The main workshop post for these ETA exercises is here: AP Exam: Section II — ETA Workshop.
The full practice assignment for Section II is here: AP Exam: Section II — Workshop.
Section II, Question 3 — ETA Workshop
Argument: Students create an evidence-based argument that responds to a given topic.
You can find these materials on the College Board’s website. I am organizing them for you so we can discuss the exemplary essays interstitially.
For each prompt, look only at the highest-scoring essay. You can learn from the other ones, certainly, but it is a more efficient use of your time to deconstruct the essays that earn an 8 or 9. Each element of effective writing you would emulate in a timed setting is best demonstrated by those highest-scoring essays.
The main reason for us to use this prompt as ETA practice is the abstract nature of the topic, which is “choosing the unknown.” The quotation in the prompt is difficult, too:
We tend not to choose the unknown which might be a shock or a disappointment or simply a little difficult to cope with. And yet it is the unknown with all its disappointments and surprises that is the most enriching.
The first sentence must be unpacked carefully, and the second one introduces the concept of enrichment. You have only a few minutes to turn that quotation into a workable approach.
The real difficulty of this sort of prompt is that you must be able to draw from a wide range of experiences, readings, logic, etc., to defend any position effectively. In other words, you need to know a little bit about a lot of things.
The concept of the “unknown” opens up the possibilities. That’s why the details found in the best essays are so wide-ranging:
In upper-half essays, students responded to Lindbergh’s quote by calling on the likes of JFK, Galileo, and a laundry list of other scientists, explorers, and astronauts, as well as musicians, and philosophers. However, students also wrote about experiences traveling abroad, sailing for 17 days with a team of their peers, participating in a Mock UN, meeting the love of their lives, and rope climbing for the first time—all of which demonstrated for them what happened when the unknown is explored.
This is what you want to emulate: a balance between history, philosophy, pop culture, and personal experience.
To see what that balance looks like, you should study the essay that earned a 9. The scoring commentary especially emphasizes the arrangement of the student’s response:
The seamless transitions from the scientific to the musical (Bach and Shostakovich) and ultimately to the literary (Thoreau) are offered with appropriate and convincing explanations and extensive development (e.g., “Bach … created his own era of music … by exploring the possibilities of a chamber orchestra. He, by exploring new territory in music, changed the face of string and orchestral music, employing elements of fugue and countermelody”).
You should emulate as much of this student’s arrangement as possible when writing on exam day. You may not be able to predict the ability to balance scientific evidence with musical evidence — creating an effective balance and showcasing the breadth of your knowledge — but you can strive for some balance.
If 2018’s Question 3 is difficult, 2017 seems to turn that difficulty up to 11. (Ignore, for the purposes of this ETA workshop, how linear time works.) The prompt is to respond to “[Chris] Hedges’ argument that ;the most essential skill . . . is artifice.'” The first two sentences of the excerpt to which you must respond mention “political theater,” “consumer culture,” and “faux intimacy.”
This is worth an ETA focus, however, because the prompt only seems difficult. It is very much in your wheelhouse. The topic is how an “image-based culture” deals in distorted narratives and performative, artificial emotions. More interesting is that you’re responding to the idea of artifice as a skill — “the most essential skill,” according to the excerpt. As students, you are told constantly which skills are most important.
Which means the real difficulty of this prompt isn’t the language, nor the seemingly abstract concept, but the requirement that you draw from a wide range of experiences, readings, logic, etc., to defend your position. You need to know a little bit about a lot of things.
To understand how this is assessed, look at the Chief Reader’s explanation:
This year’s prompt casts a wide net. Responses ranged from political and historical approaches to responses that focused on consumerism, materialism, and advertising. The prompt drew many students into political discussions, but some of the best essays took on consumer culture. Students explored the artifice they found in advertisements and in pop culture: they wrote about reality television, glorification of sports icons, and media coverage of pop celebrities. Many students drew evidence from their experiences living in a world dominated by social media, a world in which images were frequently presentations of self.
That “wide net” is a test by itself. In the next paragraph of the report, the College Board notes that “most students focused on standard definitions of artifice and leaned on unsurprising examples.” Remember Paul Graham? You want to find the surprising and interesting approach to your topic. You want to find the river.
You can still do well on Question 3 by addressing Hitler’s rise to power, recent American elections, and the novels you’ve read in school. Those are “unsurprising examples,” but they could support a serviceable position. What you want, though, is to search your experience for what this report calls “apt examples,” which really means specific and noteworthy examples. Knowing a bit about “Rousseau and Machiavelli and… Plato’s Allegory of the Cave” will help you. Knowing history, especially “specific details of… policies and decisions,” will help you.
You are looking at the selection of detail, then, in these student essays. The one scoring a 6 is adequate, and rewarded as adequate, but it leans on The Hunger Games. Again, there is no prohibition on popular fiction, popular television, famous historical moments, etc.; it may be better, however, to stretch your thinking beyond the “unsurprising examples.”
It’s worth linking directly to the essay that earned an 8:
Take careful note of how this essay uses more unexpected references to history alongside recent presidential elections. The how is what separates it, not just the surprising knowledge of Machiavelli. This is a student with a sense of how Machiavelli’s ideas have played out in contemporary politics.
We’re reaching back to 2005 to use a different kind of argument prompt. You’re given a controversial claim (“[W]hatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away”) from an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” You must then evaluate the pros and cons of that position before indicating, as part of your own argument, which is more persuasive.
The topic seems straightforward, but it requires you to navigate complex issues like human nature and politics. We will practice it because it is also easy to stray from the prompt — to forget to do exactly what the prompt asks you to do. You must evaluate Singer’s position, offering evidence in support of and against it.
Back in 2005, these materials were separated, so you won’t find the scoring rubric at the beginning of this document. That rubric (2005 Section II Question 3 Scoring Rubric) is identical to the current one for Question 3, however.
The most critical piece of information for our ETA purposes is this: “The task called upon students to flesh out the structure of Singer’s argument, especially its underlying assumptions.” All you are given in many of these argument prompts is an excerpt or summary of a position; in those cases, you must demonstrate your ability to think critically about what is assumed.
Focus on the essays scored an 8. In almost any general argument, you can generate momentum by defining terms; in this case, the College Boards notes that “[p]articularly compelling is the essay’s questioning of the definitions of and distinctions between ‘luxury and necessity.'” This prompt requires you to make that distinction clear, but in most cases, you’ll be able to start your essay by setting parameters and defining terms. In 2017, it’s the definition of “artifice”; in 2018, it’s the definition of “the unknown.”
What you want to avoid is stylistic: Don’t write, “The definition of [x] is [y]”; instead, talk about the term in context. For this 2005 prompt, it’s the idea of drawing a line. Where should we make the distinction between luxury and necessity?
Q&A: Interstitial ETA Work
Start with whatever directions you are given through Google Classroom. That’s where you’ll find any formal work associated with this prompt. It’s up to you, however, to utilize this opportunity to prepare for the exam. Ask questions in the comment section below. Invite your peers and teacher into a discussion of how these high-scoring essays work and how you can emulate them.
