synthesis essay meaning of life

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Open a textbook in biology and you’ll find a purported definition of life, usually in the form of a list of characteristics that apply to organisms, their parts, their interactions, or their history. Often these definitions will be nothing more than descriptions or rely on more controversial theoretical commitments.

Like many basic concepts, it is difficult to non-controversially define life. Most people simply avoid the issue by ignoring marginal cases, accepting the vagueness of the boundary cases, or setting aside the whole issue as beyond their scope. Nonetheless, there are many people whose work seems to require a rigorous demarcation of life, especially in new scientific contexts, such as astrobiology, origins of life, or synthetic biology. As such, the nature of life continues to be a hotly debated topic.

This article focuses on the subject matter of biology: life. The first half of this article will focus on attempts to characterize life by both philosophers and scientists. The first section will describe alternative accounts of definitions, its two subsections will cover historical and contemporary definitions, and section 2 covers the recent countertrend in skepticism toward definitions of life. Because the various stakeholders have different goals, the second half will focus on those goals. Sections 3, 4, and 5 cover topics that some believe require a definition of life: artificial and synthetic life, the origin(s) of life, and the search for life in the Universe. Section 6 covers entities that are much larger or smaller than organisms, while section 7 covers the role life takes in the context of society, especially with respect to questions raised by new technology.

1.1 Definitions of Life from Antiquity to Darwin

1.2 contemporary definitions of life, 2. definitional skepticism, 3. artificial and synthetic life, 4. origin(s) of life, 5. search for life, 6. the macro and the micro perspectives, 7. ethics, law, and politics, 8. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. definition(s).

Few things in biology have been more extensively discussed than the definition of life. It is frustrating so little progress has been made on the topic in the face of so much research, theory, and debate. There are many reasons for this failure: disagreements about how abstract or specific definitions should be, different commitments as to what ought to be included in a definition, and even disagreement about the nature of definitions themselves. This section covers the nature and role of definitions. Each of these has been used in approaching the question of life.

Historically, when philosophers and scientists define a concept, the aim is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions. These theoretical definitions (also called real , ideal or philosophical definitions) are often impractical or fragile as they can be challenged with a single imagined counterexample. A classic case is the definition of “bachelors” as “unmarried males.” It is trivial to find examples that fit this definition without intuitively being bachelors: male dogs, baby boys, widowers, etc. Similarly, for any definition of life, one can either show living cases that are left out of the definition or non-living cases that are included by it. Life is organized, but so are geological formations. Life processes energy, but so does fire. Life evolves using complex biochemistry, but so do prions. Life is self-sustaining, but parasites are not. Life is at thermodynamic disequilibrium, but so is much else. As we’ll see shortly, perhaps theoretical definitions are too rigid a standard. The real world is far too complex for limited criteria to decide every marginal case.

Non-philosophers are typically quite frustrated by the back-and-forth that results from theoretical definitions. To that end, some favor operational (or working ) definitions, ones that work in practice to narrow down the range of phenomena under consideration. This approach is often not considered a kind of definition by philosophers (see Gupta 2021). Operational definitions tend to be philosophically shallow. For example, NASA’s operational definition of life as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” (Joyce 1994) might include viruses while excluding mules. The lack of depth of an operational definition can frustrate theoretically minded people, including other scientists.

There are several other conceptions of definition, as well. The nominal (also lexicographer or dictionary ) definition is determined by analyzing usage. It will not work for cutting edge or controversial issues because such definitions follow the slow process of cultural acceptance rather than provide guidance to researchers at the forefront of these debates. Scholars are more likely to quote a dictionary definition than be illuminated by one.

There are also demonstrative or ostensive definitions, which are concepts we can convey by mere shared observations: “that is red” while pointing at a red object, for instance. Potter Stewart famously defined pornography in this manner by saying “I know it when I see it” (Stewart 1964). Knowledge by ostension may reflect epistemic access to a natural kind, although this may feel indistinguishable from an internalized cultural category. There is huge variation among what scientists consider ‘life,’ even among objects on Earth, like viruses and prions, which suggests this kind of definition is not viable for this target.

Then there are stipulative definitions, which are terms introduced and defined by fiat. A circle in Euclidean geometry can be defined as a round plane figure whose boundary consists of infinite points equidistant to a single other point. There are no possible counterexamples to this definition, given the axioms of Euclidean geometry. This approach provides little refuge in the real world. Consider an attempt to define swans as “white birds with long necks.” By stipulation, storks, great egrets, and many cranes would be swans, while Australia’s black swans would not. Such a quick and dirty definition seems to define the category out of hand and perhaps only works within accepted axioms or theories. Life could be stipulated as “carbon-based reproducing entities,” which would rule out silicon-based life by fiat. Such a definition merely pushes the debate to the scenarios in which the stipulated definition goes against intuitive notions.

The 20th century saw some steps away from definitions toward alternative views of concepts, notably prototypes , exemplars , and theories (Machery 2009). Prototype concepts are abstract features shared by most, but not all members of a category (Rosch & Mervis 1975; Rosch 1978; Hampton 1979, 2006; Smith 2002). The definitions of life in biology textbooks might be charitably understood as prototype concepts. So, too, are the property cluster natural kinds popular in philosophy of biology (Boyd 1991, 1999, 2010; Diguez 2013; Slater 2015). Exemplars are concepts built around similarity to a particular individual case (Medin & Schaffer 1978, Nosofsky 1986). Both prototypes and exemplar concepts rely on similarity to paradigmatic cases, with the former being an imagined ideal and the latter being a real instance (Komatsu 1992). For similarity-based concepts to work in scientific cases such as life, we need an account of which similarities matter, how much, and why. In contrast to similarity-based concepts, the requirements of theory concepts are somewhat more nebulous. Theory concepts are modeled on scientific theories and thus reflect their diversity (Carey 1985, Murphy & Medin 1985, Gopnik & Meltzoff 1997). At the core, theory concepts rely on explanations for why the members of a category share certain properties. Marginal cases of life, such as viruses, prions, or protocells, might be included in some theories of life but not others.

In sum, there are many potential approaches to definitions, each with different benefits, drawbacks, and standards of success. Much more could be said about these and other possible approaches, but this will suffice for our purposes. Some of the disagreements about defining life dissolve upon clarifying which type of definition or concept is being used. Many of the explicit attempts to define life have focused on either operational and philosophical definitions, while often not acknowledging or misunderstanding the distinction between these. One will note these two definitions are at cross-purposes – operational definitions can be quick and dirty, but philosophical definitions seek to give necessary and sufficient conditions. Less work has been done on life as a non-definitional concept, although that is perhaps changing.

This subsection briefly explores historical definitions of life. There are more in depth treatments of the matter, to which an interested reader should turn (Bedau & Cleland 2010, Riskin 2015, Mix 2018). Approaches to this issue vary widely across historians, philosophers, and scientists, so some skepticism about any individual author’s approach to the topic is warranted.

We begin with the Greeks. In several dialogues, notably the Phaedrus , Timeaus , and Republic , Plato divided life into three parts: vegetable life, animal life, and rational life. All living creatures possessed the first in the form of nutrition and reproduction, animals were additionally capable of sensation and locomotion, and humans also had rational souls. Plato’s subsequent influence in Christian theology may be apparent in spirit if not in detail. In Christian theology, human life was not only rational, but also involved an eternal, spiritual soul and an internal, conscious life.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, had a different notion in which living things had an appropriate form, material, and goal-directedness ( De Anima , 412a1–416b). Aristotle held life to be a form of self-motion, perpetuation, or self-alteration (Byers 2006). For Aristotle, the capacity to resist internal and external perturbations was the essential distinction between living beings and non-living objects. Other features were accidental. This quest for demarcating the essential from the accidental for life has persisted to this day in searches for theoretical definitions of life as well as in attacks against those not interested in such definitions.

Centuries later, Descartes drew a sharper distinction between animal life and rational life than between inanimate objects and animal life. This was a turn away from medieval approaches, which had taken the gap between vegetables and animals to be broader. For Descartes, animals are analogous to complex clocks and lack the inner or spiritual life central to the human experience (Descartes 2010/1664). As such, Descartes’ category of life neither mapped onto Greek conceptions nor current conceptual frameworks. The mechanistic view developed by Descartes and his followers is often thought to be continuous with current scientific thinking, but this is perhaps anachronistic, as much of the theoretical underpinning separating animal life and rational life is no longer accepted.

The responses to Descartes came to be grouped under the heading ‘vitalism.’ Vitalism, which spanned three centuries, was a heterogenous philosophical position unified by adherents’ doubt of a fully mechanistic view of life. Vitalists had ontologies of defining features of life as varied as immaterial causes, particular arrangements of matter, a special life fluid, a particular end goal, or even mental forces. A whiggish history of biology will declare the death of vitalism with Friedrich Wöhler’s synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate. The suggestion is that if biological chemicals can be produced from mere chemistry, then biology is also mere chemistry. Although this was an important step, many chemists already had accepted a mechanistic world view, and many other researchers continued to develop vitalist theories well into the 20th century (Bergson 1959, Driesch 1905/1914).

The 20th century largely saw the mechanist/vitalist divide dissipate. Despite the difficulties described above about definitions, hundreds of scientists, philosophers, and others have tried their hand at defining life. Much of the interest is motivated by new science and new technologies – including artificial life, synthetic biology, origins of life, and astrobiology – which complicate the issue by violating some of the traditional groupings of properties associated with life. There are numerous books, articles, and workshops on the nature of life (Pályi et al. 2002, Popa 2004, Bedau & Cleland 2010).

Table 1. Some recent attempts at meta-categories for life definitions. Each column is one account’s categories, the rows are lined up according to rough similarity.

There are perhaps thousands of competing definitions proposed across hundreds of articles. A true survey of that variety would be beyond the scope of this article and beyond your patience as a reader. Nevertheless, some broad categories have been proposed that might offer some insight into current contending definitions. Table 1 summarizes three of the most rigorous attempts this century to categorize definitions of life.

Each of these authors used different approaches to arrive at their categories. Popa 2004 and Trifonov 2011 attempted to reverse engineer the categories from dozens of definitions collected from many dozens of experts, while Malaterre and Chartier 2019 conducted a more extensive, text-mining approach across 30,000 scientific articles selected from journals that published pieces in biology. As one can see, there are areas of rough overlap, but each categorization scheme has its own unique categories as well.

Most of the definitions considered by these authors straddle some of these distinctions and are often ambiguous as to whether they are intended to be theoretical definitions, operational definitions, or something else. For example, Popa 2004 considers definitions ranging from Oparin 1961’s “Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive” to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2002:

We propose to define living systems as those that are: (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings; (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states; and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

Categorizing definitions such as these necessarily requires some choices and reasonable people can disagree about whether each belongs in one or more categories.

The takeaway from current understandings of the definition of life is that there is no consensus forthcoming in the near future. One concern is that these are summaries of attempts to define a category for which there is only loose agreement. Many scientists disagree as to the phenomena a definition of life is intended to unify. Some scientists would include prions, viruses, and entities only hypothesized to exist in the origin of life, while others would completely reject them. Some might accept digital organisms as alive, others would deny this approach. Conceptual equivocation could have significant costs for research. One field recently quantified this cost, suggesting it is more than a merely theoretical concern (Trombley and Cottenie 2019). Given the diversity described above, one may be tempted to adopt a definitional pluralism : there are many ways to be alive. For some reason, that approach is not common in the literature.

Nearly everybody agrees there is a distinction between life and non-life, typically understood as a difference in kind rather than one of degree. Furthermore, most people involved accept that life is some sort of natural kind, rather than a human psychological concept. That said, a common theme in recent philosophical work has been to express skepticism of life definitions as a goal. The literature on the definition of life is vast, repetitive, and utterly inconclusive. Philosophers have disagreed as to the ultimate source of the lack of consensus, citing unstated assumptions in either the definer’s approach or the question itself. Note that many scientists are less likely to be skeptical of the goal of defining life, though also more resistant to engaging in the philosophical debate.

One skeptical view has arisen from the observation that theoretical definitions of life presume a theory of life (Cleland and Chyba 2002, Benner 2010, Cleland 2019). Although it is not obvious that the authors allude to the theory-theory of concepts, described in section 1, a common analogy is to early chemical theory. According to this analogy, early alchemists likened the alchemists’ Aqua regia (“royal water”) and Aqua fortis (“strong water”). Development of atomic theory revealed, Cleland argues, that the true nature of water was H 2 O, while the other ‘waters’ were HNO 3 + 3 HCl and HNO 3 , respectively. Cleland advocates avoiding definitions altogether, fearing they will blind us to new instances of life, and instead opts for tentative criteria, which she believes avoid the implicit dogma of even operational definitions.

Other authors have pointed out that the explanandum of life is itself up for debate (Tsokolov 2009, Mix 2020, Parke 2020). According to Emily Parke, some accept life as applying to individuals, whereas other definitions apply to collectives first (including entire planets) and individuals derivatively. Relatedly, most believe life is some kind of entity rather than some kind of relation or process (but see Nicholson and Dupré 2018). Parke also points out that some definitions seek a material basis, perhaps limiting life’s substrate to the biochemistry we know on Earth, while others are functional. Sagan famously worried about biochemical definitions because they were prone to ‘Earth Chauvinism’ for privileging our own biochemistry (1970). Other authors take our biochemistry to be independently justified as universal (Pace 2001, Benner et al. 2004, but see Bains 2004). Finally, Parke distinguishes between those that seek clean boundaries and those that accept the possibility of a continuum of ‘lifelikeness.’

Other authors have advocated a kind of quietism about definitions, maintaining that folk concepts need not match up with scientific ones (Machery 2011), any definitions would not change scientific practice (Szostak 2012), advocated a radical conceptual rethinking (Mariscal & Doolittle 2020), or denied the distinction between life & non-life entirely (Jabr 2013).

This last position of eliminativism could be expanded as it helps illustrate all other life skeptical positions. Cowie 2009 classifies eliminativist goals as either linguistic or ontological. Ontological eliminativists don’t believe the objects they are eliminating truly exist. We’re all eliminativists about something, perhaps ghosts or fairies. Linguistic/conceptual eliminativists, on the other hand are merely suspicious of theoretical terms or concepts, what Ramsey 2020 calls ‘category dissolution’ or ‘conceptual fragmentation.’ In essence, it’s not that there aren’t living things, it’s just that the category life is heterogeneous rather than a natural kind. According to Cowie, one can deny that anything matching our theoretical definition of life actually exists in the world while still accepting it as a useful fiction. Conversely, one may think scientific theories about life are fruitless or that the term is too vague and confused to be useful, without doubting life exists. If we accept any of these alternatives, we should perhaps avoid ever using the term ‘life’ in isolation and instead reference Metabolic Life and Evolutionary Life and all the other conceptions.

At play in these various forms of skepticism are several underlying assumptions. Among other disagreements, researchers disagree about what life is, whether it is a natural kind with an essence or a human construct; they disagree as to the purpose of defining life, especially if it will not change scientific practice; and they disagree as to the features of life that are relevant and the ones that are mere consequences. When researchers hold unstated assumptions such as these, they are liable to mistake the source of their disagreement.

The rest of this article will focus on uses of the various life concepts. Some of the definitions described above are derived from, or necessary for, specific scientific and societal purposes. This section focuses on artificial and synthetic life.

In principle, most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe life can be created, but there is broad disagreement as to what needs to be recreated for something to be life. In functional approaches, mere formal organization sufficiently similar to organisms may be enough. Complexly configured robots (“hardware”) or computer programs (“software”) might qualify. This view is known as Strong Artificial Life (A-Life for short) and has received much of the same pushback as the Strong Artificial Intelligence approach before it (Sober 1991, Boden 1999, Brooks 2001). Those who reject the Strong A-Life view believe that functional approaches miss some of the essential features of biology for either epistemic or ontological reasons. Epistemic objections might be consistent with the possibility of Strong A-Life, but doubt that we have the knowledge to recreate the relevant biological functions in a digital framework. Conversely, most of the objections to Strong A-Life have been ontological, resting on the view that representations cannot be equivalent to that which they represent and that perhaps life requires chemical embodiment, ruling Strong A-Life impossible by fiat.

Weak A-Life approaches, on the other hand, don’t presume the ontological equivalence of structurally similar circuits and cells. Instead, proponents suggest the more modest goal of developing a deeper understanding of life as we know it by exploring the effects of various parameters in simulations, effectively placing life in a broader context of possible biology (Langton 1989, 1995). For example, in the Terra program, software was pitted against other software for processing power (Ray 1993). Unexpected by the researchers at the time, software parasitism evolved: software would co-opt the reproductive processing of other software. Policing mechanisms also evolved, leading to an arms race between free-riders and the software trying to stop them.

Whether one accepts the strong or weak interpretation of A-Life, these in silico approaches are cheaper than equivalent work done in real organisms. They also offer possibilities that are not available in ordinary biology, such as programming alternative parameters to take the place of laws of nature and exploring relationships across deep time and space quickly and efficiently.

Another approach worth highlighting is that of synthetic life (“wetware”). Less conceptually troubled, synthetic life can also address some questions of A-Life, while allowing for a finer grain of realism. Synthetic life approaches have explored creating self-replication (Lincoln & Joyce 2009), minimal genomes (Koonin 2000, Hutchinson et al. 2016), a chemical evolution (Gromski et al. 2020), and other projects. Not all synthetic biology is in the business of investigating life as it could be, as not all computer programming is A-Life. Nevertheless, the tools developed by both can be illuminating. By exploring possibilities, scientists can discover previously hidden relationships, revealing which aspects of life are more or less plausible than expected.

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.

Darwin was famously silent about the problem, although in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker, Darwin confided that he imagined life originating in “some warm little pond” (see Other Internet Resources below; and Peretó et al. 2009). Subsequent work on the subject was sparse until the 1920s when Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane independently proposed hypotheses for life’s origin in then plausible early Earth conditions (Haldane 1929; Oparin 2010/1936). As a graduate student in the 1950s, Stanley Miller tested the proposal, discovering dozens of amino acids in the mixture (1953). Since then, the field of origins-of-life studies has expanded dramatically.

Our earliest reliable records of this planet, some 3.5 billion years ago, contain distinctive evidence of microbial fossils, including distinctive shapes that correlate to the sizes and shapes of current prokaryotes, as well as carbon-ratios distinctive to life as we know it (Schopf 1993, Schopf et al. 2017). Many analyses have pushed our confidence in life’s earlier origin significantly further back, suggesting that basically as soon as Earth was not molten, it was filled with life (Pearce et al. 2018, Lineweaver 2020). How life started and why it started so quickly remains one of the most pressing open questions in science.

There are many open philosophical issues in origins of life research. Several of these are centered around the explanandum in question and epistemological limits to our knowledge. Researchers differ, for example, as to whether the purpose of origins-of-life research is to discover how life could have originated or how it did originate (Scharf et al. 2015, Mariscal et al. 2019). Some steps in the process could have been chancy, others could have been deterministic but highly contingent, still others could have been the only way life ever originates anywhere in the Universe.

There are several broad approaches to investigating the origin of life. “Bottom-Up” approaches begin with pre-biotic chemistry and explore how it could withstand stressors in order for lifelike entities to form and evolve. At present, there are many unsolved problems, most notably that most energetically favorable interactions would consume the proto-life forms involved. Scientists have cleverly attempted to ease the problem by relaxing assumptions: perhaps the environment provided our first boundaries (Koonin 2009), or perhaps it provided porto-genetic material (Mathis et al. 2017), all of this could have occurred in a viscous solvent instead of a cell (He et al. 2017), or on a surface (Wächtershäuser 1988), or using a variety of entities that eventually became encapsulated (Eigen & Schuster 1977). Nevertheless, the gulf between the pre-biotic chemistry and the simplest life forms is still huge and any number of explanations only account for a tiny portion of the conceptual distance.

Another approach, “Top-Down,” uses current taxa to infer the nature and timing of the origin of life on Earth. To do so, we take current examples of life on Earth and trace their ancestry, by comparing the nearly hundred shared genes, primarily associated with biological translation (Koonin 2011). All life shares a last universal common ancestor, “LUCA” for short. There may have been several origins of life, but our evidence is insufficient to distinguish this scenario from a single origin. Nevertheless, at least one origin, presumably in Earthly pre-biotic conditions, led to the existence of LUCA, an important constraint upon theorizing about the origin of life. It is widely expected that LUCA was merely one creature in a larger population and existed long after the origin of the first organism. There are also a variety of concerns with respect to LUCA: whether it was simple or complex (Mariscal & Doolittle 2015); whether it had a membrane that resembled any of the current membranes (Koonin 2011); whether the genes it contained were ancestors of our own genes or subsequently acquired (Doolittle & Brown 1994, Woese & Fox 1977; Woese 1998); whether its genome was made of DNA (Forterre 2006a), whether it was a heterotroph or autotroph; where it lived; and when it lived.

The gap between Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches is huge: untold generations passed between pre-biotic chemistry and LUCA. We may never be able to solve Life’s origin, but each step brings us closer to understanding the trajectory.

Even the most pessimistic analyses of the likelihood of life suggests life on Earth is not unique (Frank & Sullivan 2016). Many scientists take that as a good reason to search for life elsewhere in the Universe. The current search for life elsewhere focuses on two extremes: the chemical byproducts of life and the technological signals of intelligent life. The social interactions of alien populations might be interesting, but they are hard to study as of yet. Thus, we search for biosignatures that might uniquely identify life from a great distance. We’ll take each in turn.

Biosignatures, as the name implies, are purported to be markers of life. Chemical biosignatures are compounds either rarely or never produced without the assistance of life on Earth. Finding biosignatures thus implies a material conception of life, likely in the form of biochemistry, metabolism, or thermodynamics. There have been many attempts to detect biosignatures, primarily on Mars. These approaches include experiments done on planetary surfaces, observations from Earth or low-earth orbit, and study of meteors and other debris from nearby planetary bodies.

More practically, satellite or telescope observations of other planets have been used to search for gasses outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Methane has been sporadically detected on Mars since 2004 (Formisano et al. 2004, Webster et al. 2018) with an accompanying claim of formaldehyde detection (Peplow 2005). Venus has also been a source of attention, with phosphine gas detected in the clouds above Venus (Greaves et al. 2020). A controversial finding, it nevertheless caught the scientific imagination. Future scientific research is expected to accelerate this method of observation, especially with new data gathered by the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). With its equipment, JWST is able to image exoplanets at resolutions allowing the detection of gas biomarkers in the atmospheres of exoplanets (Loeb & Maoz 2013).

By contrast, there have been scarce attempts to detect chemical life while on the surface of another planet. In 1975, NASA sent the Viking landers to Mars, tasked with a variety of scientific experiments including some that were purported to detect life if it was present. One, the Labeled Release Experiment, did, but its results were inconsistent with the other on-board experiments, so the result was deemed inconclusive (Levin & Straat 1976, Ezell & Ezell 1984). The current Perseverence rover on Mars is able to assess certain biosignatures and upcoming missions by NASA, the Chinese National Space Administration, and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency all seek to determine whether Mars has evidence of past or current life.

It is not obvious that life on Mars would be a separate origin than life on Earth, as the two planets exchange tons of rocks each year and it is at least theoretically possible that life could have formed on one planet and been subsequently transferred to the other (McKay 2010). Since Mars is a smaller body than Earth, it coalesced before Earth and thus it is conceivable that life might have formed there first, although this is a relatively marginal view in the astrobiology community. Meteorites from Mars and other planetary bodies have also been the source of purported biosignatures. The Martian meteorite ALH84001 was instrumental in forming the science of astrobiology in 1996, after NASA scientists discovered bacteria-like structures (McKay et al. 1996). Subsequent meteorites have also garnered scientific interest (e.g. White et al. 2014).

The other major attempt to search for life, that of searching for intelligence, more readily captures the imagination. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has been ongoing for centuries (Dick 1982). Fierce debates between those that took Earth to be unique and those that took it to be one of a plurality of worlds persisted for millennia (and still do, to some extent). Advocates of the plurality of worlds view searched their telescopes for evidence. A famous instance is Percival Lowell’s drawings of Martian canals in the 1890s. Influenced by the mid-1800s observations of what appeared to be channels criss-crossing Mars, Lowell drew a series of canals based on his observations. Science fiction soon picked up the observation and conjectured a dying civilization, hoping to squeeze water out of the last bits of remaining ice in the Martian poles.

Partially driven by the science fiction following Lowell’s drawings, the early 20th century saw increased interest in detecting radio signals from Outer Space. This interest accelerated after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and was more systematically and formally approached starting in the late 1970s. SETI research has not been publicly funded since 1994, but private and public donors, as well as academic and lay researchers have kept the program going since. There are many technical challenges to the search: space is unimaginably huge, signals are weak, possibilities of interstellar communication are myriad, and our searches can only cover an insignificant portion of the task.

More controversially, many dozens of messages have been sent into Outer Space since 1974. A few have been in the form of physical objects aboard spacecraft, but most have been radio signals aimed at promising stars or star clusters. sometimes called Active SETI or METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Although the practice continues due to its low cost and relative ease, many philosophers, scientists, and policy experts have come out against the practice largely due to the risk of broadcasting our presence to potentially hostile forces on behalf of future generations that cannot consent (Smith 2020).

Scientists grow more concerned about philosophical questions when scientific limitations or conceptual choices are made apparent to them. Those scientists who study deep time, deep space, abstract issues, or questions of ethics are often keenly aware of the philosophical choices that influence their research from identification of research question to interpretation of the data. This section briefly goes through other scientific contexts in which how life is defined is relevant, which address scales well below and well above the organism level.

There are several biological entities for which it is an open question as to whether they are alive. Viruses, for example, are units of genetic material encased in a protein coat. It is unknown whether all viruses share common ancestor (Koonin et al. 2006, Moreira and López Garcia 2009) nor how they originated, be it escaped transposable elements, reduced cells, or some ancestral third option (Forterre 2006b). The status of viruses as living is mired with controversy, with some people holding virons to be alive, others believing them not to be, and a third camp has them as living only in the context of an infected cell, but a mere ‘seed’ otherwise (Forterre 2010).

There are other entities in the “twilight zone of microbiology,” including transposable elements, viroids, unculturable (but putatively existing) microbes, organisms in vegetative states, and prions (Postgate 1999). The problems facing each of these are similar: several of them can evolve by natural selection, are biochemically complex, but lack other properties associated with life. For example, prions are protein products of life that can fold other prions in a way that allows for cumulative evolution (Li et al. 2010). They are rarely included in the category ‘life’ due to their inactivity in most settings and rather simple origin as a misfold of a functional protein.

If there is a twilight zone of microbiology, there is also a twilight zone of ecology. Organisms form populations, species, lineages, clades, and ecosystems. The status of each of these is an open question, but they have many of the same features associated with life as described above. Perhaps the strongest case can be made for eusocial insects, such as some ants, bees, wasps, and termites. In several species, there are rigid distinctions between the castes that reproduce and those that do not, with many of the latter serving the role of caring for the young (Hölldobler & Wilson 2009). One might note that entities above the organism level are as a rule less integrated and connected than the organisms that comprise them. This is perhaps a general feature of life: from the perspective of every item in the biological hierarchy, its parts are much more homogenous than it is. Our cells seem much more integrated and self-contained than our bodies, so, too, are individual insects more self-contained than the colonies to which they belong.

Most controversial has been the case of Gaia. Gaia is a term from Greek mythology; she is a personification of the planet Earth. In 1979, James Lovelock, revived the concept in his book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth . In his view, the Earth-wide set of interlocking ecosystems could be viewed as a single entity. One insight of Lovelock’s was already mentioned in the previous section: planet-wide interactions are the scale that matters in detecting life elsewhere. Lovelock’s book sparked controversy centered around the plausibility of his model of the Earth as a self-regulating homeostatic system. In the view of many at the time, it was an inaccurate description: Earth could not evolve in principle, and the subsequent ontological move of granting Earth the status of life was unmotivated (Doolittle 1981). Recent attempts to revitalize the notion of Gaia on a more theoretic footing involve both abiotic and biotic regulatory mechanisms and natural selection acting at the level of clades (Lenton et al. 2018, Doolittle 2019). Regardless of current attempts at a theoretical justification, the thought of Earth as a living entity motivated many in the environmental movement and the idea remains a common reference.

The term ‘life’ is important outside of biology. Often, the focus is not on the concept of life or life in general, but on the status of individual living entities. Typically, the focus is on the beginning and end stages of individual lives, which raises legal, religious, and moral questions. The start of an individual life has been the source of contraception and abortion discussions (Noonan 1967, Dellapenna 1978). Unfortunately, developmental biology does not provide an uncontroversial starting point for when ‘life’ begins (Maienschein 2014). The end of individual lives was also a heated debate in the 20th century as new technologies were able to keep human bodies alive long after they would have died in nature (DeGrazia 2016).

Any discussion of defining life in these contexts should begin by distinguishing between life and other phenomena that are often conflated with it in public discourse, such as sentience, personhood, and moral considerability. It’s unclear how much ontological, epistemic, or moral weight the category of life has independently of other properties. Attributing moral worth to non-living entities is still a minority position in environmental or comparative philosophy (but see Leopold 1949, Basl 2019). Thus, a starting position might be that life is a prerequisite for moral considerability. Nonetheless, most humans don’t mind killing bacteria for the sake of cleanliness and many people eat or wear the flesh of animals. So, in many discussions, life is only valuable when it is the vehicle for other equally nebulous properties like sentience, personhood, or immaterial souls.

If any living entities have a distinct moral or ontological status, most philosophers would accept that humans are among them (Rolston 1975, Goodpaster 1978). In these contexts, it matters when individual humans come into being and acquire such a status in their own right, be it conception, birth, or some time period in between. Considered opinions differ as to when this occurs and in virtue of what, be it mere possibility of self-sustained life, sentience, or other features. There is still a rampant pro-life/pro-choice split in cultural politics, which is somewhat lessened in European countries (Corbella 2020). There are equivalent, but less tendentious analogues in the contexts of euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and the prevention of death and disease. In these debates, both ethical and metaphysical commitments matter.

The public questions of life are often raised by new technologies. In the abortion discussion above, for example, new techniques to end pregnancies, from birth control to abortion procedures, as well as new medical technologies facilitating premature deliveries made the topic more contentious. Other technological innovations also raise questions about life. One such area is that of transhumanism (c.f. More and Vita-More 2013). Transhumanism is the movement aimed toward the use of technology for the human enhancement of social, psychological, and physical lives. These can range from prosthetics to implants or from pharmaceuticals to mental ‘uploading.’ There are bioconservatives, who argue against transhumanism for practical, moral, or aesthetic reasons. There are also posthumanists, who look forward to a world in which humans are replaced or eliminated by subsequent artificial intelligence. The debate over whether such posthumans might be ‘alive’ is similar in structure to the artificial life discussion in section 3. Bioconservatives also argue against this view. Among the topics in these debates are whether a particular technology counts as therapy or enhancement, whether the risks of alteration outweigh the benefits, whether certain goals of transhumanism are even possible, and which alterations will affect the moral or ontological status of the people that receive them.

That life is a source of ethical, legal, and political controversy is to be expected. And although it is beyond the scope of this article to adjudicate these debates, advocates ought to be aware of the deep vagueness in biology and disagreement within philosophy with respect to what life is, what an individual living organism is, when individual lives begin or end, and what features of life ground moral considerability.

Although the conceptual terrain of life concepts is well covered, there is no accepted view as yet. This is unlikely to change given the disciplinary backgrounds, explanatory values, and theoretical commitments of the stakeholders involved. A wide range of practices rely on competing conceptions of life: including artificial life, origins-of-life research, the search for life, and other projects described above.

Future scientific discoveries or inventions may break this impasse, as they have in other cases of theoretical gridlock. The development of atomic theory, discussed in section 2, created new categorical divisions that scientists accepted as more real than the categories of the ancients or alchemists. With this conceptual fragmentation, old categories were discarded and new ones accepted. One can imagine something similar happening in the case of life: many discoveries might show a clear cluster of how complex, lifelike entities can form from prebiotic chemistry, eventually winning over the majority of the scientific and philosophical community (e.g. Weber 2007, 2010).

Conversely, a simple decision might be made based on shared values or explanatory goals. The example of death may be illustrative. After decades of debate, a new decision, not a discovery, was made. Physicians concluded the irreversibility of death was the most important property for their purposes. They adopted the concept of whole-brain death as their operational criterion (DeGrazia 2016). The facts on the ground did not change, but the shared understanding did.

Finally, perhaps life will be accepted as a polysemous concept with each definitional cluster applying to a subset of the whole: biochemical life, evolutionary life, metabolic life, etc. Researchers may rely on context, accept some miscommunication, or simply stipulate the kind of life they mean. The example of planets, discussed in Brusse 2016 may help make this point. There was always a huge diversity within the category planet, which included the Sun and Moon until the Renaissance. In the early 1800s, asteroids were discovered. Initially, they were considered planets, they were demoted to ‘minor’ planets a few decades later, then simply ‘asteroids’ after the 1950s. Pluto was discovered in 1930, recognized as the smallest planet by the 1970s. From 1992 until 2006, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered until astronomers decided that the term planet actually covered at least two distinct, but scientifically interesting categories: typical planets and dwarf planets. Similarly, perhaps some of the categories described in section 1.2 will form the basis of accepted sub-categories of life.

It is still an open question as to how long the current situation will persist before a discovery forces a scientific reckoning or a decision obviates the need. For now, the debate continues.

• Aristotle, De Anima (selections), in M.A. Bedau & C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 9–14.
• Bains, William, 2004, “Many chemistries could be used to build living systems,” Astrobiology , 4(2): 137–167.
• Basl, John, 2019, The Death of the Ethic of Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bedau, Mark A., and Carol E. Cleland (eds.), 2010, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Benner, Steven Albert, 2010, “Defining life,” Astrobiology , 10(10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1089/ast.2010.0524
• Bergson, Henri, 1907 [1959], L’évolution créatrice , Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
• Boden, Margaret Ann, 1999, “Is metabolism necessary?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 50(2): 231–248. doi: 10.1093/bjps/50.2.231
• Boyd, Richard, 1991, “Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds,” Philosophical Studies , 61(1–2): 127–148.
• –––, 1999, “Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa,” in R. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 141–185.
• –––, 2010, “Homeostasis, Higher Taxa, and Monophyly,” Philosophy of Science , 77(5): 686–701.
• Brooks, Rodney, 2001, “The relationship between matter and life,” Nature , 409(6818): 409–411 [ Brooks 2001 available online ].
• Brusse, Carl, 2016, “Planets, pluralism, and conceptual lineage,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 53: 93–106.
• Byers, Sarah, 2006, “Life as ‘Self-Motion’: Descartes and ‘the Aristotelians’ on the Soul as the Life of the Body,” The Review of Metaphysics , 59(3): 723–755.
• Carey, Susan E., 1985, Conceptual Change in Childhood , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• –––, 1988, “Conceptual differences between children and adults,” Mind & Language , 3: 167–181.
• Cleland, Carol E., 2019, The Quest for a Universal Theory of Life: Searching for Life as we Don’t Know It (Vol. 11), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cleland, Carol E. and Christopher F. Chyba, 2002, “Defining ‘life,’” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere , 32(40): 387–393.
• Corbella, Mercedes, 2020, “Globally, seven in ten adults favor allowing abortion,” IPSOS, published online 17 August 2020 [ Corbella 2020 available online ].
• Cowie, Fiona, 2009, “Why isn’t Stich an Eliminativist?” in D. Murphy and M. Bishop (eds.), Stich: And his Critics , Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 74–100.
• DeGrazia, David, “The Definition of Death,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/death-definition/ >.
• Dellapenna, Joseph W., 1978, “The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40: 359–428.
• Descartes, René, 1664 [2010], “Treatise on Man,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–20; original translation by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; original work published in 1664.
• Dick, Steven J., 1982, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Diguez, Antonio, 2013, “Life as a homeostatic property cluster,” Biological Theory , 7(2): 180–186.
• Doolittle, W. Ford, 1981, “Is Nature Really Motherly?” CoEvolution Quarterly , 29: 58–63.
• –––, 2019, “Making evolutionary sense of Gaia,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 34(10): 889–894.
• Doolittle, W. Ford and James R. Brown, 1994, “Tempo, Mode, the Progenote, and the Universal Root,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 91(15): 6721–6728.
• Driesch, Hans, 1905 [1914], The History & Theory of Vitalism , C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.
• Eigen, Manfred and Peter Schuster, 1977, “A Principle of Natural Self-Organization,” Naturwissenschaften , 63(11): 541–565.
• Ezell, Edward Clinton and Linda Neuman Ezell, 1984, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958–1978 (NASA History Series: Volume 4212), Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
• Formisano, Vittorio, Sushil Atreya, Thérèse Encrenaz, Nikolai Ignatiev, and Marco Giuranna, 2004, “Detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars,” Science , 306(5702): 1758–1761.
• Forterre, Patrick, 2006a, “Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(10): 3669–3674.
• –––, 2006b, “The origin of viruses and their possible roles in major evolutionary transitions,” Virus Research , 117(1): 5–16.
• –––, 2010, “Defining Life: the Virus Viewpoint,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40(2): 151–160.
• Frank, Adam and Woody T. Sullivan III, 2016, “A new empirical constraint on the prevalence of technological species in the universe,” Astrobiology , 16(5): 359–362.
• Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1978, “On being morally considerable,” The Journal of Philosophy , 75(6): 308–325.
• Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff, 1997, Words, Thoughts, and Theories , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Greaves, Jane S., Anita M.S. Richards, William Bains, Paul B. Rimmer, Hideo Sagawa, David L. Clements, Sara Seager, Janusz J. Petkowski, Clara Sousa-Silva, Sukrit Ranjan, Emily Drabek-Maunder, Helend J. Fraser, Annabel Cartwright, Ingo Muller-Wodarg, Zhuchang Zhan, Per Frieberg, Iain Coulson, E’lisa Lee, and Jim Hoge, 2020, “Phosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus,” Nature Astronomy , 5: 655–664.
• Gromski, Piotr S., Granda, Jaroslaw M. and Cronin, Leroy, 2020, “Universal chemical synthesis and discovery with ‘the chemputer,’” Trends in Chemistry , 2(1): 4–12.
• Gupta, Anil, “Definitions,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/definitions/ >.
• Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson, 1929, “The Origin of Life,” Rationalist Annual , 148: 3–10.
• Hampton, James A., 1979, “Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 18: 441–461.
• –––, 2006, “Concepts as prototypes,” in B.H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Volume 46), New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–113.
• He, Christine, Isaac Gállego, Brandon Laughlin, Martha A. Grover, and Nicholas V. Hud, 2017, “A Viscous Solvent Enables Information Transfer from Gene-Length Nucleic Acids in a Model Prebiotic Replication Cycle,” Nature Chemistry , 9(4): 318–324.
• Hölldobler, Bert and Wilson, Edward O., 2009, The Superorganism: the Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Hutchison, Clyde A., Ray-Yuan Chuang, Vladimir N. Noskov, Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Thomas J. Deerinck, Mark H. Ellisman, John Gill, Krishna Kannan, Bogumil J. Karas, Li Ma, James F. Pelletier, Zhi-Qing Qi, R. Alexander Richter, Elizabeth A. Strychalski, Lijie Sun, Yo Suzuki, Billyana Tsvetanova, Kim S. Wise, Hamilton O. Smith, John I. Glass, Chuck Merryman, Daniel G. Gibson, J. Craig Venter, 2016, “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science , 351(6280). doi:10.1126/science.aad6253
• Jabr, Ferris, 2013, “Why Life Does Not Really Exist,” Scientific American , published 02 December 2013 [ Jabr 2013 available online ].
• Joyce, Gerard F., 1994, forward, in D. W. Deamer, G. R. Fleischaker (eds.), Origins of Life: the Central Concepts , Boston: Jones & Bartlett, pp. xi–xii.
• Komatsu, Lloyd K., 1992, “Recent Views of Conceptual Structure,” Psychological Bulletin , 112: 500–526.
• Koonin, Eugene V., 2000, “How Many Genes can Make a Cell: the Minimal-Gene-Set Concept,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics , 1(1): 99–116.
• –––, 2009, “On the Origin of Cells and Viruses: Primordial Virus World Scenario,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1178(1): 47–64.
• –––, 2011, The Logic of Chance: the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution , New Jersey: FT press.
• Koonin, Eugene V., Tatiana G. Senkevich, and Valerian V. Dolja, 2006, “The Ancient Virus World and Evolution of cells,” Biology Direct , 1(1): 1–27.
• Langton, Christopher G., 1989, “Artificial life,” in C.G. Langton (ed.), Artificial life (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume IV), Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–47.
• –––, 1995, Artificial Life: An Overview , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Lenton, Timothy M., Stuart J. Daines, James G. Dyke, Arwen E. Nicholson, David M. Wilkinson, and Hywel T.P. Williams, 2018, “Selection for Gaia Across Multiple Scales,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 33(8): 633–645.
• Leopold, Aldo, 1949, A Sand County Almanac , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Levin, Gilbert V. and Patricia Ann Straat, 1976, “Viking labeled release biology experiment: interim results,” Science , 194(4271): 1322–1329.
• Li, Jiali, Shawn Browning, Sukhvir P. Mahal, Anja M. Oelschlegel, and Charles Weissmann, 2010, “Darwinian evolution of prions in cell culture,” Science , 327(5967): 869–872.
• Lincoln, Tracey A. and Joyce, Gerald F., 2009, “Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme,” Science , 323(5918): 1229–1232.
• Lineweaver, Charley H., 2020, “What Do the DPANN Archaea and the CPR Bacteria Tell Us about the Last Universal Common Ancestors?” in J. Seckbach and H. Stan-Lotter (eds.), Extremophiles as Astrobiological Models , London: Wiley, pp.359–367.
• Loeb, Abraham and Dan Maoz, 2013, “Detecting Biomarkers in Habitable-Zone Earths Transiting White Dwarfs,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , 432(1): L11–L15.
• Lovelock, James E., 2000, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Machery, Edouard, 2009, Doing without Concepts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Why I Stopped Worrying About the Definition of Life… and Why you Should as Well,” Synthese , 185(1): 145–164. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-9880-1
• Maienschein, Jane, 2014, Embryos Under the Microscope , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Malaterre, Christophe and Jean-François Chartier, 2019, “Beyond Categorical Definitions of Life: a Data-Driven Approach to Assessing Lifeness,” Synthese , 198: 4543–4572.
• Mariscal, Carlos, Ana Barahona, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Umur Aydinoglu, Stuart Bartlett, María Luz Cárdenas, Kuhan Chandru, Carol E. Cleland, Benjamin T. Cocanougher, Nathaniel Comfort, and Athel Cornish-Bowden, 2019, “Hidden concepts in the history and philosophy of origins-of-life studies: A workshop report,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 49(3): 111–145.
• Mariscal, Carlos and W. Ford Doolittle, 2015, “Eukaryotes first: how could that be?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences), 370(1678): 20140322.
• –––, 2020, “Life and Life Only: a Radical Alternative to Life Definitionism,” Synthese , 197(7): 2975–2989.
• Mathis, Cole, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Sara Imari Walker, 2017, “The Emergence of Life as a First-Order Phase Transition,” Astrobiology , 17(3): 266–276.
• McKay, David S., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Hojatollah Vali, Christopher S. Romanek, Simon J. Clemett, Xavier D.F. Chillier, Claude R. Maechling, and Richard N. Zare, 1996, “Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001,” Science , 273(5277): 924–930.
• Medin, Douglas L. and Marguerite M. Schaffer, 1978, “Context Theory of Classification Learning,” Psychological Review , 85(3): 207–238.
• Miller, Stanley L., 1953, “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Science , 117(3046): 528–529.
• Mix, Lucas John, 2018, Life Concepts from Aristotle to Darwin: On Vegetable Souls , New York: Springer.
• –––, 2020, “Three Lives and Astrobiology,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.) Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–78.
• More, Max and Natasha Vita-More, (eds.), 2013, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future , London: John Wiley & Sons.
• Moreira, David and Purificación López-García, 2009, “Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology , 7(4): 306–311.
• Murphy, Gregory L., and Douglas L. Medin, 1985, “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,” Psychological Review , 92(3): 289–316.
• Nicholson, Daniel J. and Dupré, John, 2018, Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Noonan John T. Jr., 1967, “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” National Law Forum , 12: 85–131.
• Nosofsky, Robert M., 1986, “Attention, similarity, and the identification categorization relationship,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 115(1): 39–57.
• Oparin, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 1961, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development , New York: Academic Press.
• –––, 1936 [2010], “The Nature of Life,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press; this translation by Ann Synge was first published in A. I. Oparin, Life: Its nature, origin, and development , New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 1–37.
• Pace, Norman R., 2001, “The Universal Nature of Biochemistry,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98(3): 805–808.
• Pályi, Gyula, Claudia Zucchi, and Luciano Caglioti, (eds.), 2002, Fundamentals of Life , Paris: Elsevier.
• Parke, Emily C., 2020, “Dimensions of Life Definitions,” in K.C. Smith & C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–90.
• Pearce, Ben K.D., Andrew S. Tupper, Ralph E. Pudritz, and Paul G. Higgs, 2018, “Constraining the time interval for the origin of life on Earth,” Astrobiology , 18(3): 343–364.
• Peplow, Mark, 2005, “Formaldehyde claim inflames Martian debate,” Nature , published online 25 February 2005. doi:10.1038/news050221-15
• Peretó, Juli, Jeffrey L. Bada, and Antonio Lazcano, 2009, “Charles Darwin and the origin of life,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 39(5): 395–406.
• Plato, Phaedrus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• –––, The Republic , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• –––, Timeaus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• Popa, Radu, 2004, Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life , New York: Springer.
• Postgate, John, 2000, “The Twilight Zones of Microbiology,” Microbiology Today , 27: 162–163.
• Ramsey, William, “Eliminative Materialism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/materialism-eliminative/ >.
• Ray, Thomas S., 1993, “An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology: Zen and the art of creating life,” Artificial Life , 1(1/2): 179–209.
• Rolston III, H., 2017, “Is there an Ecological Ethic?” in M. Wachs (ed.), Ethics in Planning , London: Routledge, pp. 299–317.
• Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, C. B., 1975, “Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories,” Cognitive Psychology , 7: 573–605.
• Rosch, Eleanor, 1978, “Principles of Categorization,” in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.
• Riskin, Jessica, 2016, The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long Argument Over what Makes Living Things Tick , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sagan, Carl, 1970, “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica , Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Incorporated, pp. 1083–1083A.
• Scharf, Caleb, Nathaniel Virgo, H. James Cleaves III, Masashi Aono, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Aydinoglu, Ana Barahona, Laura M. Barge, Steven A. Benner, Martin Biehl, Ramon Brasser, Christopher J. Butch, Kuhan Chandru, Leroy Cronin, Sabastian Danielache, Jakob Fischer, John Hernlund, Piet Hut, Takashi Ikegami, Jun Kimura, Kensei Kobayashi, Carlos Mariscal, Shawn McGlynn, Brice Menard, Norman Packard, Robert Pascal, Juli Pereto, Sudha Rajamani, Lana Sinapayen, Eric Smith, Christopher Switzer, Ken Takai, Feng Tian, Yuichiro Ueno, Mary Voytek, Olaf Witkowski, and Hikaru Yabuta, 2015, “A Strategy for Origins of Life Research,” Astrobiology , 15(12): 1031–1042.
• Schopf, J. William, 1993, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex chert: new evidence of the antiquity of life,” Science , 260(5108): 640–646.
• Schopf, J. William, Kouki Kitajima, Michael J. Spicuzza, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, and John W. Valley, 2018, “SIMS analyses of the oldest known assemblage of microfossils document their taxon-correlated carbon isotope compositions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(1): 53–58.
• Schulze-Makuch, Dirk, Huade Guan, Louis N. Irwin, E Vega, 2002, “Redefining life: An ecological, thermodynamic, and bioinformatic approach,” in G. Pályi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti (eds.), Fundamentals of Life , New York: Elsevier, pp. 169–179.
• Slater, Matthew H., 2015, “Natural Kindness,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66(2): 375–411.
• Smith, J. David, 2002, “Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient can be Tested and Disconfirmed,” Psychological Science , 13(5): 437–442.
• Smith, Kelly C., 2020, “METI or REGRETTI,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–235.
• Sober, Elliott, 1991, “Learning from Functionalism: prospects for strong artificial life,” in C.G. Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer, and S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial life II (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume X), Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 749–765.
• Stewart, Potter, 1964, “Jacobellis vs. Ohio,” 378 U.S. 184, 197.
• Szostak, Jack W., 2012, “Attempts to Define Life Do Not Help to Understand the Origin of Life.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics , 29(4): 599–600. doi: 10.1080/073911012010524998
• Trifonov, Edward N., 2011, “Vocabulary of definitions of life suggests a definition.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics , 29(2): 259–266
• Trombley, Carolyn A. and Karl Cottenie, 2019, “Quantifying the scientific cost of ambiguous terminology in community ecology,” Philosophical Topics , 47(1): 203–218.
• Tsokolov, Serhiy A., 2009, “Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations,” Astrobiology , 9(4): 401–412. doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0201
• Wächtershäuser, Günter, 1988, “Before Enzymes and templates: Theory of Surface Metabolism,” Microbiological Reviews , 52(4): 452–484.
• Weber, Bruce H., 2007, “Emergence of life,” Zygon , 42: 837–856.
• –––, 2010, “What is Life? Defining Life in the Context of Emergent Complexity,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40: 221–229.
• Webster, Christopher R., Paul R. Mahaffy, Sushil K. Atreya, John E. Moores, Gregory J. Flesch, Charles Malespin, Christopher P. McKay, German Martinez, G., Christina L. Smith, Javier Martin-Torres, Javier Gomez-Elvira, Maria-Paz Zorzano, Michael H. Wong, Melissa G. Trainer, Andrew Steele, Doug Archer Jr., Brad Sutter, Patrice J. Coll, Caroline Freissinet, Pierre-Yves Meslin, Raina V. Gough, Christopher H. House, Alexander Pavlov, Jennifer L. Eigenbrode, Daniel P. Glavin, John C. Pearson, Didier Keymeulen, Lance E. Christensen, Susanne P. Schwenzer, Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez, Jorge Pla-García, Scot C.R. Rafkin, Álvaro Vicente-Retortillo, Henrik Kahanpää, Daniel Viudez-Moreiras, Michael D. Smith, Ari-Matti Harri, Maria Genzer, Donald M. Hassler, Mark Lemmon, Joy Crisp, Stanley P. Sander, Richard W. Zurek, Ashwin R. Vasavada, 2018, “Background Levels of Methane in Mars’ Atmosphere Show Strong Seasonal Variations,” Science , 360(6393): 1093–1096.
• White, Lauren M., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Simon J. Clemett, and David S. McKay, 2014, “Putative Indigenous Carbon-Bearing Alteration Features in Martian Meteorite Yamato 000593,” Astrobiology , 14(2): 170–181.
• Woese, Carl R. and George E. Fox, 1977, “The Concept of Cellular Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Evolution , 10(1): 1–6.
• Woese, Carl R., 1998, “The Universal Ancestor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 95(12): 6854–6859.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Weber, Bruce, “Life”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/life/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
• Darwin, C., Letter to J. D. Hooker, 01 February 1871 , Letter no. 7471, Darwin Correspondence Project.

-->abortion, ethics of --> | death | death: definition of | definitions | -->end of life, aging and --> | life: meaning of

Copyright © 2021 by Carlos Mariscal < carlos @ unr . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Is MasterClass right for me?

Take this quiz to find out.

Guide to Synthesis Essays: How to Write a Synthesis Essay

Written by MasterClass

Last updated: Aug 19, 2021 • 4 min read

The writing process for composing a good synthesis essay requires curiosity, research, and original thought to argue a certain point or explore an idea. Synthesis essay writing involves a great deal of intellectual work, but knowing how to compose a compelling written discussion of a topic can give you an edge in many fields, from the social sciences to engineering.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Meaning of Life — Life Essay: What Is The Meaning Of Life

Life Essay: What is The Meaning of Life

• Categories: Existentialism Meaning of Life Philosophy of Life

About this sample

Words: 502 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 502 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 452 words

1 pages / 636 words

2 pages / 923 words

3 pages / 1512 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Meaning of Life

Smith, Adam. 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments.' 1759.

The question of the meaning of life has been a timeless and profound inquiry that has intrigued philosophers, thinkers, and individuals throughout history. In this essay, we will delve into the philosophical exploration of the [...]

Frankl, Viktor E. 'Man's Search for Meaning.' Beacon Press, 2006.Dweck, Carol S. 'Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.' Ballantine Books, 2007.Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 'Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.' Harper [...]

In the hustle and bustle of modern life, we often find ourselves caught in the whirlwind of the present moment, constantly seeking the next thrill or distraction. However, there is a profound and often overlooked potential in [...]

Defining a purpose in life is a topic of great significance, which is discussed in this essay. Life is truly a remarkable gift that offers us innumerable opportunities for growth and fulfillment. However, it is up [...]

Life can feel like a roller coaster ride, and I want you to climb into the front seat, throw your arms in the air, and have fun. The ups the downs, a minor lyric of the song pretty as the sun by prime circle but this lyric has a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Synthesis Essays: A Step-by-Step How-To Guide

A synthesis essay is generally a short essay which brings two or more sources (or perspectives) into conversation with each other.

The word “synthesis” confuses every student a little bit. Fortunately, this step-by-step how-to guide will see you through to success!

Here’s a step-by-step how-to guide, with examples, that will help you write yours.

Before drafting your essay:

After reading the sources and before writing your essay, ask yourself these questions:

• What is the debate or issue that concerns all of the writers? In other words, what is the question they are trying to answer?
• On what points do they agree?
• On what points do they disagree?
• If they were having a verbal discussion, how would writer number one respond to the arguments of writer number two?

In a way, writing a synthesis essay is similar to composing a summary. But a synthesis essay requires you to read more than one source and to identify the way the writers’ ideas and points of view are related.

Sometimes several sources will reach the same conclusion even though each source approaches the subject from a different point of view.

Other times, sources will discuss the same aspects of the problem/issue/debate but will reach different conclusions.

And sometimes, sources will simply repeat ideas you have read in other sources; however, this is unlikely in a high school or AP situation.

To better organize your thoughts about what you’ve read, do this:

• Identify each writer’s thesis/claim/main idea
• List the writers supporting ideas (think topic sentences or substantiating ideas)
• List the types of support used by the writers that seem important. For example, if the writer uses a lot of statistics to support a claim, note this. If a writer uses historical facts, note this.

There’s one more thing to do before writing: You need to articulate for yourself the relationships and connections among these ideas.

Sometimes the relationships are easy to find. For example, after reading several articles about censorship in newspapers, you may notice that most of the writers refer to or in some way use the First Amendment to help support their arguments and help persuade readers. In this case, you would want to describe the different ways the writers use the First Amendment in their arguments. To do this, ask yourself, “How does this writer exploit the value of the First Amendment/use the First Amendment to help persuade or manipulate the readers into thinking that she is right?

Sometimes articulating the relationships between ideas is not as easy. If you have trouble articulating clear relationships among the shared ideas you have noted, ask yourself these questions:

• Do the ideas of one writer support the ideas of another? If so, how?
• Do the writers who reach the same conclusion use the same ideas in their writing? If not, is there a different persuasive value to the ideas used by one writer than by the other?
• Do the writers who disagree discuss similar points or did they approach the subject from a completely different angle and therefore use different points and different kinds of evidence to support their arguments?
• Review your list of ideas. Are any of the ideas you have listed actually the same idea, just written in different words?

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Synthesis Essay

Last Updated: April 7, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. There are 11 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 1,128,618 times.

Writing a synthesis essay requires the ability to digest information and present it in an organized fashion. While this skill is developed in high school and college classes, it translates to the business and advertising world as well. Scroll down to Step 1 to begin learning how to write a synthesis essay.

Examining Your Topic

• Argument synthesis: This type of essay has a strong thesis statement that presents the writer's point of view. It organizes relevant information gathered from research in a logical manner to support the thesis' point of view. Business white papers known as position papers often take this form. This is the type of synthesis essay that students will write during the AP test.
• Review: Often written as a preliminary essay to an argument synthesis, a review essay is a discussion of what has been written previously on a topic, with a critical analysis of the sources covered. Its unstated thesis is usually that more research needs to be done in that area or that the topic problem has not been adequately addressed. This type of paper is common in social science classes and in medicine.
• Explanatory/background synthesis: This type of essay helps readers understand a topic by categorizing facts and presenting them to further the reader's understanding. It does not advocate a particular point of view, and if it has a thesis statement, the thesis is a weak one. Some business white papers take this form, although they are more likely to have a point of view, if understated.

• Example of a broad topic narrowed down into a reasonable synthesis essay topic: Instead of the broad topic of Social Media, you could discuss your view on the effects texting has had on the English language.
• If you've been assigned a topic as part of a class, make sure you read the prompt carefully and fully understand it.

• Keep in mind that it's better to do three sources well than to do five sources incompletely.
• Annotate each source by writing notes in the margins. This allows you to keep track of your train of thought, developing ideas, etc.

• Example: Texting has had a positive impact on the English language as it has helped the millennial generation create their own form of the language.

• If you wish to take on a claim by an opponent of your idea, and to poke holes in it, you should also find some ideas or quotes that go against your thesis statement, and plan ways to disprove them. This is called a concession, refutation, or rebuttal, which can strengthen your argument if you do it well.
• Example : For the thesis statement listed above, excellent sources would include quotes from linguists discussing the new words that have developed through 'text-speak', statistics that show the English language has evolved with almost every generation, and facts that show students still have the ability to write with the use of grammar and spelling (which your opponents would bring up as the main reason texting has had a negative effect on the English language).

Outlining Your Essay

• The introductory paragraph: 1. An introductory sentence that acts as a hook, capturing the reader's interest. 2. Identification of the issue you will be discussing. 3. Your thesis statement.
• The body paragraphs: 1. Topic sentence that gives one reason to support your thesis. 2. Your explanation and opinion of the topic sentence. 3. Support from your sources that backs up the claim you just made. 4. Explanation of the significance of the source(s).
• The conclusion paragraph: 1. State further significance of your topic from the evidence and reasons you discussed in the essay. 2. A profound thought or thoughtful ending for your paper.

• Example/illustration. This may be a detailed recount, summary, or direct quote from your source material that provides major support for your point of view. You may use more than one example or illustration, if your paper calls for it. You should not, however, make your paper a series of examples at the expense of supporting your thesis.
• Straw man. With this technique, you present an argument opposed to the argument stated in your thesis, then show the weaknesses and flaws of the counter-argument. This format shows your awareness of the opposition and your readiness to answer it. You present the counter-argument right after your thesis, followed by the evidence to refute it, and end with a positive argument that supports your thesis. [5] X Research source
• Concession. Essays with concessions are structured similar to those using the straw man technique, but they acknowledge the validity of the counter-argument while showing that the original argument is stronger. This structure is good for presenting papers to readers who hold the opposing viewpoint.
• Comparison and contrast. This structure compares similarities and contrasts differences between two subjects or sources to show the facets of both. Writing an essay with this structure requires a careful reading of your source material to find both subtle and major points of similarity and difference. This kind of essay can present its arguments source-by-source or by points of similarity or difference.

• Summary. This structure presents summaries of each of your relevant sources, making a progressively stronger argument for your thesis. It provides specific evidence to support your point of view, but usually omits presenting your own opinions. It's most commonly used for background and review essays.
• List of reasons. This is a series of sub-points that flow from the main point of your paper as stated in its thesis. Each reason is supported with evidence. As with the summary method, reasons should become progressively more important, with the most important reason last.

Writing Your Essay

• Your essay should have an introductory paragraph that includes your thesis , a body to present evidence that supports your thesis, and a conclusion that summarizes your point of view.

• Lengthy quotes of three lines or more should generally be set off as block quotes to better call attention to them. [7] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

Finalizing Your Essay

• Ask someone else to proofread your paper. The saying “two heads are better than one” still holds true. Ask a friend or colleague what would they add or remove from the paper. Most importantly, does your argument make sense, and is it clearly supported by your sources?

• Read the paper aloud to guarantee that you don't accidentally add in or take out words when reading in your head.
• If you can, get a friend or classmate to proofread your essay as well.

• Example of citing in an AP synthesis essay: McPherson claims “texting has changed the English language in a positive way--it has given a new generation their own unique way to communicate” (Source E).
• For college essays, you'll most likely use MLA format. Whichever format you use, be consistent in its use. You may also be asked to use APA or Chicago style.

• Example title: : English and the iPhone: Exploring the Benefits of 'Text-Speak'

Outline Template

Community Q&A

• Just as your title should fit your essay instead of writing your essay to fit the title, your thesis, once chosen, should direct your subsequent research instead of subsequent research altering your thesis � unless you find you've adopted an unsupportable thesis. Thanks Helpful 21 Not Helpful 8

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://success.uark.edu/get-help/student-resources/synthesis-paper.php
• ↑ https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/student-resources/writing-speaking-resources/mapping-a-synthesis-essay
• ↑ https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/learning-commons/documents/writing/synthesis/planning-synthesis-essay.pdf
• ↑ https://writingcenterofprinceton.com/synthesis-essays-a-step-by-step-how-to-guide/
• ↑ https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/
• ↑ https://writingcommons.org/section/rhetoric/rhetorical-stance/point-of-view/third-person-point-of-view/
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_quotations.html
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/the_writing_process/proofreading/steps_for_revising.html
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/the_writing_process/proofreading/proofreading_suggestions.html
• ↑ https://www.edhs.org/ourpages/auto/2010/5/17/41759867/Synthesis%20Essay%20Introduction.pdf
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf

About This Article

To write a synthesis essay, start by coming up with a thesis statement that you can support using all of the sources you've read for your essay. For example, your thesis statement could be "Texting has had a positive impact on the English language." Once you've got your thesis, go through your sources to find specific quotes, facts, and statistics that back up your claim. Structure your essay so it has an introduction that includes your thesis statement, a body that includes your arguments and evidence, and a conclusion that wraps everything up. For more tips on structuring your synthesis essay, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Aug 8, 2016

Did this article help you?

Adrian Mastrocola

Sep 29, 2016

Emmanuel Amoatey Djaba

Nov 26, 2016

Anna VonLeader

Jun 6, 2016

May 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Writing Synthesis Essay: Make it Easy with Our Comprehensive Guide

Table of contents

• 1 Purpose and Objectives of a Synthesis Essay
• 2.1 Explanatory Synthesis Essay
• 2.2 Argument Synthesis Essay
• 2.3 Review Synthesis Essay
• 3 Common Topics Encountered in Synthesis Essays
• 4.1 Conduct Thorough Research
• 4.2 Look from Diverse Perspectives
• 4.3.1 Chronological Method
• 4.3.2 Thematic Method
• 4.3.3 Point-by-point Method
• 5 Make a Synthesis Essay Outline to Structure Content
• 6.1 Critically Analyze Sources and Identify Their Relevance to the Thesis Statement
• 7.1 Support Your Arguments
• 7.2 Address Counterarguments
• 8.1 Bibliography
• 9 Proofread and Edit Your Essay
• 10 Bottom line
• 11.1 How long should a synthesis essay be?
• 11.2 How many paragraphs are in a synthesis essay?
• 11.3 Is a synthesis essay argumentative?
• 11.4 Does a synthesis essay have a counterargument?

Being a student is a challenging task, as you have to handle different types of essays, particularly synthesis essays. What is a synthesis essay? Such creative writing helps students to develop research skills, conduct a thorough analysis and improve their writing skills. Also, it boosts their abilities to deliver original ideas, arguments, and clear explanations of particular viewpoints. Students might often receive such writing tasks for the AP English language exam. We know how challenging it can be for them to write a synthesis essay.

With this in mind, we uncover the key points of synthesis writing in this review, which are the following:

• We’ll define the main traits of this essay type
• What are the different types?
• We collect the best advice on how to write a synthesis essay.
• and prepared the list of synthesis essay topic examples.

If you find it difficult to start your synthesis essay, you can get help from our PapersOwl service. The best experts in academic writing await you to bring up a good synthesis essay with a high assessment grade.

Purpose and Objectives of a Synthesis Essay

First and foremost, it is vital to understand the definition of a synthesis essay. It is a type of essay in which you should provide justified arguments, ideas, or statements based on a particular point of view. Composing a synthesis essay requires a lot of time and effort. You must analyze many credible sources to collect specific data and create a unique research paper. Synthesizing sources has to do with analyzing them, but not vice versa. You should provide an in-depth analysis of each source and then combine the similarities or differences between them into one coherent and well-structured essay. The next section uncovers this matter.

Key Features and Components

A synthesis essay counts a few types depending on the objectives to reveal. But essential synthesis essay components are the same and consist of three main parts: introduction, main body, and conclusion. The introductory paragraph should be catchy and highlight the main points of your paperwork due to a good thesis statement. The main body should include at least three paragraphs separated by exposing different thoughts, arguments, or explanations. The conclusion should also leave a spot for meditating for your reader on what you have disclosed in it. Further, we explain three types of synthesis papers and their specifications.

Explanatory Synthesis Essay

This type of synthesis essay involves disclosing various facts, views, or points. That’s why it is required to explore many reliable sources to get as much relevant information about a topic under investigation as possible. Thus, a writer can explain the emergence of certain points of view and facts. This writing task helps high school and college students do deep research, compare facts and perspectives, and deliver a detailed synthesis analysis essay. It is essential to complement each statement with specific evidence and statistical data. This will underline the relevance of the information introduced in an essay and make it meaningful and reasonable.

Argument Synthesis Essay

When writing argumentative essays , one must choose a specific topic and present arguments supporting or opposing viewpoints. This writing assignment incorporates two objectives: gather and systemize information revealing the main topic and argue them from your perspective. It requires creativity and deep knowledge of the field and aspect you must put on paper. Writing an argumentative essay is not an easy task. You should stick to a particular perspective and move on to exposing it. It is crucial to provide enough facts and proof to convince your reader that your viewpoint is noteworthy.

Review Synthesis Essay

Review synthesis essays are often parts of larger projects and are used to make reviews of particular aspects, for example, in medicine and social sciences. When composing this type of essay, you should provide full information about the examined object, state, or problem. The literature review should contain as many key points and peculiarities as possible. Thus, it will draw a complete picture of an aspect that will bring clarification and worth to your topic. To hook your reader from the very onset, you should articulate a good synthesis thesis statement in your introductory paragraph.

Common Topics Encountered in Synthesis Essays

To help you with a topic choice for your AP Lang synthesis essay, we listed some from different fields and sciences. The first of three essays is about AI technology. We tried to single out the most relevant example prompt topics for you to get started with. Check them out below.

• Artificial intelligence: Big threat or valuable tool for modern society
• Cryptomarket: The ups and downs
• Technology in the traditional classroom: A threat or benefit?
• Explain whether testing new drugs on animals is ethically permissible
• Should alternative medications be covered by insurance?
• Disturbance regimes under Global Warming
• Explaining how the American way of life contributes to global warming
• Distance education: Its effect on college students on campus
• Can modern people keep complete control over their life?
• Nuclear or solar power: Benefits and Demerits
• Explain the impact of gas fuel plants
• Remote work impact on people: How is their physical activity?
• Explain the role of sport in the American education system
• Is it possible to buy happiness for money?
• The basic survival skills everyone should know

Tips on How to Write Synthesis Essay

It is easier said than done when it comes to writing a synthesis essay. That is true, and for this reason, we outlined the list of valuable synthesis essay tips we consider the most essential to focus on. They are helpful for both writing an AP lang synthesis essay and a term assessment. Check them out.

Conduct Thorough Research

A good paper is regarded as meaningful when it is based on deep and all-encompassing research. Don’t neglect to provide a thorough exploration of your topic. The more information you find, the more valuable and reasonable your essay will be. But make sure you use credible sources to summarize and synthesize the data. Once you have a viewpoint to reveal, look for sources that support it or oppose it so that you can use them to substantiate your perspective.

Look from Diverse Perspectives

When willing to express one particular point or argument, consider other perspectives that might contradict your ideas. Why is it important? You should be aware of all the main arguments or acceptances occurring around your topic. It is essential to study different points of view that emerged on the basis of your theme or aspect under study. This could help you disclose another side or significance of your essay topic and change the focus of the main content you want to unleash. Doing this can reveal a new perspective, idea, or aspect of your synthesis essay’s research.

Choose an Organizational Method

Although an essay has a standard structure, your content should be well-composed and introduced coherently. All data should be outlined so a reader will enjoy the smooth turn from one statement to another. Depending on the field and aspect you are preparing a synthesis essay about, there are three methods to organize the content in your paper. They are the following:

Chronological Method

If you include dates or other significant events in your review or argumentative essay, it makes sense to present them in chronological order. Every fact should be justified per its development. So later, you can introduce your perspective or statement that will explain the impact of prior events. For example, when revealing a particular historical period in the US, you should first mention all important events chronologically. So then, you can argue your idea about the changes they brought to the country from a political or international perspective.

Thematic Method

A synthesis paper can be written for any field of science to represent a shorter version of facts, viewpoints, research results, etc. That’s why students can come across some topics that require uncovering a few themes in one essay. It is where a thematic method of content organization takes place. You should determine what notions or terms should be mentioned and revealed in your paper. Then, think of what term might explain or continue a key message of another term. Once you find out this detail, you should present each term one after another, keeping coherence in the information flow.

Point-by-point Method

As synthesis papers deal with different ideas, arguments, viewpoints, etc., comparison as a research method has a place. You can operate with many hypotheses, approaches, ideas, and arguments, so comparing them and finding their similarities and differences makes sense. This content organization method involves explaining one point of the synthesis statement, and then another point to compare further.

Crafting a successful synthesis essay requires a well-structured outline, which can be challenging to develop without assistance. Luckily, many academic essay writing services, such as PapersOwl.com, offer support in this area. To help you get started, here is an outline you can utilize to write a compelling synthesis essay that will leave a lasting impression on your professor.

Make a Synthesis Essay Outline to Structure Content

Earlier, we emphasized the importance of orchestrating your main content under study. This section covers the crucial thing in writing a synthesis essay: an outline. The outline is a great synthesis essay template for structuring your entire paper. We recommend you always stick to it once you define your essay’s topic and objective. Thanks to it you will be able to keep your focus on the angle of your work.

If you want to deepen your knowledge, we have prepared steps on how to write a synthesis essay outline. The outline of your essay must include three main components, but it can vary, and mostly the main difference is in a short and cited presentation of the thoughts you want to reveal in your essay. Below, we introduce a brief outline structure:

• Introductory part

The beginning of your essay mustn’t be too long. It is enough to disclose your objective, the main topic, and a strong thesis statement in one paragraph. It doesn’t make sense to keep a reader’s attention for long in the introduction, explaining what you are going to describe or argue in detail. Present it shortly and precisely.

• Body paragraph

In this part of the essay, you should introduce all you have researched, analyzed, and systematized. Likewise, you should expose your material in a minimum of three paragraphs. Each part has an appropriate synthesis-paragraph structure. In the outline, we recommend you craft a bullet list of three here and note shortly what points you want to describe in each paragraph.

This is the summarizing part of the essay, where you conclude all the information introduced in your synthesis essay. It is essential to repeat the thesis statements here. It should also be concise.

Write an Engaging Introduction

A good synthesis essay should get a reader engaged straight from its introduction. An introductory part should be composed in an interesting way to keep reading your essay. Here is where a reader finds out about the background of the topic and what main problems or ideas will be discussed. Such information should be catchy, and it is essential to make the first opening sentence sharper.

Another important thing in the introduction is crafting a hooky synthesis essay thesis statement. The thesis will be like a compass to the main points of your essay. Try to make the topic sentence specific and intriguing by matching your essay objectives.

Introduction synthesis essay example: When it comes to running a successful business, there’s no doubt that having the right people on board is crucial. After all, a company is simply a group of individuals working together towards a common goal. However, not enough emphasis is placed on what the “right” people actually look like. That’s why I wanted to bring attention to an often overlooked but incredibly important attribute: resistance. In this article, I’ll explain what resistance is, why it matters, and how you can identify it in potential team members.

Critically Analyze Sources and Identify Their Relevance to the Thesis Statement

A thesis presents a key message of your paper. This is what both reveals the focus of an essay and captures a reader’s attention. That’s why it requires exploring many sources carefully and critically analyzing them to identify their relevance. So then, you can formulate a strong thesis statement that will combine the key points of the synthesis essay. The more valuable data you find and analyze, the more precious your thesis.

The Main Body

There are three parts to your essay, each using a different type of evidence. The first two sections should contain evidence that supports your thesis. This can be in the form of direct quotes from your sources , statistics, and/or other research that supports your claim. The third section should contain evidence against your thesis – or what some might call “counterpoints” or “arguments against”.

Building on this structure, it’s imperative to recognize that the very foundation of your thesis relies on the robustness of these supporting arguments. Let’s look closer.

Support Your Arguments

Every thought, idea, assumption, and definition from your thesis statement must be justified by supporting arguments. No one will get involved in a piece that tells about everything and nothing simultaneously when there is no evidence and proof of mentioned facts. This point is vital as your perspective must have a background, and you should explain the reasons you provide a particular argument or viewpoint.

Extensive research and analysis of credible sources allow students to come up with exciting and valuable solutions, ideas, and directions. That’s why the time spent on deep study will always pay you back. It is a very significant component in writing argumentative synthesis essays. So, make sure you find supporting arguments for the idea or perspective you want to convey to a reader. This will increase the persuasiveness and worthiness of your message in the essay.

Address Counterarguments

Sometimes, it is difficult to persuade someone when many counterarguments make your point of view unworthy. The same might happen when you decide to start a synthesis essay and prove your opposite perspective. This task is challenging and requires thorough research of counterarguments. Only by having analyzed a massive set of information, one can provide reasonable comparisons and meaningful explanations to let a reader take their perspectives into account. Here are a few helpful tips on how to maintain a persuasive stance while considering opposing viewpoints:

• Study all counterarguments that might be according to your viewpoint;
• Learn the background of the counterarguments;
• Find out what consequences they can lead to (if they are negative);
• Weigh the influence of opposing arguments and find their weak points;
• Justify your viewpoints clearly and precisely with supporting evidence;
• Provide comparative analysis to underline the significance of your perspective;
• Never ignore the counterarguments in your informative synthesis essay paper.

Craft a Strong Conclusion

The conclusion is the last but not least component of a synthesis essay structure. The train of thoughts and ideas kept during the entire paper shouldn’t be interrupted instantly. It must have an excellent finalizing part where you sum up all mentioned in your essay and leave a good touch for your reader.

To craft a strong conclusion, you should present an overview of your research and note the main points of your argument or perspective. But remember, the conclusion doesn’t have to be too long and saturated. It should be brief, concise, and precise. Remember to remind your reader of your thesis statement and emphasize the relevance and significance of your essay’s topic.

Conclusion synthesis essay example: Through our research, we have identified effective strategies for dealing with repetitive motions in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. It is clear that multiple behavior modification therapies are important for improving this behavior. Further exploration into behavior modification techniques could lead to finding more therapy techniques that can greatly improve the lives of those with repetitive motion behaviors. We believe that this research can make a significant impact in helping individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder lead more fulfilling lives.

Bibliography

A bibliography is a list of books, journals, and other sources of information used in the essay. The bibliography should be alphabetically arranged by the author’s last name. All sources should be listed separately on a separate page following the main body of text or at the end of your paper.

Your research sources should be properly credited at the end of the essay, whether you’re using MLA, APA, or another format . The most common form for citing an author’s work is called “parenthetical citation” or “in-text citation.” In parenthetical citations, you include the title of the work (italicized), page numbers if applicable, year published (if applicable), medium (e.g., book), and publisher’s name (if not self-published).

Proofread and Edit Your Essay

Even if you think your work is impeccable, it needs to be proofread and edited. While you are concentrating on the writing process, you might skip some other nuances. This can be punctuation, typos, grammatical errors, or incorrect sentence order. For this reason, a synthesis essay must go through thorough proofreading to detect any kind of errors. Apart from this, you can split one body paragraph into two, for example, if you find different points discussed in it. You should also format it using a particular format style to handle a well-structured, edited, and formatted essay.

Bottom line

Wrapping up, we encourage you to follow our tips on how to write a good synthesis essay. Although any type of writing isn’t easy work, you can do it well with the help of good supporting sources available on our website. If you are short on time and understand that you can’t cope with this task, you can find an expert who writes essays for you to meet your deadlines. But if you decide to make it up alone, make sure to craft an outline and follow all the insightful tips mentioned in this article.

How long should a synthesis essay be?

How many paragraphs are in a synthesis essay, is a synthesis essay argumentative, does a synthesis essay have a counterargument, readers also enjoyed.

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

How to write a good AP synthesis essay

Published September 27, 2020. Updated June 7, 2022.

Synthesis Essay Definition

A synthesis essay uses information from multiple sources to support an argument or explanation.

Overview of Synthesis Essay Writing

First, take some time to develop a thorough understanding of what you will be writing about. Take notes as you go, keeping track of points you want to make and evidence you want to include in the essay. While you read, you can begin to brainstorm a thesis statement and outline for the essay. Writing an outline will help structure your essay and keep you on track. The standard synthesis essay outline includes an introduction, body, and conclusion. Spend adequate time reviewing the instructions, sources, and prompts.

The AP English Language and Composition (also known as AP Lang) exam is composed of two sections: a Multiple Choice section and a Free Response section. It’s normal to be nervous before an exam, especially an AP exam. If you’re not sure what to expect from the AP Lang synthesis essay, never fear. Here you can read about everything you need to know before exam day, including:

• the purpose of the synthesis essay
• what to expect from the sources and prompt
• a sample prompt and response
• how the synthesis essay is scored
• how to write a high-scoring synthesis essay

Worried about your writing? Submit your paper for a Chegg Writing essay check , or for an Expert Check proofreading . Both can help you find and fix potential writing issues.

Synthesis essay

The College Board describes the synthesis essay this way:

“After reading 6–7 texts about a topic (including visual and quantitative sources), students will compose an argument that combines and cites at least 3 of the sources to support their thesis.”

You will have 45 minutes to complete the synthesis essay. How you use this time is up to you, but below we’ve included a timeline for how you might choose to use your 45 minutes.

What will the sources and prompt be like?

The six to seven sources will all be centered on a specific topic. In past exams, the prompt has been focused on subjects like alternative energy and eminent domain. At least two of the sources will be visual, and at least one will be numerical (a chart or graph). The others will be text passages of roughly 500 words.

Before the sources, you’ll be given directions and a writing prompt. The prompt will explain the topic, then present a claim for you to respond to. Your response should synthesize material from at least three of the sources, forming a full-fledged essay.

See a sample synthesis essay prompt directly from the College Board linked here.

Following the directions in this sample prompt, you’ll find Sources A-F. Click here to view sample student responses.

How will my synthesis essay be scored?

Synthesis essays will be scored on a range from 0 to 6 based on an analytic rubric. This score will be the total of three scores based on three categories: your thesis, your evidence and commentary, and your sophistication.

Click here to review the complete free-response scoring guidelines for the 2020 AP Lang exam. As a quick summary, we’ll provide the College Board’s descriptions for what warrants the highest and lowest points in each category.

According to the AP English Language Scoring Rubrics, 0 points in the thesis category will be given “for any of the following”:

• There is no defensible thesis.
• The intended thesis only restates the prompt.
• The intended thesis provides a summary of the issue with no apparent or coherent claim.
• There is a thesis, but it does not respond to the prompt.

1 point in the thesis category will be given to essays that respond “to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.”

0 points will be given in the evidence and commentary section to any essay that “Simply restates thesis (if present), repeats provided information, or references fewer than two of the provided sources.”

4 points will be given in the evidence and commentary section to an essay that “Provides specific evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support all claims in a line of reasoning” and “Consistently explains how the evidence supports a line of reasoning.”

Finally, in the sophistication category , 1 point will be given to an essay that demonstrates “sophistication of thought and/or develops a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation.” 0 points will be given to essays that do not meet that criteria.

While it’s natural to worry about your score, keep in mind that your scorers know you have less than an hour to complete your synthesis essay. They know it is essentially a first draft, and they will pay more mind to what you do right than what you do wrong. Even the highest-scoring essays will contain occasional errors, so worry less about perfection than your holistic argument and synthesis.

How to write a high-scoring synthesis essay

Before we dive into what makes a high-scoring synthesis essay, let’s cover the basics. What is a synthesis essay?

Basically, a synthesis essay uses information from multiple sources to support an argument or explanation. However, when it comes to the AP Lang exam, you will be writing an argumentative synthesis essay.

You’ll take an argumentative stance, which you will express via your thesis statement, and argue in favor of that stance using evidence from multiple sources.

Outstanding AP Lang synthesis essays tend to do the following things very well. They:

• demonstrate an understanding of the topic at hand.
• express understanding of the topic’s importance.
• make the writer’s opinion on the topic clear early on.
• frequently cite examples from the sources, such as statistics and quotes.
• conclude with a strong “so what” point.

To write an essay that succeeds in all of these areas, you should use a few strategies on exam day.

Read, read, and read again

One of the worst mistakes you can make is to jump into outlining and writing before you’ve read and analyzed the directions, prompt, and sources. Though you have limited time, it’s worth taking some time to develop a thorough understanding about what you’ll be writing about.

Take notes as you go, keeping track of points you want to make and evidence you want to include in your essay. While you read, you can begin to brainstorm a thesis statement and outline for your essay.

Follow an outline

Even if you’re more of a “fly by the seat of your pants” type, an outline will help structure your essay and keep you on track.

Below is a standard synthesis essay outline to keep in mind. However, this is only an example, and your argument may not fit this outline exactly.

• Give a bit of context on the subject, demonstrating the knowledge you gained from reviewing the sources.
• Give a clear and concise thesis statement that presents your argument.
• Topic sentence
• Evidence #1
• Evidence #2
• Sum up the main points made in the essay.
• Restate the thesis statement
• End on a “so what?” statement.

Don’t lose track of time

While it’s vital you spend adequate time reviewing the instructions, sources, and prompt, it’s a lost cause if you don’t leave yourself enough time to outline and write!

Here’s a handy timeline to keep in mind during the 55-minute-long synthesis essay portion of the AP Lang exam:

• Reading the directions, sources, and prompt: 15 minutes
• Analyzing the sources and outlining your response: 10 minutes
• Drafting your response: 25 minutes
• Reviewing and revising your response: 5 minutes

Before you turn in that paper, don’t forget to cite your sources in APA format , MLA format , or a style of your choice.

Sample synthesis essay

Although you cannot know what your prompt and sources will be before exam day, you can prepare beforehand by reading sample synthesis essays  and writing practice essays from past questions .

AP synthesis example essay

Based on the 2020 prompt : 

The impact of television on political matters has been  under  debate for years. Television provides a low-cost method to  stay informed  about policy changes  and receive  important announcements, and  it  often  offers  a path to learn more about political figures and their plans for the United States. However, critics of television believe that there is a strong psychological and marketing strategy in play,  which  presents  false images of personalities and  is  commonly used as a tool to sway public opinion. While there are drawbacks to  broadcasting debates and politics ,  it  positively influences presidential elections by providing accessible information to viewers ,  shar ing  the candidate s’  personali ties , plans, and ideals during  their  potential role as president,  and  ultimately assisting citizens in casting their vot e.  

The  primary benefit of televising politics is t hat it provides  accessible information . Television, as s ource A explains , provides an opportunity for citizens to be more involved in political matters than ever before, specifically  by adding to  their  knowledge. With public speeches and political events televised, viewers can learn about the structure of the U.S. political system and build a better understanding  of  how legislation is created, in addition to their representative s’  contribution s  to political matters.  The reach of television is clear, as shown in Source D, where millions of viewers tune in every four years for the presidential debates.  T he data reports  that  80.6 million people view ed  the debates in 1980,  and even  in 1996, the chart’s lowest year of ratings, 46.1 million viewers tuned in — all who may have been influenced to vote !  The data shows that television is unmatched in  its  ability to reach voters , proving that it is a beneficial tool for providing information  to help  citizens  make their choices .  

Television also works as a trust-building tool between the viewer and the presidential candidate s . Although the criticism from Source C — which  claim s  that televised debates  are  largely  focused  on image instead of content — is noteworthy,  we  must also consider the relationship development that occurs between the constituent and the politician.  For example, consider  the story of Walter Cronkite, who performed investigat ive  journalism on-site in Vietnam to deliver a message about his opinion of the war. In doing so, he was able to shift the support for the ongoing war into a national call for closure, resulting in the end of the United States ’  presence in Vietnam and potentially saving thousands  of  live s  (Source E) . For presidents, their arguments, vision, and speeches can establish trust with the viewers, raising  citizens’  confidence  in their  ability  to  do the job successfully.  Though  televised appearances do result in investment in public relation campaigns and sometimes  support  an inauthentic view  of their subjects , at the same time, television serves as an important tool to connect citizens with their  president and  candidates .  

Perhaps the most  troubling   element of  televisi ng  presidential elections  is the threat  of commercialism. With the variety of issues and complaints regarding legislation and public policy, presidential candidates may use their live airtime to tackle only the most popular economic and social issues. T ed Koppel  analyzed  this phenomenon  during a past presidential debate,  in which  the television station structured the debate to limit responses from the candidates (Source F) .  This approach is somewhat deceptive, forcing the candidates to come up with quick answers  while  masking other issues.  For example,  only the most popular social issues may have been brought up, sidelining  complex political matters and policy problems  that may have been ongoing for years.  However, while this  format  surely limits candidates ’ ability  to share their opinions on a wide variety of issues, television does allow  the candidates to connect with the masses, which may not be possible through other forms of communication.  I f necessary , the format  of future debates  could be restructured to create  more  space for complex  argumentation   without sacrificing the benefits of televised  communication.  

In summary, t he  influence of television is unprecedented, allowing presidential candidates and other politicians to connect with viewers from across the nation. The critics are justified in  remarking   that  televised debates  may mislead  citizens through their  emphasis on  public image. However,  if audiences  analyz e  the debates, announcements, and other  such  matters with a critical approach,  this highly accessible form of communication  encourages people to build trust with presidential candidates, enhance their worldview, and feel more involved in political matters.  

Works cited

“AP English Language.” AP Central , 13 Aug. 2020, apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-english-language-and-composition/exam.

“AP English Language and Composition Free-Response Questions Scoring Rubrics, Effective Fall 2019.” The College Board, 2019, https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-english-language-and-composition-frqs-1-2-3-scoring-rubrics.pdf

“AP English Language and Composition 2020 Free-Response Scoring Guidelines Applied to the 2019 Exam Questions.” The College Board, 2019, https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-english-language-and-composition-2020-frq-scoring-guidelines-2019-exam-questions-0.pdf

Published September 8, 2020.

By Jolee McManus. Jolee earned a BA in English from the University of Georgia. She has several years of experience as a writing tutor and freelance copywriter and editor.

Common Writing Assignments, Apps & Tests

• Analytical Essay
• AP synthesis Essay
• Argumentative Essay
• Book Report
• Compare and Contrast Essay
• Cause and Effect Essay
• College Admissions Essay
• Critical Analysis Essay
• Definition Essay
• Descriptive Essay
• Dissertation
• Explanatory Essay
• Expository Essay
• Informative Essay
• Narrative Essay
• Opinion Essay
• Personal Essay
• Persuasive Essay
• Reflective Essay
• Research Paper
• Rhetorical Analysis
• Scholarship Essay
• Short Essay
• Thesis Paper

What’s included with a Chegg Writing subscription

• Unlimited number of paper scans
• Plagiarism detection: Check against billions of sources
• Expert proofreading for papers on any subject
• Grammar scans for 200+ types of common errors
• Automatically create & save citations in 7,000+ styles
• Cancel subscription anytime, no obligation