Compare at multiple levels
Writers can agree on a problem while disagreeing about cause, funding, timing, or remedy. Build rows for goal, diagnosis, evidence, proposed action, safeguard, and concession. Compare within the same row. A shared desire for access does not prove agreement on membership fees; a shared concern about cost does not imply the same budget decision. This layered comparison protects nuance and makes precise synthesis possible.
- Situation
- Two residents want public water access. One supports a permanent pilot; the other supports temporary event equipment first.
- In practice
- Shared goal: convenient water. Shared method principle: gather use data. Policy difference: permanent infrastructure now versus temporary trial before commitment.
- Why it works
- Agreement changes depending on whether the question asks about goal, evidence, or action.
Try this
- Create matching rows for both writers.
- Compare claims at the same level of abstraction.
- State agreement and difference in separate sentences.
Infer assumptions cautiously
An assumption is an unstated idea needed for the argument to work. Identify it by asking what must be true for the writer's reason to support the recommendation. Keep assumptions close to the text and distinguish them from biography or motive. Tone emerges from word choice, treatment of alternatives, and certainty. A writer can be firm yet fair when acknowledging a benefit before rejecting the policy on a stated criterion.
- Situation
- A writer prefers public funding because shared tools benefit people beyond individual borrowers.
- In practice
- Text-grounded assumption: neighbourhood funds should support services with broad spillover benefits. Unsupported motive: the writer dislikes all membership organizations.
- Why it works
- The first is required by the argument; the second invents a personal attitude.
Try this
- Complete the sentence ‘This reason supports the claim if…’
- Check whether the assumption is necessary and text-compatible.
- Use concessions and certainty markers to describe tone.
Tactics to keep
- Compare goal, diagnosis, action, and safeguard separately.
- Use precise verbs such as concedes, qualifies, challenges, and prioritizes.
- Test assumptions with an if statement.
- Describe tone with evidence rather than personality labels.
Common pitfalls
- Merging writers because they value the same broad outcome.
- Treating a concession as abandonment of the main claim.
- Inventing motives that the argument does not require.
Practice prompts
Prompt 1
Use two original opinion texts about one community decision.
Build a six-row comparison and write one sentence of agreement plus one of policy difference.
Check yourself
- Rows compare like with like.
- Agreement is not overstated.
- The action difference is explicit.
Prompt 2
Choose one reason from each writer.
State the minimum assumption and describe tone using two textual cues.
Check yourself
- Assumptions are necessary.
- No biography is invented.
- Tone evidence is quoted or paraphrased.
