only a few individual from wealthy African American families tend to acquire a similar wealth position later in life.
Today’s picture of the wealth accumulation and its subsequent passage to the next generation seems gloomier. According to the author, there are numerous approaches that policymakers can embrace to improve opportunities, as well as boost individual with low wealth levels. The author recommends the use of implements, such as gift tax and estate tax, which can restrict the exaggerated effects that come with wealth accumulations without necessarily affecting the entire populace. Such tools should not be implemented just to punish inheritors or wealth accumulators, but primarily targeted at building wealth through rogue means that thwart the chances of others in acquiring and safeguarding wealth.
According to Dalton, the thoughts of individual responsibility and equal opportunity that dominates our culture seems to obscure the connections between wealth and poverty. Unlike Marx, who mainly majored on issues regarding poverty and exploitation of workers, Dalton analyzes the complex relationships between the wealthiest and the poorest in the context of American economy. He puts into perspective the contemporary and classic selections that make up theories regarding the origins of wealth, and it is mostly concentrated in the hands of a few. Rather than individual, just as Karl Marx, he deals with the wealth at a more systematic level. He further considers the question of why a number of individual, either by accident or based on their position in the economy, expect to have lesser or greater chances of being poor or rich.
Karl Marx, on the contrary, believes that casualty, unlike culture as Dalton believes, is the main determinant of individual’s wealth. He adds that the underlying technology determines the prevailing social structure, as well as the dominating culture. He writes that in the social production, men enter into relations that are independent and indispensable of their wills. Unlike Dalton, who believes that the economic position of an individual is based on culture, Marx is in favor of the idea that the economic position of the next generation cannot be solely be determined by the level of wealth that today’s generation saves. He believed that productive forces are the main determinants of wealth unlike culture and race. Dalton uses sibling differences to explain the American’s economic inequality. To counter the beliefs that order of birth predicts the role and success of a child in the family, it argues that it is parental time, family size, and attention that actually matters, as well as the amount of resource at the family’s disposal for the kid. In this regard, Conley concludes that culture can have the profound effect on future generations’ wealth. Spacing of births and family sizes are the huge factors in the determination of who advances to higher levels of the economic ladder.
