1

Module 3: Ideas Crafting and Presentation

Audience

As you write your paper (either a discussion post or a course paper),

keeping in mind the audience will help you mold a clearer argument or
provide more specific content in general. By audience we mean not only
people who will actually read your paper (customer, their peers, instructor,
professor), but the so-called hypothetical audience.

A hypothetical audience, or reader, defines what context you

should provide to make your argument/ideas understandable. Let’s
say, you are writing a paper in the healthcare field. Is it intended, according
to the instruction, for people working in the hospital, or those having no
relation to the healthcare sector? If you are writing for parents whose
children are sick you will assume the amount of knowledge they have is
not the same as healthcare professionals, and you would use simpler terms
and not get deep into complicated professional terminology. Similarly, if
you write a paper for other doctors as a primary audience, providing
unnecessary definitions for terms that they are assumed to definitely know
will make them feel rather patronized. So, the key is to find the right
balance of background knowledge, word choices, and tone that should be
provided depending on the intended audience.
 2

Keeping in mind the audience also means making sure that your
paper is a self-sufficient organism; that is, all of the necessary
information can be found within the borders of your paper.

Consider the first sentence of the essay: “In the video, Wang’s
actions reflect the theories of constructivism and multiple intelligences.”
As readers, we are immediately confused - what video, who is Wang, what
actions did they take, and in what context? What is the relevance of the
theories to those actions?

In this example, the writer is referring to a course video featuring Dr.

Wang and is assuming that all readers will understand it. The writer’s
professor and fellow students will, but the hypothetical reader will not. It
makes it an alienating way to start an essay. How can we make it a
welcoming one?

“Learning theories explain the ways students absorb information

and process it most effectively. Educators can use these theories to develop
their own teaching philosophies and practices. In the recorded classroom
observation video, Wang’s group activity reflects the theories of
constructivism and multiple intelligences.”

This revised version both widens the scope (by mentioning learning
theories in general) and guides the reader (by connecting the dots from
learning theories to the classroom observation video). We now expect the
writer to define constructivism and multiple intelligence theory and show
how the group activity illustrates those theories. By using specific
 3

examples from the activity, the author can make their point to all
readers—and not just those who have actually seen the video.

You should keep in mind the following questions as you start working
on your paper:
- Who is your audience (one audience or more than one)?
- Does your assignment itself give any clues about your audience?
- What does your audience need? What do they want? What do they
value? What is most important to them?
- What are they least likely to care about?
- What kind of organization would best help your audience understand
and appreciate your argument?
- What do you have to say (or what are you doing in your research)
that might surprise your audience?
- What do you want your audience to think, learn, or assume about
you? What impression do you want your writing or your research to
convey?
After answering all the questions you need to find the right balance of
background knowledge to be provided, as well as the choice of voice,
words, details, strengths of evidence, level of formality and etiquette,
and level of intimacy that should be achieved. Also, remember that we
never address the reader directly (with prepositions “you”, “your”), unless
the instruction directly requires that.
 4

Synthesis

Let's talk about synthesis as a tool imperative to constructing a proper

academic argument. Synthesis is taking ideas or pieces of evidence from
multiple sources and placing them into conversation with each other
within a text. This “conversation” involves comparing, contrasting,
adding to, refuting ideas etc. As you synthesize the information from
multiple sources, the key part is to come up with the claim or point that is
yours alone. And this claim should work to support your thesis statement.

The following two metaphors will explain your role as a writer in creating
a synthesis.

Metaphor 1. You are a lawyer and you are presenting a case before a jury.
Whether you are on the prosecution side or a defending side, you are going
to have the same general story or facts to work with, but you are trying to
convince your audience to take a particular side. And it is your job to
present all the pieces of evidence as a cohesive narrative that is going to
make sense for the jury (or, in fact, your reader). And you definitely do not
want them to connect the dots on their own or have questions to you
because they may misunderstand something.

So, in your writing you should synthesize pieces of information in a way

that would not leave space for the reader to ask questions such as “Wait,
how does that fit together?”, “Why are you contrasting unrelated things?”,
“How this idea is related to that one and how it all relates to the thesis
statement?”.Your pieces of evidence should not be just floating quotations
 5

that the reader should somehow put together themselves. This job should
be done by the writer.

Metaphor 2. All the points in your work are like the ingredients of a
recipe. And although they have different texture and essence and taste,
when mixed and cooked they should all taste good. In the end you should
achieve a particular savory or sweet taste. And if you add something that
does not belong it can affect the results in the most negative way. In the
end, you should feel the taste of a cake, not the taste of sugar, butter, milk
or any other ingredients separately.

So, you should make sure that all your pieces of evidence are matching
together, they are consistent with the thesis statement, with your audience,
and with your own claims.

Here are some few suggestions as to how to synthesize your ideas like a
pro.
- Avoid “floating” quotations and pieces of evidence. You are the one
who should connect them for the reader, leaving no space for
misunderstanding, ambiguity, or “and so what?” question.
- It often seems convenient to start with evidence. But your personal
statement (your voice) should always come first.
- Use transitionals wisely as a tool for connecting ideas, not “for the
sake of using transitionals”. Properly used traditional words are
invisible rather than standing out. The reader should notice ideas and
their connections, not transitionals.
- Any synthesis of ideas should lead to a statement, observation of
your own.
 6

Quality of argumentation
From your writing experience, you already know how to build an argument by
supporting your thesis with evidence, but being a Pro writer assumes that you
can initiate a discussion and shape your arguments as a response to what others
have to say on the subject. Therefore, the goal is not only to provide believable
evidence that proves the argued point but to actually shape the argument in a
way where your own claims stand out as prominently as those of the cited
authors. For that to happen, you need to “enter” the scholarly conversation
instead of reporting what others have to say. Also, you should use what others
say as a backdrop for a deeper discussion of your own views.

Here are basic recommendation for building your argument:

● start your argumentation with your own voice that sounds clear and
convincing;
● offer some evidence from sources afterward while clearly articulating
where the evidence starts and ends;
● wrap it up with the “conversation,” where you discuss or analyze the
evidence with your own claims and ideas.
● your claim should not be floating in a vacuum, but it should have its
place in the existing discourse; you should draw a clear line between
your ideas and cited ones.
● the way you cite other sources in your argumentation matters as you
have to differentiate your voice from the source’s.

Mistake 1:
"In my capstone research, I will utilize a qualitative research method
(Cresswell, 2017)"

This kind of citing is totally confusing for the reader, as it sounds as if

Cresswell cited a student's research, which is not the case. What the writer
 7

actually meant here is that they will utilize a qualitative research method,
as described by Cresswell.

Correct:
“In this research, a qualitative research method, as described by Cresswell
(2017), will be utilized”.

Mistake 2:
“Furthermore, it was revealed that accepting medication errors as
inevitable within the healthcare context could be beneficial because it
encourages nurses to report rather than hide errors, thereby aggravating
the problem and endangering the lives of more patients, which proves the
point that medical errors are inescapable and, thus, criminalization could
cause even more harm.”

This kind of engaging in a conversation with a source is incorrect because

it not only completely avoids citing the source of information but also
results in the borrowed information and the writer’s thesis being merged
together. It is mandatory to make it clear to the reader what ideas are yours
and what comes from a source. Moreover, it often happens when it is not
evident to the reader whether it is a continuation of a paraphrase from a
cited source, or if it is already the writer's comments.

Correct:
“Furthermore, one of the most recent researches on nurses and patient
safety by Good (2022) revealed that accepting medication errors as
inevitable within the healthcare context could be beneficial because it
 8

encourages nurses to report rather than hide errors. Therefore, it proves

the point that medical errors are inescapable and, thus, criminalization
could cause even more harm, only aggravating the problem and
endangering the lives of more patients.”

Mistake 3:
“Huang (2017) observes that people spend approximately eight years of
their lives on the internet while ingesting information from the media posts
they read or the videos they watch unconsciously. By using social media
campaigns that target specific age groups across various platforms,
marketing campaigns prove to be exceptionally cost-effective in driving
traffic to the websites.”
This kind of citing is confusing because the writer does not differentiate
the borrowed idea from their own analysis. Use signal phrases that would
not only help you draw the line between your own voice and the source’s
but also help you turn this into a conversation rather than a narration of
facts.

Correct:
“Huang (2017) observes that people spend approximately eight years of
their lives on the internet while unconsciously ingesting information from
the media posts they read or the videos they watch. The idea proves the
assumption that social media campaigns targeting specific age groups
across various platforms could be exceptionally cost-effective in driving
website traffic.”
 9

Use of evidence

At this point, it is safe to mention some types of evidence that you

can engage in conversation with. Every source you use has to work for you
and your paper by backing up the points you make in it effectively.
Different types of evidence serve different purposes and, therefore, can and
should be integrated into the text differently.

Statistical type of evidence is the most common one at the Pro

level, as it offers reputable and non-biased information that can serve as
both the reason for the academic conversation and the supporting evidence
for the arguments you shape while discussing a subject.

Statistics convey information in the form of numbers or, simply

saying, data. Be it the percentage of the British population supporting
Brexit in 2022 as compared to 2020 or the percentage of gun owners in the
US as compared to the EU - all these data speak volumes when presented
appropriately. Statistics provide your argument with a firm foundation but
only when used correctly; otherwise, you can end up sounding speculative
and vague.

How to use the Statistical Evidence effectively:

● Mention the source of the data: never give a nonspecific source for
statistics (e.g.: “It was revealed…”, “Research shows….”). Be sure to
mention who revealed the data and where it was published to provide
credibility to your evidence and enhance your argument.
 10

● Qualify the source: you can mention the author/s names and the data
their research has revealed, but how can the reader know they can be
trusted? Mention the qualification of the author/s of the research, the
breadth of the study, its time frame, its goal, etc.
● Summarize the research briefly: try to mention the goal and key
findings of the research to emphasize its value within the research field.
● Draw your conclusions: do not just mention the data but explain its
meaning and relevance by integrating it into the paper. Use some other
data to compare and draw conclusions - do not leave your evidence
isolated and unexplained.
Example:

The slower traffic speeds necessitated by traffic

circles also reduce the number and severity of
accidents. In an article from the journal Planning, Source of data
titled “Let’s Go Round and Round: An Idea That’s
Worth Copying,” Georges Jacquemart describes a Breadth of the
study of 181 recently built roundabouts in the study
Netherlands. Some of these roundabouts were built at
previously uncontrolled intersections, while others Summary of the
replaced traffic signs or traffic lights. Results of the research
study showed a fifty-one percent reduction in total
accidents and a seventy-two percent reduction in
injury-causing accidents (Jacquemart 18). Because
traffic circles force motorists to slow down and pay Conclusion
attention, they lead to safer intersections.
 11

Testimonial type evidence is another type of evidence that can be

helpful in shaping an effective argument. The evidence is collected from a
person or an organization with credentials (such as educational degrees,
publication credits, and work experience) that demonstrate his or her
expertise in the topic discussed. When using testimonial evidence, it is
especially important to ensure the authority you quote is not biased.

You know how to use the evidence now, but how to make sure that it
is credible, especially when the source is not a printed one but a web
source? Ensure to ask correct questions before including an article or a
book in your list of literature.

Criteria Questions to ask

Author Who do people delivering the information work for? What

do they do for a living? What other articles have they
written, and for what publications?

Viewpoints Is the person addressing opposing views, or is it a one-sided

argument?

Title of the Does the title indicate bias?

Work “US Foreign Policy: The Same Old Stuff” - the tone implies
the article will be heading in a certain direction.
“US Foreign Policy: Effective or Not?” - the neutral title
indicates that the article will probably explore both sides of
the issue.

Date of When was the source created/last updated? Is it still relevant

publication: to the issue?
 12

Here are also questions to keep in mind to identify a biased study:

- What facts has the author omitted?
- What additional information is necessary?
- What words create positive or negative impressions?
- What impression would I have if different words were used?

Besides, consider some indicators of bias on a web page:

- The language of the document is often extreme; statements have
all-or-nothing connotations.
- The argument appeals more to emotions than to logic.
- Things are worded with the intent to oversimplify or overgeneralize.
- The author wishes to present a limited view of the topic.

Crafting a strong argument, identifying credible sources, understanding

different kinds of evidence and being able to take the most out of them are
basic skills of a Pro writer. Being more conscious in the aspects discussed
above will be a good start for you.