The Two Graphs That Disagree
A student reads two short texts about urban trees. Text A says: "City trees cut summer cooling costs by up to 30% and absorb stormwater, so every neighborhood should plant more." Text B says: "Tree planting programs often fail because saplings die within three years without watering budgets; cities that funded maintenance saw survival rates above 80%, while unfunded programs dropped below 40%." The student writes: "The texts disagree, so one must be wrong. Text A is more positive, so I will trust it." The teacher wants the student to see that the texts can both be accurate and to practice synthesizing rather than choosing a side.
1. Explain why the two texts are not actually contradictory, using details from each.
Read the worked answer
They address different questions. Text A describes the benefit of mature trees (cooling, stormwater). Text B describes the condition for getting those benefits: saplings must survive, which depends on maintenance funding. Both can be true: trees do provide up to 30% cooling savings, and planting programs without watering budgets do fail. The student's error is treating "different emphasis" as "contradiction." A contradiction would require the texts to make incompatible claims about the same thing - e.g., if B said trees provide no cooling. It does not. Recognizing that A states value and B states a precondition is the synthesis move the assignment targets.
2. Write a one-sentence synthesis and explain what makes it stronger than picking a side.
Read the worked answer
Model: "Urban trees deliver substantial cooling and stormwater benefits, but those benefits materialize only when cities pair planting with funded maintenance, since saplings without watering budgets often die." Why stronger: it preserves the valid claim from each text and shows their relationship (benefit + condition) instead of discarding one. Picking a side based on tone ("more positive") is a reasoning flaw - tone is not evidence of accuracy. A synthesis also gives a reader actionable information: plant trees AND budget for care. The original response would lead a reader to ignore a real risk, which is the practical cost of false either/or thinking.