Give me a generalized essay outline i can use to easily score full points on this essay type.
Examples and Scoring Commentaries:
There is a debate on whether Urban rewilding is the next step to ecological restoration, as its goal is to restore
natural processes and habitats in more urban areas. Rewilding is a worthwhile, beneficial approach to preserving
nature, as well as implementing it into more city environments.
 Enforcing the idea of rewilding in attempts to conserve nature and increase green space sparks opportunity.
Writers Jepson, Paul, and Frans Schepers argue that the process "reflects innovation and creates the possibility for a
common, but differentiated (situated) mode of conservation" (Document B). Saving as much wildlife as possible is a
consistent motive in today's society. In this case, the fresh concept of rewilding will do more good than harm, if
anything at all. There is also a matter of future generations to be recognized. Yes, everyone has heard the cliche of
"think about the kids and the world they will live in someday," but it stands just as strong. In Document C, Dr. Scott
proposes a question to his audience of those who may have their doubts. He asks "If people don't spend any time
outside, why are they going to care about their local places let alone the national parks in the distance?" (Document
C). Although childhood experiences have evolved over generations, embracing the outdoors should not be
something that turns into a fairy tale to future children.
 Despite the great effects rewilding may have, there are its downsides as well. Writer Lincoln Garland lists off
negatives such as "degradation by trampling, visual and noise disturbance, fire, invasive species, effects of predatory
pets etc." (Document D). Sure, going through with the idea of rewilding isn't going to be an entire, shall I say, "walk
in the park." However, the benefits in the end will outweigh the difficulties along the way, and the goal of restoring
nature will have one more task ticked off the list. When taking the time to look, the statistics are right before one's
eyes. Sarah Fastnacht provides the numbers, and they are promising. Going through with rewilding will result in
"more than 70% projected extinctions of plants and animals [being] counteracted by restoring only 30% of priority
areas" (Document A). Although there is hard work and brain power to be put in, even a little can go a long way.
 The rewilding process is one that is worthwhile, and a concept that should be strongly considered. Without
innovative ideas and change, society is always going to be wishing for a more ecological friendly world, rather than
living in one.
Sample 1A (1 of 1)
 When you think about the world you live in, it's easy to overlook the problems that are happening on an every
day basis. Urban communities are often at a decline of success because of the way people live today. Which is
becoming different from previous years. Rewilding initiatives are something that will have a positive impact on
communities. It is something that should be done in order to help the environment around your community. This is
easy to see and understand, as you learn more about this topic/issue.
 Extinctions of plants and animals, air pollution, big amounts of carbon dioxide and "WHO" limits are all valid
reasons as to why rewilding cities would be a positive thing. The blog post published by an architecture and design
company that specializes in sustainability in document A shows this idea very clearly. Document A draws out the
fact that extinctions of plants and animals and 465 billion tons of carbon dioxide, would simply be sequestered by
"restoring only 30% or priority areas" (document A). It's easy to overlook these simple problems because they aren't
something we think or worry about on a daily basis. It's important to see images such as this one to get a good
understanding about what is actually happening today.
 Rewilding is a big concept but easily understandable. It's a powerful term however with the right information,
it's easy to learn about. Rewilding "Combines a sense of passion and feeling for nature with advances in ecological
science" (document B). Rewilding nature is important for society as a whole. Those who are passionate about
nature, and always wanting the best for the environment are usually the ones who are committed to something like
this. Rewilding communities is definitely something that will take a lot of time and effort. But it is something that is
worth being done. It's worth the stress, and the work. The outcome that will occur after this is done, is something
that will make people feel accomplished, even if it's just in the smallest bit. Document B shows this in a really well
written way.
 Rewilding in urban communities is an attempt to better people's way of living. Some people are against
rewilding. They don't want to do the work, they don't feel there is a problem, or they simply just don't care. I can
understand why some people might feel "urban rewilding" is pointless. If people don't spend time outside. If they
don't see for themselves the issues, then why would they care about helping ( document C). Dr. Scott in document C
suggests that "urban rewilding in our cities and towns is what's needed to head off this crisis" (document C).
Reintroducing better ways of living is important because it allows people the live happier lives. To live in places
they feel benefits them. More people than not think that rewilding is a positive thing, and that is something that is
important when helping our society.
 Urban rewilding is worth the work as it is the only thing that will successfully improve the way people live.
Also, if urban rewilding is done right, cities could become places where nature is welcome (document C). People
should learn more about this, so in reality, it can actually be done.
Sample 1B (1 of 1)
Rewilding is a term that not many people have heard of or even pay attention to. That doesn't mean it's not important
either. Rewilding is a good thing for the planet, it's good for plants and the environment. The world needs to start
caring and the children espcially, children are the future.
Rewilding is good for our environment and for the future of perserving our world. In source C " If people don't
spend any time outside, why are they going to care about their local places let alone the national parks in the
distance." Going outside isn't just good for the planet, but it is also good for yourself. Nature isn't really welcome in
big cities but reintroducing new plants can make it feel like it is welcome. Kids need to start caring about nature and
not just about phones and video games. It gives you a different way to see our planet and care about what happens to
it.
In addition rewilding is valuable in our society to learn as a whole. In source B "Rewilding is exciting, engaging and
challenging: it is promoting debate and deliberation on what is natural and the natures we collectively wish to
conserve and shape." It's important for kids to understand and a challenge can be what a lot of children need. Also In
source A " More then 70% projected extinctions of plants and animals would be counteracted by restoring only 30%
of priority areas." That can be such a good thing and that's why rewilding especially for our country is important. If
we don't we could loose 70% of plants and animals, that would send the ecosystem into whack.
Overall Rewilding should be focused on more, we have a lot to lose. Putting in the time and effort in our cities and
urban settings is what we need to do. If you don't care now, start caring, kids especially need to focus in.
Sample 1C (1 of 1)
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1
Note: Student samples are quoted verbatim and may contain spelling and grammatical errors.
Overview
Students responding to this question were expected to read six sources on the topic of urban rewilding
and then write an essay that synthesized material from at least three sources and developed their
position on the extent to which rewilding initiatives are worthwhile for urban communities. Students
were expected to respond to the prompt with a thesis that takes a defensible position; use evidence
from at least three provided sources to support their line of reasoning clearly, properly citing the
sources; explain how the evidence supports their line of reasoning; and use appropriate grammar and
punctuation in presenting their argument.
As per the Course and Exam Description, students were expected to be able to read the prompt,
understand the task, use sources provided to write paragraphs that reflect their ability to establish
claims and provide evidence, and demonstrate their understanding of prose and their ability to write
using cogent, meaningful discourse.
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-3-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found in the last sentence of paragraph 1: “Rewilding is a worthwhile,
beneficial approach to preserving nature, as well as implementing it into more city environments.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response uses specific evidence from Sources B and C to support its line of reasoning, as in
paragraph 2: “Writers Jepson, Paul, and Frans Schepers argue that the process ‘reflects innovation
and creates the possibility for a common, but differentiated (situated) mode of conservation’
(Document B).” However, the commentary following this evidence—“Saving as much wildlife as
possible is a consistent motive in today’s society. In this case, the fresh concept of rewilding will do
more good than harm, if anything at all”—implies this source citation is self-evident and therefore
does not integrate it well into the line of reasoning.
The response works more deftly with Source C, introducing it with a qualified claim: “Yes, everyone
has heard the cliche of ‘think about the kids and the world they will live in someday,’ but it stands
just as strong” (paragraph 2). The commentary that follows the evidence—“Although childhood
experiences have evolved over generations, embracing the outdoors should not be something that
turns into a fairy tale to future children”—does a better job of explaining how the evidence supports
a line of reasoning.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response does not situate the argument within a broader context, and while its style is
competent, it does not rise to the level of consistently vivid or persuasive. However, the response
earned the point in Row C for identifying and exploring complexities or tensions across the sources
in paragraph 3. After accurately identifying a counterclaim to the response’s thesis in Source D and
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
using an apt quotation from that source, the response both summarizes Source D’s position and
introduces a refutation: “Sure, going through with the idea of rewilding isn’t going to be an entire,
shall I say, ‘walk in the park.’ However, the benefits in the end will outweigh the difficulties along the
way, and the goal of restoring nature will have one more task ticked off the list.” The response uses
Source A as evidence to support this claim before continuing its line of reasoning by stating that
although “there is hard work and brain power to be put in, even a little can go a long way.”
Sample: 1B
Score: 1-2-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found in the fourth and fifth sentences of paragraph 1: “Rewilding initiatives
are something that will have a positive impact on communities. It is something that should be done
in order to help the environment around your community.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 2
While the response does provide evidence from three sources (A, B, and C), the response’s attempt
at commentary is simplistic in how it explains the importance of that evidence, e.g., “It’s easy to
overlook these simple problems because they aren’t something we think or worry about on a daily
basis” (paragraph 2). The faulty line of reasoning is exemplified by the simplistic and repetitive
commentary throughout the response, e.g., “Rewilding communities is definitely something that will
take a lot of time and effort. But it is something that is worth being done. It’s worth the stress, and
the work” (paragraph 2) and “Urban rewilding is worth the work as it is the only thing that will
successfully improve the way people live” (paragraph 4).
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response does attempt to acknowledge the complexity of the topic in paragraph 3: “Rewilding is
a big concept but easily understandable. It’s a powerful term however with the right information, it’s
easy to learn about.” However, the apparent dismissal of the complexity keeps this from earning the
point in Row C. The response does not situate the argument within a broader context, and while the
response’s style is competent, it does not rise to the level of consistently vivid or persuasive.
Sample: 1C
Score: 1-1-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found in the first two sentences of paragraph 4, which is the clearest
presentation of the controlling idea: “Overall Rewilding should be focused on more, we have a lot to
lose. Putting in the time and effort in our cities and urban settings is what we need to do.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 1
The response does include quotes from three sources (C, B, and A) and accompanying commentary.
However, that commentary often describes the source instead of further developing a line of
reasoning. For example, after quoting evidence from Source C in paragraph 2, the response
observes: “It gives you a different way to see our planet and care about what happens to it.” This
pattern repeats in paragraph 3 where Source A is simply summarized: “That can be such a good
thing and that’s why rewilding especially for our country is important.”
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response does attempt to contextualize its argument: “If you don’t care now, start caring, kids
especially need to focus in” (paragraph 4). However, this attempt at a call to action did not earn the
Row C point as it does not situate the argument within a broader context. The response does not
explore complexities or tensions across the sources, and its style is not particularly vivid or
persuasive. 
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-4-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The first sentence of the response is a defensible thesis that addresses the prompt: “While many
would like to believe that vertical farms are the future of produce due to thier adaptability and
modernity, but in reality those systems are overvalued and only necessary for very niche
applications.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 4
The response establishes a line of reasoning to support the thesis and supports each claim with
sufficient evidence. The first major claim, that “[v]ertical farms are expensive—both in initial and
operating costs” (paragraph 2), is supported by evidence from sources C and D and by additional
observations about the cost of power. The second claim, that the current success of vertical farming
is based on “gimicky marketing” (paragraph 3) instead of genuine advantages, is supported with
evidence from source A, which is used to show a supportive article relying on “celebrity
testimonials.”
The response provides specific evidence from sources C, D, and A. In paragraph 2, it includes
specific details from source C, the chart comparing costs of initial investment for vertical farms to
“fields, greenhouses, and hydroponic systems,” tying that information to the specific cost of “over 80
thousand dollars per container” given in source D. In paragraph 3, the response incorporates specific
details from source A, including the references to Justin Timberlake and Natalie Portman, along with
the fact from source D that “the lettuce from Green Line Growers costs more than double the market
price of organic lettuce.” Although there are no direct quotes from the sources, these references do
represent specific evidence.
The commentary consistently explains all the evidence the response uses. In paragraph 2, the
commentary clearly explains how high operating costs make vertical farming “unreasonable to
implement in low income areas where access to local produce is needed the most” and that until
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
vertical farms can find a way to decrease their costs, they are “simply out of reach for most
communities.” In paragraph 3, the explanation that the “food produced using vertical farming is
marketed to the upper class … because they are the only ones who can afford it” explains the claim
and evidence about “gimicky marketing” and connects it to the line of reasoning regarding high
costs established in the previous paragraph.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response articulates the limitations of an argument (in this case, the argument in Source A) by
situating it in a broader context. It goes beyond a cursory examination of potential bias in a source
and focuses on the broader context revealed by that bias: celebrity endorsements were not chosen
randomly as a marketing ploy, but because people “who would consider the opinion of Natalie
Portman in thier grocery shopping” are the exact market being targeted. By suggesting alternative
methods to increase food production in an affordable way through “better distribution of resources to
low income communities” and “working to eliminate food waste,” the response once again
articulates a broader context of limited access to fresh, healthy food while identifying other potential
solutions to the problem.
In addition, the response consistently makes effective rhetorical choices that strengthen the impact
of its nuanced argument. Not only is the chosen evidence concise and accurate, but the connections
within the line of reasoning are very clear. For example, paragraph 2 effectively explains the
problems with high initial costs and then goes on to explain why operating costs of vertical farms
will also remain much higher than those of traditional farms. Paragraph 3 keeps its focus on brand
owners and marketing, creating a nuanced response to the argument presented in Source A.
Sample: 1B
Score: 1-3-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found at the end of paragraph 1: “I agree that vertical farms are key to
providing food for the future since it is very convenient for farmers to grow and very friendly to the
planet since there would not be enough arable land for the future generations.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response develops a line of reasoning and provides specific evidence to support each claim in
that line of reasoning. In paragraph 2, the claim that “[v]ertical farms can be built everywhere” is
supported by direct quotes from Source B. Source A is used to support an anticipated objection that
vertical farms built in suboptimal locations might not deliver food that is equivalent in taste. In
paragraph 3, the claim that vertical farms are helpful in limited conditions is again supported by
direct quotation from Source B and information from Source F.
The response does not consistently integrate the evidence, and it only explains how some of the
evidence supports the line of reasoning. Paragraph 2 presents a strong explanation of the
advantages of building vertical farms “everywhere” by explaining the implications for both urban
dwellers and people who live in deserts. The reference to “abandoned parking lots” in New York City
is geographically inaccurate, but it does not affect the underlying line of reasoning. However, in
paragraph 3, the explanations are less complete: the idea that vertical farming will be profitable
because it can provide “daily vegetables” is not fully developed. Paragraph 4 attempts to address the
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
argument that vertical farming is costly, but its quotation from Source B is not elaborated on with
sufficient commentary to integrate it into the argument.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
In paragraph 4, the response attempts to address the implications of Source B but does not situate
the argument within a broader context. Instead, it offers the oversimplified claim that “[i]f we have
the materials and space to build vertical farms, then it would not be an expensive style of farming
anymore.” The response does not explore complexities or tensions across the sources, and the
rhetorical choices are not consistently effective. Although the response shows some control of
language, it does not employ a style that is consistently vivid or persuasive.
Sample: 1C
Score: 1-1-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
Paragraph 1 as a whole is a defensible thesis: “Vertical farming will not only support us with yearround crops, it also do it for the future generations to come. There are many admirable qualities in
our tradicional ways of farming, yet vertical farms grant other valuable benefits that tradicional
farming does not.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 1
The response does provide evidence in the form of direct quotes and paraphrases from three
sources—E, B, and C—but summarizes or describes the evidence rather than explaining how it
supports an intended argument. For example, the first sentence of paragraph 3 reads, “On the
following interview a plant pathologist, (Kai-Shu ling) and an research horticulturalist (James
Altland), explained and expanded their viewings on this new vertical farming.” This is a description
of the source’s content rather than a claim. The rest of the paragraph continues to summarize the
source rather than use it to build an argument.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response focuses on three sources in isolation rather than consistently exploring complexity or
tensions across the sources. It does not articulate the implications or limitations of an argument, and
its rhetorical choices are not consistently effective. The response also does not employ a style that is
consistently vivid or persuasive.
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-4-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found at the end of paragraph 1: “In a sense, it would make sense to pour more
resources into this field of education; however, this newfound opportunity should not squander the
prevalence of other fields such as literature or the arts. Therefore, although there should be more value
placed on the development of STEM education, there should be no diminishing of other subjects in
order to achieve this goal.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 4
The response establishes a line of reasoning, acknowledging the “desire that lays in increasing STEM
education” in paragraph 2 before devoting paragraph 3 to a nuanced look at the need to “establish an
education system that places subjects in unison instead of undermining each other.” The response has
adequate evidence, clearly explained throughout, using multiple sources in each paragraph (in order,
Sources B, A, and F in paragraph 2 and Sources C and D in paragraph 3). Further, the concession that
“there lacks focus on the field” in paragraph 2 uses two well-chosen paraphrases before returning to
the central argument. The discussion of Source D in paragraph 3 illustrates the response’s consistency
in supporting all claims, as seen in the assertion that “[a]s a whole, the importance of a well rounded
STEM education not only emphasize the development of students, but the fact that success becomes a
byproduct due to the skills obtained.”
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response’s overall style is vivid and persuasive, as demonstrated in statements such as “Both the
increase in demand as well as the shifting economy work in tandem to establish the fact that those in
STEM professions benefit not only large businesses, but the people as well” (paragraph 2) and
“Placing a focus on STEM education does not mean a whole displacement of other fields of education
though, as more often than not it is found that all subjects work together in unison to produce a
successful STEM based student” (paragraph 3). While the response combines sources in support of its
AP® English Language and Composition 2022 Scoring Commentary
© 2022 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
claims and recognizes the tensions in focusing on STEM versus education as a whole, it does not
explore these tensions across sources. Additionally, the response does not necessarily situate the
response within a broader context. Therefore, the response earned the Row C point for its consistently
sophisticated style.
Sample: 1B
Score: 1-3-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The response earned the thesis point at the end of the first paragraph, asserting that “[b]ecause of
the increasing need in STEM job opportunities, the incentives to retain Americas position as an
innovation economy, and the importance of suppressing the decay of American aptitude in STEM
subjects, there is great value improving STEM education and interest.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response shifts the order of the thesis but does clearly delve into the three issues it mentions in
the thesis, beginning with a clear focus on “struggling internationally” before moving to “job
opportunities” and then the “innovation economy.” The response uniformly offers evidence for these
claims. Some evidence is clearly explained, as with the discussion of Source F in paragraph 4: “This
shows the desperate need for an increased commitment to STEM, because having less than ideal
employee ability limits companies and limits the economic growth of America.” In other places, the
discussion fails to integrate the evidence, relying on repetition of ideas and of the source’s point. For
example, in paragraph 2 the commentary on Source A about the slide in global rankings merely
repeats the provided details: “This shows that there is value in increasing STEM education because
other countries are rising over America in education.”
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The repetition (“This shows,” “This means”) is one issue that prevents the style from being vivid
and persuasive. No attempt is made to situate the argument in a broader context. All assertions are
supported with a single source in each paragraph (in order, A, B, and F), but the response does not
explore tensions or complexities across the sources.
Sample: 1C
Score: 1-1-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The response opens with a defensible thesis in the first sentence that sets up a counterargument
with the phrase “Although many people may not be on board” and moves to a statement of the
position: “its very benefic as it would give easier access to quality eduaction, theres been seen a rise
in the need of more engineers/scientists, the focus of art, history, and geography are very important
and crucal because you can learn valuable skills.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 1
The response does cite numerous sources (in order: A, B, C, D, E, and F) but does not explain how
the evidence supports the argument. For example, the discussion of “Doc D” in paragraph 3 is
followed by a summary of Source E and an unsubstantiated assertion that “through the arts we learn
AP® English Language and Composition 2022 Scoring Commentary
Question 1 (continued)
about humanities and disciplines.” This focus on summary or description can also be seen in
paragraph 2 in the statement that “[t]his meaning there will be an overall increase in the jobs for
mathematics.”
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
Beyond the brief attempt to establish a counterargument in the thesis, the response does not identify
complexities and tensions or extend those to the sources. The response moves quickly through the
sources, which does not allow for a substantial exploration of the topic. In addition, the emphasis on
summary prevents the response from achieving a persuasive style.
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-4-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The thesis is stated at the end of paragraph 1: “Cursive handwriting, though it may seem outdated in the digital
age, is vital in society not only because it promotes cognitive development, but because it can be used to define a
person and his/her work; due to the importance of cursive writing, its teaching must not be omitted from
schooling.” This is a defensible statement that takes a position on handwriting instruction.
Evidence and Sophistication (0–4 points): 4
The response develops a sustained line of reasoning both within and between the paragraphs. It moves smoothly
back and forth between discussions of the benefits of cursive and rebuttals of typical objections to cursive
handwriting instruction. For example, the response cites Source D about the cognitive benefits of cursive,
anticipates the counterargument that manuscript would carry the same benefits, and addresses this
counterargument with the claim that “manuscript, while it yields the same benefits, is slower.” All of this is done
in one sentence. The response consistently exhibits fluid control of the evidence and appropriate explanations of
its significance. Whereas less controlled responses tend to quote large pieces of text when less would be
appropriate, this response consistently embeds and responds to very specific words and phrases from the
sources and integrates them into its explanations.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response consistently displays a vividness and persuasiveness of style that goes beyond the occasional
rhetorical flourish. From the crafted introduction that contains relevant details about the history of script to the
direct address in the conclusion, the response is vivid. The response also consistently explores complexities and
tensions across the sources. Most sources are presented in conjunction with one another in a way that
AP® English Language and Composition 2021 Scoring Commentary
© 2021 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
demonstrates a deep understanding of the tensions present and offers a cogent explanation for why the
response’s position is ultimately more relevant. Finally, the response consistently explores the broader context of
the place of cursive in American society.
Sample: 1B
Score: 1-3-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
This response clearly articulates its thesis at the end of paragraph 1: “Although handwriting instruction develops
motor skills, it has little place in schools because it is inefficient compared to technology, and other subjects are
more useful in the real world.” This multipart claim is defensible and takes a clear position on the subject of
handwriting instruction.
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response uses a conventional five-paragraph structure, but it distinguishes itself by incorporating evidence
from multiple sources clearly and explaining their connection to the thesis. The response organizes multiple
claims into a line of reasoning, providing clear explanations of specific evidence. For example, in paragraph 2 the
response uses Source D to provide evidence of an opposing point of view, then uses evidence from Source E to
refute the claim. The response goes on to explain how the point raised in Source E about video games developing
motor skills is applicable to the classroom, saying that “alternative options render taking periods of class for this
one section irrelevant” and that “schools should instead consider less time-obtrusive alternatives.” Not all of the
evidence in the response is clearly integrated, however. The third paragraph’s claim that Source C “admits even
third graders spend less time typing than writing” is a mischaracterization of the significance of the relevant
phrase, and the connection to the “decreasing efficiency” of handwriting is not clear. In the same paragraph, the
claim that the chart in Source F demonstrates that “handwriting takes over twice as much time as computer use”
is also a mischaracterization with little connection to the topic of the paragraph. These lapses prevent the
response from having earned the fourth point in Row B.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response does not display a vividness or persuasiveness of style. While its prose is generally functional and
workmanlike, it does not serve to highlight the most persuasive parts of the argument. The response does contain
a line of reasoning, but it does not explore the complexities or tensions across the sources, nor does it situate the
argument in a broader context. Its mischaracterization of several of the sources does not suggest a very
sophisticated grasp of the material. The response also does not display especially effective rhetorical choices.
Once an adequate explanation has been provided for one point, the response moves on to its next point.
Sample: 1C
Score: 1-1-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The thesis is stated in the first sentence of the passage: “Cursive hand writing should not be focused, or taught in
school, because it is a waste of time, it is not useful, and technology is more prevelent now.” Although its
phrasing is somewhat confusing, it is a defensible thesis that takes a position on handwriting instruction.
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 1
The response is characterized by long quotes that are followed by close paraphrases. For example, paragraph 2
includes an extended quotation from Source C that is followed by the paraphrase, “This piece of text displays
how the younger children have a better chance of being better writers because handwriting is not taking much of
their time.” The commentary that follows, “With this extra time children could be building vocabulary,”
AP® English Language and Composition 2021 Scoring Commentary
Question 1 (continued)
attempts to explain the statement, but it is not attached to the argument. Later paragraphs lack even attempts at
commentary and consist entirely of close summary of the sources.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response does not display a vividness or persuasiveness of style. It often struggles to find the appropriate
word or syntactical structure to convey the underlying idea, as when it asserts in the first sentence that
“Cursive handwriting should not be focused, or taught in school.” The response does not develop a line of
reasoning, so it could not earn the sophistication point by exploring complexities or tensions across the
sources or situating its argument in a broader context. Finally, the response does not display effective
rhetorical choices. Its consistent use of a quotation followed by a paraphrase is not a sophisticated structure.
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it presents a thoughtful, multi-sentence thesis
that indicates a clear position and establishes a line of reasoning. In paragraph one, the
response provides relevant context to set up its insightful thesis: “Although eminent domain
can be abused to benefit private interests at the expense of citizens, it is a vital tool of
government that intends to have any influence on the land it governs beyond that of written
law.” This qualified position sets up the line of reasoning for the rest of the essay.
Row B: 4/4
The response earned four points for Row B because the evidence clearly relates to the thesis
and the commentary engages specific details from the sources to draw conclusions relative to
the thesis, making it especially well-developed. The response appropriately cites three sources.
For example, in paragraph two, the response introduces the concept from the Camey source
that eminent domain might be misused, delivering no positive effects. The response specifically
uses a small detail from that source, “weeds and rubble,” to establish an image that will be
developed using evidence from two additional sources: the Detroit example from the Sornin
source and the New London example from the Carney source. The commentary on these
sources is used to develop the concept that local governments “will often use [eminent
domain], originally intended for the creation of productive public lands, as a societal vacuum
cleaner to clean out impoverished areas in the hopes of seducing a business into moving in and
revitalizing the town.” The response then shifts to develop its most important idea: “However,
characterizing eminent domain by its small-scale failures ignores its larger, more ubiquitous
implications.” Now focusing on the thesis of the essay, the response continues to integrate
source information throughout as it also provides well-developed commentary that effectively
explains the relationship between the evidence and the thesis: “Many of America’s most
cherished infrastructure systems are the result of [eminent domain].”
Row C: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row C because it situates the argument in a broader context.
For example, in paragraph one the response acknowledges “occasional failures” of eminent
domain and asserts they are “overshadowed by the resounding successes of many of the larger,
often nationwide attempts of the government to construct much-needed infrastructure...” In
paragraph three, the response recognizes the implications of the argument: “Used as intended,
eminent domain goes beyond small-scale revitalization and ventures into the realm of
sweeping progress and development.” The vocabulary and style enhance the argument by
developing vivid, persuasive, and convincing metaphors for understanding (e.g., “...as a societal
vacuum cleaner” or “...the death knell of a fading town”).
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it provides a thesis that presents a defensible
position against eminent domain: “Across the country, vibrant neighborhoods and private
properties are threatened by the power of Eminent Domain.”
Row B: 4/4
The response earned four points for Row B because the evidence, from a minimum of three
sources, clearly relates to the thesis and the interspersed commentary explains those
connections consistently. Immediately following the thesis, the response provides a clear and
thoughtful line of reasoning: “While there are many who argue the eminent domain can be
used to revitalize, this power often exploits lower-income areas, violates 5th amendment rights,
and often fails at the intended good.” The opening anecdote in paragraph one about the
“district of Fells Point” provides initial evidence for the reasoning behind the position against
eminent domain. Paragraph two again addresses how “eminent domain proposes to help these
areas,” but then shifts to the quote from Source B defining “corporatism” followed by
commentary connecting the exploits of corporatism to abuse of eminent domain. Having
established the possible abuses of eminent domain, the response then looks to the dangers of
those abuses as they may disproportionately affect certain groups based on the idea from
Source C that “overt racism is rarely a factor in modern takings” making it clear that
“unconscious bias plays a role.” Making the connection between bias and unfair compensation,
the response then transitions from paragraph three to paragraph four by extending the
discussion of problems of unfair compensation and effectively synthesizing information from
sources F and A.
Row C: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row C because it situates the argument in a broader context.
For example, in paragraph one the response presents a relevant personal example that
provides a more sophisticated understanding of the issue. The response also presents
counterargument and refutation. For example, in paragraph three: “Oftentimes, the counter
argument to the use of eminent domain is that the people whose homes have been taken from
them will have a new benefit to look forward to such as a highway, community center, or park,
but when your home has been taken from you, the prospect of a highway will not compensate
that loss.”
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it presents a clear thesis, explaining that “the
ends do not justify the means [of eminent domain].” The thesis then establishes a line of
reasoning that eminent domain “is unethical and un-American to sacrifice the rights of the
poor, the needy, and the few under the guise of ‘the greater good’.”
Row B: 3/4
The response earned three points for Row B because the evidence relates to the thesis,
however the commentary that explains those connections sometimes does not fully support all
claims. The response makes use of a minimum of three sources and establishes a pattern of
addressing the intentions of eminent domain as well as the shortcomings. Paragraph two
follows this pattern, then shifts to the definition and intention of eminent domain as at one
time “necessary” but then asks, “now that we already have land set aside for public use, is it
really necessary to continue forcing people off their private land?” The response then makes
blanket comments about parks, monuments, and public buildings that may extend from the
original argument, but the commentary does not explain how that matters, leaving the reader
to make the connections. Paragraph three concedes the point that eminent domain was
originally intended to serve the needs of the public. Using Source B, the response provides
specific detail about the supposed benefits of eminent domain. Having established these
supposed benefits, the response then returns to the thesis shifting to evidence from Source C
about how eminent domain ultimately harms “the poor, racial minorities and politically weak.”
After providing this evidence, the response explains the ways in which eminent domain proves
harmful to those communities. However, this commentary only restates information from the
sources and does not appropriately claim that eminent domain has “become a way for the
powerful to oppress the poor.”
Row C: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row C because it situates the argument in a broader context.
For example, in paragraph one the response provides a sophisticated concession: “The most
common defenses for eminent domain while well-intended, are ultimately built of flawed
concepts that go against the American value of individual freedom.” In paragraph four, the
response recognizes the implications of the argument: “... especially over the past few decades
when corporations have had a major hand in politics. Eminent domain as we know it is a civil
rights violation that destroys poor and minority communities in favor of corporate profit.”
Sample H
5/6 Points (A1 – B3 – C1)
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it provides a thesis that presents a defensible
position that “the practice [of eminent domain] becomes unjustified” in certain circumstances.
It then goes on to provide those circumstances, which mostly reflect the reasoning of the
argument that eminent domain is wrong “when minorities are victimize[d], a ‘reasonable
compensation’ is not attained, and the government works with private companies in the
economic philosophy of corporatism.”
Row B: 3/4
The response earned three points for Row B because the evidence relates to the thesis, but the
commentary that explains those connections only sometimes supports the line of reasoning.
The response appropriately cites three sources. The line of reasoning is explicitly stated in the
final paragraph: “The process, however, becomes unethical when governments work closely
with private industries, causing social inequalities, unnecessary displacements, corruption, and
unfulfilled promises.” The response supports this reasoning in the body paragraphs by
discussing, “ groups of lower income and diverse backgrounds are, at times, unequally affected
by projects involving eminent domain,” and how eminent domain is also “abused when private
companies benefit at the cost of other private entities or citizens.” In paragraph two, the
response begins by making a comment related to “victimized minorities” and then provides
evidence from Source C, but it only restates the information from that source and provides an
incomplete explanation of how the source information relates to the thesis: “Ultimately,
families are displaced and the communal social fabric of poorer communities is broken.”
Paragraph three provides more incomplete explanation, this time related to the role of
corporatism in eminent domain as addressed in Source B. Taking the position that “promises
are left unfulfilled so that, in the long run, more are harmed than helped,” but then going on to
only explain that “Such an outcome is exemplified in Source B” and then summarizing the
argument of the source. It does emerge from that summary with an effective comment on the
“disapproval of corporatism” as it connects also to Source E.
Row C: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row C by crafting a nuanced argument in the fourth paragraph,
including a concession that, “Government ambitions involving eminent domain are not always
harmful.” The response then follows up with the line of reasoning that, “The process, however,
becomes unethical when governments work closely with private industries, causing social
inequalities, unnecessary displacements, corruption, and unfulfilled promises.” The 
argumentation recognizes that it is not eminent domain that is unethical but the way in which it
is applied for corporate gain. 
Sample D
4/6 Points (A1 – B3 – C0)
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it provides a defensible thesis in paragraph one
that “Eminent Domain is productive and beneficial because the government needs it to provide
for its citizens and the people receive full compensation for what is lost.”
Row B: 3/4
The response earned three points for Row B because the evidence, cited from three sources or
more, relates to the thesis, however the commentary doesn’t always support key claims. The
line of reasoning exists explicitly in the thesis and is again restated in the conclusion: “The
government is able to provide basic needs to its people and compensate them for everything
they lose through Eminent Domain, thus securing the benefits and [ILLEGIBLE] in the
government.” The body paragraph supports this line of reasoning by focusing on the
government’s ability to “provide such basic human needs as water, heat, gas, and electricity”
and an examination of “compensation” for individuals impacted by eminent domain. In
paragraph two, the response provides an incomplete and vague explanation of Source A:
“[Eminent domain] provides what the government otherwise could not, in places where
government can not reach. This power allows the authorities to help people with the needs of
otherwise could not.” This commentary is used to support the simplistic assertion that
“Eminent Domain only helps people.” In paragraph three, the response provides uneven
explanation of Source D: “Compensation for their ruined property provided for the future of
those people. It allowed them to sell the property that otherwise couldn’t have been sold.”
Both examples demonstrate commentary that only provides a limited explanation of the
relationship between the source evidence and the line of reasoning thesis.
Row C: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row C because its explanations are somewhat repetitive
and do not reflect a complex understanding of the issue. The personal example provided in
paragraph four attempts to contextualize the argument but appears only vaguely related to the
topic and does not provide significant insight or sophistication of thought. 
Sample F
3/6 Points (A1 – B2 – C0)
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it responds to the prompt with a thesis that
presents a defensible position: “Eminent Domain is productive useful because it can open up
opportunities for people, and it can benefit many people.”
Row B: 2/4
The response earned two points for Row B because while it does cite evidence from three
sources to support the thesis, the commentary that explains the evidence merely repeats and
oversimplifies source information. In paragraph two, the cited evidence from Sources A and B is
essentially repeated in the commentary about creating “jobs and opportunities for people.”
This repetition of evidence does not strengthen the supporting claims. In paragraph three, the
response slightly shifts to a focus on how eminent domain “can benefit many people.” Again,
the response includes information from a Source D this time but provides no explanation of
how that quote relates directly to the thesis.
Row C: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row C because there is no complexity of thought or
understanding of the topic.
Sample A
2/6 Points (A0 – B2 – C0)
Row A: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row A because its intended thesis in paragraph one does
not take a position, rather it merely presents a somewhat obvious binary choice – “eminent
domain is good and bad depending on what side you stand on…”
Row B: 2/4
The response earned two points for Row B because, while the evidence provided relates to the
subject of the prompt, the commentary that explains those connections oversimplifies and
misinterprets the evidence. In paragraph one, the response attempts to explain Source F, “If the
government took his property their would be various causes of damage to his work,” but
oversimplifies that evidence and its presentation. The remainder of the response
overgeneralizes sources and states that those sources relate to the subject. However, the
response fails to draw on specific information from the sources or explain how those sources
relate to the subject. Examples of this can be seen in statements such as, “when we read
Source C we see that the people who receive the short end of the stick is small communities.”
Sweeping generalizations of this nature exists throughout the response and hamper its ability
to do more than simplistically respond to the prompt.
Row C: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row C because it does not demonstrate a sophisticated
understanding of the topic or of the rhetorical situation. Because the response misinterprets or
oversimplifies its explanations, there are no examples of a complex understanding or a more
sophisticated prose style.
Sample C
1/6 Points (A1 – B0 – C0)
Row A: 1/1
The response earned a point for Row A because it provides a defensible thesis in paragraph
one: “The government untilzing Eminent Domain can be so helpful in many ways like
considering better facilitates for transportation, better buildings, and better ways of supplying
water.”
Row B: 0/4
The response did not earn any points for Row B because there are no source citations. There
are only vague references to people’s opinions “that taking someone’s property is bad” and the
idea that “Eminent Domain can be so helpful in many ways like considering better facilitates for
transportation, better buildings, and better ways of supplying water.” The response does not
connect these vague references to eminent domain to thesis in any substantive way.
Row C: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row C because there is no evidence of complex
understanding of the topic or of the rhetorical situation. The ideas and language do not reflect
an understanding of context. 
Sample G
1/6 Points (A0 – B1 – C0)
Row A: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row A because the statement that approaches a thesis is
simply summary that repeats the language of the prompt: “…many people are reluctant to
agree that eminent domain is beneficial.” The position is never clearly stated. The final
statement of the response is an equivocation: “It’s just a matter of preception.”
Row B: 1/4
The response earned one point for Row B because, although it does use three sources, it does
not provide commentary that connects the sources to the subject of the prompt. There are only
a few brief phrases that refer to the quoted evidence such as “...in cases like Freetown, the
benefits just seem to outway.” The response does not explain how the evidence supports the
student’s argument and relies upon sweeping generalizations.
Row C: 0/1
The response did not earn a point for Row C because there is no evidence of complex
understanding of the topic or of the rhetorical situation.
Rubric:
Scoring Rubric for Question 1: Synthesis Essay 6 points
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis
(0-1 points)
4.B
0 points
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
Responds to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Only restate the prompt.
• Do not take a position, or the position is vague or must
be inferred.
• Equivocate or summarize other’s arguments but not the student’s
(e.g., some people say it’s good, some people say it’s bad).
• State an obvious fact rather than making a claim that requires
a defense.
Responses that earn this point:
• Responds to the prompt rather than restate or rephrase the prompt, and the
thesis clearly takes a position rather than just stating that there are pros/cons.
Additional Notes:
• The thesis may be more than one sentence, provided the sentences are in close proximity.
• The thesis may be anywhere within the response.
• For a thesis to be defensible, the sources must include at least minimal evidence that could be used to support that thesis; however, the student need
not cite that evidence to earn the thesis point.
• The thesis may establish a line of reasoning that structures the essay, but it needn’t do so to earn the thesis point.
• A thesis that meets the criteria can be awarded the point whether or not the rest of the response successfully supports that line of reasoning.
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row B
Evidence
AND
Commentary
(0-4 points)
2.A
4.A
6.A
6.B
6.C
0 points
Simply restates thesis
(if present), repeats
provided information, or
references fewer than two
of the provided sources.
1 point
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least two of the
provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Summarizes the evidence
but does not explain how
the evidence supports the
student’s argument.
2 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least three of
the provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence relates to the
student’s argument, but
no line of reasoning is
established, or the line of
reasoning is faulty.
3 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific evidence
from at least three of
the provided sources to
support all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence supports a line of
reasoning.
4 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific
evidence from at least
three of the provided
sources to support
all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Consistently explains how
the evidence supports a
line of reasoning.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that
earn 0 points:
• Are incoherent or do not
address the prompt.
• May be just opinion with
no textual references
or references that are
irrelevant.
Typical responses that earn
1 point:
• Tend to focus on summary
or description of sources
rather than specific
details.
Typical responses that earn
2 points:
• Consist of a mix of
specific evidence and
broad generalities.
• May contain some
simplistic, inaccurate, or
repetitive explanations
that don’t strengthen the
argument.
• May make one point well
but either do not make
multiple supporting claims
or do not adequately
support more than one
claim.
• Do not explain the
connections or
progression between the
student’s claims, so a line
of reasoning is not clearly
established.
Typical responses that earn
3 points:
• Uniformly offer evidence
to support claims.
• Focus on the importance
of specific words and
details from the sources
to build an argument.
• Organize an argument
as a line of reasoning
composed of multiple
supporting claims.
• Commentary may fail to
integrate some evidence
or fail to support a key
claim.
Typical responses that
earn 4 points:
• Uniformly offer
evidence to support
claims.
• Focus on the
importance of specific
words and details from
the sources to build an
argument.
• Organize and support
an argument as a line of
reasoning composed
of multiple supporting
claims, each with
adequate evidence that
is clearly explained.
Additional Notes:
• Writing that suffers from grammatical and/or mechanical errors that interfere with communication cannot earn the fourth point in this row.
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row C
Sophistication
(0-1 points)
2.A
4.C
6.B
8.A
8.B
8.C
0 points
Does not meet the criteria for one point.
1 point
Demonstrates sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the
rhetorical situation.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Attempt to contextualize their argument, but such attempts
consist predominantly of sweeping generalizations.
• Only hint at or suggest other arguments.
• Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is
ineffective because it does not enhance the student's
argument.
Responses that earn this point may demonstrate sophistication of thought
and/or a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation by doing any of the
following:
1. Crafting a nuanced argument by consistently identifying and exploring
complexities or tensions across the sources.
2. Articulating the implications or limitations of an argument (either the
student’s argument or arguments conveyed in the sources) by situating it
within a broader context.
3. Making effective rhetorical choices that consistently strengthen the force
and impact of the student’s argument.
4. Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.
Additional Notes:
• This point should be awarded only if the sophistication of thought or complex understanding is part of the student’s argument, not merely a phrase
or reference.