Give me a generalized essay outline i can use to easily score full points on the AP LANG Synthesis essay.
Prompts and Scoring commentaries:
Give me a generalized essay outline i can use to easily score full points on this essay type.
Examples and Scoring Commentaries:
2023
AP®
 English Language
and Composition
Sample Student Responses
and Scoring Commentary
Set 1
© 2023 College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, AP, AP Central, and the acorn logo are registered
trademarks of College Board. Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
AP Central is the official online home for the AP Program: apcentral.collegeboard.org.
Inside:
Free-Response Question 1
5 Scoring Guidelines
5 Student Samples
5 Scoring Commentary
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Synthesis Essay 6 points
Urban rewilding is an effort to restore natural ecological processes and habitats in city environments. Many cities around the world have embraced
rewilding as part of larger movements to promote ecological conservation and environmentally friendly design. Now, a movement to promote urban
rewilding is beginning to take shape in the United States as well.
Carefully read the six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least three of
the sources and develops your position on the extent to which rewilding initiatives are worthwhile for urban communities to pursue.
Source A (infographic from Fastnacht)
Source B (Jepson and Schepers policy brief)
Source C (NRPA article)
Source D (Garland article)
Source E (graph from McDonald et al.)
Source F (Chatterton book excerpt)
In your response you should do the following:
• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
• Select and use evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support your line of reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through
direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
• Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.

AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis
(0–1 points)
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 others’ 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:
• Respond to the prompt by developing a position on the extent to which rewilding
initiatives are worthwhile for urban communities to pursue, rather than restating or
rephrasing the prompt. Clearly take a position rather than just stating there are
pros/cons.

Examples that do not earn this point:
Restate the prompt
• “Having started in Europe, urban rewilding is becoming popular in the
United States too.”
Address the topic of the prompt but do not take a position
• “Many experts favor urban rewilding, while others worry about the
safety and health issues that might arise.”
Address the topic of the prompt but state an obvious fact as a claim
• “Urban rewilding will allow certain portions of some cities to regain the
wildlife that once lived in the area.”
Examples that earn this point:
Present a defensible position that responds to the prompt
• “Urban rewilding will cause serious problems in many cities.”
• “Building new spaces for people in cities to interact with nature is an audacious
project that will take careful weighing of the pros and cons. Ultimately, this is an idea
worth pursuing.”
• “The next step in the evolution of cities is to allow residents opportunities to interact
with wildlife in their daily lives. This transformation is crucial to keep our cities
livable.”
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.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row B
Evidence
AND
Commentary
(0–4 points)
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.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row C
Sophistication
(0–1 points)
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 (“In a world where . . .”
OR “Since the beginning of time . . .”).
• Only hint at or suggest other arguments (“While some may argue
that . . .” OR “Some people say . . .”).
• Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is ineffective
because it does not enhance the 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 throughout the response.
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.
 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. 
2023
AP®
 English Language
and Composition
Sample Student Responses
and Scoring Commentary
Set 2
© 2023 College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, AP, AP Central, and the acorn logo are registered
trademarks of College Board. Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
AP Central is the official online home for the AP Program: apcentral.collegeboard.org.
Inside:
Free-Response Question 1
5 Scoring Guidelines
5 Student Samples
5 Scoring Commentary
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Synthesis Essay 6 points
Vertical farms are indoor agricultural facilities in which plants are grown, often in a hydroponic (soilless) environment, on tall stacks of shelves. Plants
are given water, nutrients, and light mostly through automated processes. Advocates say that vertical farms are key to providing food for the future,
yielding high-quality produce while making efficient use of land and water. Critics warn about the energy consumption associated with vertical farms’
automated processes as well as problems related to cost and nutritional value.
Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least
three of the sources and develops your position on the value, if any, of vertical farms to the future of agriculture.

Source A (Severson article)
Source B (Ling and Altland interview)
Source C (table from Kozai and Niu)
Source D (Foley article)
Source E (Benke and Tomkins article)
Source F (graphic from Despommier)
In your response you should do the following:
• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
• Select and use evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support your line of reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through
direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
• Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis
(0–1 points)
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 others’ 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:
• Respond to the prompt by developing a position on the value, if any, of vertical farms
to the future of agriculture, rather than restating or rephrasing the prompt. Clearly
take a position rather than just stating there are pros/cons.

Examples that do not earn this point:
Restate the prompt
• “Proponents of vertical farms argue that they are the key to providing
food in the future, while critics warn about the cost and energy
consumption of vertical farms.”
Address the topic of the prompt but do not take a position
• “Vertical farms, or indoor farms where food is grown in tall towers, have
been touted as a way to address potential food shortages in our
growing global population.”
Address the topic of the prompt but state an obvious fact as a claim
• “If the world’s population continues to grow at its current rate, we will
eventually run out of arable land to grow enough food for everyone.”
Examples that earn this point:
Present a defensible position that responds to the prompt
• “With the amount of farmland diminishing across the globe, vertical farms are the
future of agriculture.”
• “Although vertical farms may seem like a viable solution for providing food for our
growing population, important factors such as cost and energy consumption prevent
it from being a fully sustainable model of agriculture.”
• “Because vertical farming still has some drawbacks, it should not replace traditional
agricultural methods. However, vertical farming can be a good supplemental or
alternative method of farming, especially in urban areas where farmland is scarce.”
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.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row B
Evidence
AND
Commentary
(0–4 points)
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.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category Scoring Criteria
Row C
Sophistication
(0–1 points)
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 (“In a world where . . .”
OR “Since the beginning of time . . .”).
• Only hint at or suggest other arguments (“While some may argue
that . . .” OR “Some people say . . .”).
• Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is ineffective
because it does not enhance the 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 throughout the response.
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.
Sample 1A (1 of 2)
Sample 1A (2 of 2)
Sample 1B (1 of 2)
Sample 1B (2 of 2)
Sample 1C (1 of 3)
Sample 1C (2 of 3)
Sample 1C (3 of 3)
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 vertical
farming and then write an essay that synthesized material from at least three of the sources and
developed their position on the value, if any, of vertical farms to the future of agriculture. 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: 1-4-1
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.