Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part II: synthesizing
A three to four page critical thinking essay synthesising the prewriting from Part I: stating a position on a ProCon.org issue, giving three supporting premises with reasons for their selection, answering the believing questions about three opposing premises, examining two biases you experienced, and discussing the effect of your own enculturation on those biases.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
Two subjects at once: the issue and yourself
The subtitle names the task better than the title does. This is the synthesising half of a two-part assignment, and synthesis means the essay has to show a position that has been through something rather than a position held from the start. Part I gathered premises from ProCon.org and put you through prewriting; Part II turns that raw material into an argument that also reports honestly on its own formation. The structural consequence is that this essay has two subjects running at once, the issue and you, and the marks are distributed across both. An essay that argues the issue brilliantly and never examines its own biases has answered half the assignment. So has one that reflects extensively on bias and never states a defensible position. Number your sections to match the six required items if that helps, because the grading follows those items and a beautifully integrated essay that buries item four is easy to under-credit.
The word that carries the most weight is the believing questions in item three, and it comes from a specific method rather than being a general instruction to be fair. The believing game asks you to inhabit an opposing premise and look for what is true in it, deliberately suspending the search for its weaknesses, before any doubting begins. Applied here it means taking each of the three opposing premises from ProCon.org and asking what a reasonable person would have to value, or have experienced, for that premise to seem obviously correct. That is a different exercise from refuting it, and an essay that answers this item with three rebuttals has demonstrated exactly the habit the assignment is trying to interrupt. Report what you found, including anything that made you less certain, since finding nothing is usually a sign the exercise was not really performed.
Item two asks for three premises supporting your position and, crucially, why you selected these specific reasons. The selection rationale is a separate claim and it is the part most often left out. Say what made each premise strong: that it rests on evidence rather than on principle, that it survives the most common objection, that it addresses the consideration you find most important, or that it comes from a source likely to persuade someone who disagrees with you. That last criterion is worth using at least once, because it demonstrates awareness of audience. Choosing three premises that all restate one idea is the other common weakness here, so check that your three would still support the position if any one of them were shown to be wrong. Checking that is a two-minute test and it catches the weakest version of this section before a marker does. Where two premises overlap, replace one rather than reword it.
The bias section is item four and it is written in the past tense for a reason: it asks which biases you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises, not which biases exist. Confirmation bias is the obvious candidate and it is worth naming precisely — noticing that you read the supporting premises quickly and the opposing ones sceptically, or that you searched for a rebuttal before finishing the argument. The others worth considering are anchoring on the first position you encountered, availability from a personal or recent experience, in-group bias where the position is held by people you identify with, and belief perseverance where the earlier prewriting position survived evidence against it. Two are required. Give each a definition and then an instance from your own process, because a definition without an instance is a glossary entry. The instruction says likely experienced, which gives you permission to be provisional; it does not give permission to be silent about your own process.
Item five, enculturation and group identification, is the item most likely to become vague. It asks for the effect of the specific groups you belong to on the specific biases you just named, so the two sections have to connect. Family, region, religious tradition, generation, profession, political affiliation and economic position all shape which premises feel self-evident, and the useful move is to trace one line rather than list all of them. That question is uncomfortable, which is the point of the item, and an honest uncertainty scores better than a confident claim to have transcended your background. Tracing one line properly also gives the essay a place to end. If your position tracks the consensus of a group you belong to, the interesting question is what evidence would let you tell expertise from conformity. Naming the group, the belief it makes easy, and the evidence that would separate expertise from conformity is enough to carry the item.
On execution, the essay runs three to four pages, so each item gets roughly half a page and there is no room for a long introduction restating the assignment. Keep ProCon.org as the source for the premises since the prompt requires it, and cite it properly rather than treating a website as common knowledge. Watch the tense and voice: first person is required for the bias and enculturation items and inappropriate for the statement of premises, which should stand as claims. Finally, do not resolve the essay by declaring your original position confirmed and strengthened. The assignment rewards a position that has moved, narrowed, or become better qualified, and the strongest conclusions state what would change your mind. A conclusion that names its own conditions is the clearest evidence that the synthesis actually happened. Say what evidence would move you, and name it specifically enough that someone could go and look for it.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01State a position and defend the selection of its supporting premises.
- 02Apply the believing game to opposing premises without refuting them.
- 03Name specific biases and evidence them from your own process.
- 04Trace one line from group identification to a named bias.
- 05Write a conclusion that states what would change your mind.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument. Conflicting Viewpoints Essay ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A three to four page paper synthesising the Part I prewriting.
- 02A statement of your position on the topic selected for Assignment 1.1.
- 03Three premises from ProCon.org supporting your position, with reasons for selecting each.
- 04Answers to the believing questions about three opposing premises from ProCon.org.
- 05Examination of at least two types of bias you likely experienced.
- 06Discussion of the effect of your own enculturation or group identification on those biases.
- 07Proper citation of ProCon.org and any other sources used.
Position, premises, believing, biases, enculturation
Position
State the claim precisely, with the qualifications it needs.
Premise one and its selection
The premise, and the criterion that made you choose it.
Premises two and three
Two further premises that do independent work.
The believing exercise
What a reasonable person would have to value for each opposing premise to seem correct.
Where you moved
Any point at which the opposing premises reduced your certainty.
Two biases
Named and defined, each with an instance from your own evaluation process.
Enculturation and conclusion
One traced line from group identity to a named bias, then what would change your mind.
Working the ProCon.org premises properly
Recommended databases
- ProCon.org
- Course webtext chapter on biases
- Academic Search Complete
- Purdue OWL for APA formatting
Search sequence
- 1.Return to the ProCon.org page for your topic and record the exact premises rather than paraphrasing from memory.
- 2.Re-read the webtext chapter on biases so the two you name are ones the course defined.
- 3.Read a short account of the believing and doubting game so the method is applied as intended.
- 4.Check whether any premise you selected relies on a statistic, and find its original source.
- 5.Note the strongest opposing premise separately, since it needs the most careful treatment.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Implicit Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
A working definition of implicit bias and its mechanisms, for the section requiring biases to be named and defined.
- 02
Study Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Types of bias in evidence gathering, useful when the premises you selected rest on research findings.
- 03
APA Formatting and Style Guide
Purdue Online Writing Lab · 2025
Citation format for the ProCon.org pages and any sources behind the premises.
- 04
Overcoming Stigma and Bias in Obesity Management
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
A worked example of enculturation shaping judgement about an issue, useful as a model for the final item.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Arguing the issue well and never examining your own reasoning.
- Answering the believing questions with three rebuttals.
- Listing three premises without saying why those three were chosen.
- Choosing three premises that are one idea restated.
- Defining biases in general rather than reporting instances from your process.
- Writing about enculturation without connecting it to the biases already named.
- Concluding that your original position has been confirmed.
Submission checklist
- All six required items are present and findable.
- The position is stated as a claim, not as a preference.
- Each supporting premise carries a stated reason for its selection.
- The three premises would survive the loss of any one of them.
- The believing section reports what is true in each opposing premise.
- At least one opposing premise is acknowledged to have moved you.
- Two biases are named, defined, and instanced from your own reading.
- Enculturation is traced to a specific named bias.
- ProCon.org is cited properly.
- The conclusion states what evidence would change your position.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.