Write Abstracts, Syntheses and Policy Briefs

The key idea

Choose the right structure for each text, then select only the evidence needed to explain findings or support action.

What is it for?

Learn to summarise research, connect several sources and recommend action. Choose details carefully and make every sentence serve a clear purpose.

What you need to know

An abstract explains the purpose, method, findings and conclusion of a study.
A synthesis groups ideas by theme, not by source.
A policy brief explains an issue, presents evidence, compares options and recommends action.
Plain language helps readers understand unfamiliar topics without losing important details.
Headings and bullets make complex information easier to find.
Every claim needs suitable evidence, and every detail needs a clear purpose.

1. Give each text one clear job

An abstract gives readers a short account of a study. It helps them decide whether the study matters to their needs. A synthesis connects findings from several sources. It shows where they agree, differ or leave gaps. A policy brief helps people choose an action. It explains a problem and offers a practical recommendation.

An abstract reports what the study did and found.
A synthesis builds one account from several sources.
A policy brief moves from evidence towards a decision.
Do not make one text perform all three jobs.

Abstract: The study examined bus delays and identified two main causes.

The sentence reports the study's purpose and a main finding.

Synthesis: Both reports link delays to traffic, but only one examines staff shortages.

The sentence connects sources through shared and different findings.

Policy brief: The city should add a morning bus on the busiest route.

The sentence gives a direct, practical recommendation.

2. Build a useful abstract

Write the abstract after the study is complete. First, state the purpose. Next, explain the method briefly. Then report the main findings. End with the conclusion or practical value. Keep the order logical and remove details that readers can find elsewhere.

Purpose: explain what the study examines.
Method: say how the evidence was collected.
Findings: report the most important results.
Conclusion: explain what the results show.
Use exact numbers when they matter to the main result.

This study examined food waste in four school canteens.

The opening states the purpose and the study's scope.

Staff weighed unused meals over six school weeks.

The method names the action and the time period.

Waste fell by 18% after smaller portions became available.

The finding gives a measurable result.

The results support offering portion choices at lunchtime.

The conclusion links the evidence to a possible action.

3. Synthesise sources by theme

Read all sources before deciding how to organise the synthesis. Make a list of shared themes, differences and missing evidence. Group related findings together. Mention sources where their views differ. Do not write one paragraph for each source. That structure often repeats information instead of connecting it.

Choose themes that answer the main question.
Combine findings that support the same point.
Show differences when the evidence does not agree.
Name sources clearly so readers can check the claims.
Separate what the evidence shows from your own interpretation.

Both surveys found that later buses improved attendance.

The sentence combines two sources around one shared theme.

The first survey found a larger effect in winter.

The sentence adds a difference that matters.

Neither survey measured the cost of extra services.

The sentence identifies a gap in the available evidence.

4. Shape a policy brief around a decision

Start with the issue and explain why it matters now. Present the strongest evidence next. Then compare realistic options, including their costs or limits. Finish with one clear recommendation. Explain why it is stronger than the alternatives. A reader should understand both the problem and the next step.

Issue: state the problem and who it affects.
Evidence: select relevant facts, figures and findings.
Options: compare practical choices and their limits.
Recommendation: name the preferred action and explain why.
Action: state who should act and what should happen next.

Issue: Many students arrive late because morning buses are full.

The opening names the problem and its likely cause.

Evidence: School records show 120 late arrivals each week.

The figure makes the problem specific.

Recommendation: Add one bus at 7:30 a.m. for a six-week trial.

The recommendation gives a clear action and a time limit.

5. Make complex information easy to use

Write for readers who may not know the topic. Explain necessary technical terms in plain words. Use headings to show the main parts. Use bullets for short lists, options or actions. Keep paragraphs focused. Remove repeated claims, background details and words that add no meaning.

Use a heading when readers need to find information quickly.
Use bullets for separate points, not for every sentence.
Explain specialist words the first time they appear.
Keep useful limits and uncertainty in the final version.
Replace vague claims with evidence, numbers or clear examples.

Vague: The new service will improve many things.

The sentence does not say what will improve.

Clear: The new service may reduce waiting times by ten minutes.

The sentence names the expected result and its size.

Technical: The intervention reduced the incidence of missed appointments.

This wording may suit specialist readers, but not everyone.

Plain: The change reduced the number of missed appointments.

The revised sentence keeps the meaning and uses familiar words.

How to do it, step by step

Decide the text's purpose and identify its main reader.
Collect the strongest evidence and check where it comes from.
Choose the structure: study stages, themes or a decision path.
Draft each section using only details that support its purpose.
Check accuracy, clarity, length and the action or conclusion.

Formulas and key language

Use it for	Example	Another example
This study examines + topic.	This study examines food waste in school canteens.	This study examines delays in local bus services.
Data were collected through + method.	Data were collected through weekly staff surveys.	Data were collected through six weeks of observation.
The findings indicate that + result.	The findings indicate that smaller portions reduce waste.	The findings indicate that early buses improve attendance.
Across the sources, + shared finding.	Across the sources, staff shortages appear repeatedly.	Across the sources, later opening times receive support.
While source A reports X, source B finds Y.	While one survey reports lower costs, another finds little change.	While the first report supports longer hours, the second favours extra staff.
The available evidence does not establish + missing point.	The available evidence does not establish the long-term cost.	The available evidence does not establish whether every school would benefit.
One option is to + action.	One option is to extend the morning bus service.	One option is to offer smaller meal portions.
We recommend + action because + reason.	We recommend a six-week trial because the cost remains uncertain.	We recommend extra morning buses because late arrivals remain high.
The next step is to + action.	The next step is to measure waiting times weekly.	The next step is to review the trial after six weeks.

UK / US: British English often uses analyse and organisation. American English uses analyze and organization. Choose one style and use it consistently.

Level up: Replace basic words (good, very, nice) with stronger ones. See our A2 to C2 upgrades page.

Model text

Policy Brief: Reducing Late Arrivals at Riverside School

1. Issue

Riverside School records about 120 late arrivals each week. Many students depend on two crowded morning buses. Late arrivals interrupt lessons and make it harder for students to settle. The school needs a practical response that does not require a complete transport redesign.

The opening names the problem, its effects and the need for action.

2. Evidence

School records show that most late arrivals happen between 7:45 and 8:15 a.m. A six-week student survey found that 64% of affected students reported full buses. Staff observations also identified delays near the main road. These findings suggest that both passenger numbers and traffic contribute to the problem. However, the school has not measured the cost of extra services.

The evidence combines records, survey results and observations. It also states an important gap.

3. Options

The school could ask students to leave home earlier, add another morning bus or adjust the timetable. Earlier departures would cost little, but they would not solve overcrowding. A timetable change might reduce pressure, although it could affect families. An extra bus would address capacity directly, but its cost needs checking.

The options are compared by likely effect, cost and possible limits.

4. Recommendation

The school should request one additional bus for a six-week trial. Transport staff should record arrival times and passenger numbers each day. The school should compare these results with the previous six weeks. It should also review the cost before making a permanent decision. This approach tests a direct solution while limiting financial risk.

The final section names the action, explains how to test it and sets a review point.

Common mistakes

✗ The study looked at many different things.

✓ The study examined food waste in four school canteens.

Name the main topic and scope instead of using vague words.

✗ The sources each talk about bus delays.

✓ Both sources link bus delays to traffic, but only one examines staffing.

A synthesis connects findings instead of listing topics.

✗ The results were really good.

✓ The results showed an 18% reduction in food waste.

Use a clear finding instead of an unclear judgement.

✗ The council should implement a comprehensive transport optimisation initiative.

✓ The council should improve the morning bus service.

Use plain words when specialist terms add no useful detail.

✗ Recommendation: The council should review the problem.

✓ Recommendation: The council should add one bus for six weeks.

A recommendation needs a specific action and a clear scope.

✗ The survey found lower costs. The survey found shorter waits.

✓ The survey found lower costs and shorter waits.

Join closely related findings when this makes the text shorter.

Plan it, then check it

Plan

Write one sentence naming the purpose and reader.
List the main findings, sources and limits.
Group evidence by theme or by decision stage.
Choose the details that support the main point.
Write a clear conclusion or practical recommendation.

Check

Does each section serve the text's main purpose?
Can readers identify the source of each important claim?
Have I included differences and limits in the evidence?
Can a non-expert understand the wording and headings?
Is the conclusion clear, supported and useful?

Practice

EXERCISE:

Choose the strongest sentence

Choose the sentence that best fits the named part.

1.Abstract: purpose

The purpose states what the study examines.

2.Abstract: method

The method explains how researchers collected evidence.

3.Abstract: findings

The findings report what the study discovered.

4.Synthesis: shared theme

A shared theme connects findings from different sources.

5.Policy brief: options

The options section compares possible actions.

6.Policy brief: recommendation

A recommendation states the preferred action.

Now write

Your task

Write a policy brief of 170-220 words for the fictional town of Lakewood. The town library closes at 5 p.m. on weekdays. A fictional survey of 200 residents found that 68% cannot visit before closing. Library records show that evening visits could serve about 45 extra people daily. Staff estimate that two extra evening shifts would cost 300 units each week. A six-week trial could measure visits and costs. The town can choose three options: keep current hours, open two evenings weekly, or open every evening. Recommend one option. Explain the evidence, compare the choices and name the next step. Use clear headings. Do not invent extra survey results. State when evidence is limited.

Target: 170-220 words

Word bank

accesssurvey findingsavailable evidenceweekday opening hoursevening visitsstaff costssix-week trialpractical optioncurrent scheduleestimated demandcompare resultsbudget limitsrecommendreviewnext step

Sentence starters

The main issue is that...
Survey findings indicate that...
The available evidence suggests...
One option would be to...
We recommend this option because...
The next step is to...

Use only the fictional details in this task. Do not include private information.

Instant feedback on your own text is part of Premium.

Check your writing

Does my abstract explain the purpose, method, findings and conclusion?
Does my synthesis group ideas by theme instead of by source?
Does my policy brief explain the issue, evidence and options?
Does my recommendation name a clear action and give a reason?
Have I removed vague words, unnecessary details and unexplained technical terms?

← Take a Critical Stance toward Sources Use Rhetoric and Persuasion →