AP Seminar Part A Strategies and Suggestions

Question 1: Identify the argument.
Question 2: Explain the line of reasoning.
Question 3: Evaluate the evidence.
Pay attention to the key verbs (identify, explain, evaluate) as they indicate the objective of each question.

Accurately describe all parts of the argument.
Demonstrate an understanding of the argument as a whole.
The argument is not just a restatement of the title or located in only one part of the article.

Accurately identify most of the claims in the argument.
- Claim: A statement made by the author asserting a perspective about a specific issue.
Clearly explain how these claims relate to one another (line of reasoning).
- Line of reasoning: How the author constructs the argument, not just what the author says.
Tie the claims back to the overall argument.

Judge how well the evidence supports the argument in terms of:
- Relevance: How appropriate are the sources in supporting the author's claims?
- Credibility: How credible are the sources?
Connect claims to evidence.
Consider questions such as:
- Which claims aren't supported by any evidence at all?
- Which claims are supported by evidence?

Consider writing Questions 2 and 3 before Question 1.
Allow yourself enough time (40-45 minutes).
Remember the objective of each question (identify, explain, evaluate).
If the article omits sections (indicated by an ellipsis), don't consider or guess at what might have been omitted.
Use good reading strategies:
- Consider the title (it indicates the scope of the article).
- Read the first and last paragraphs.
- Mark up the text.

Response should be about one to two focused sentences.
Look at the structure of the text to determine all parts of the argument.
Look at where the author transitions using signal words.
Avoid overgeneralization; zoom in and look at the specific parts of the argument.

Explain, don't simply restate.
Underline claims and mark them with a "C" as you read.
Author's claims are often (but not always) found at the beginning or end of paragraphs.
Move chronologically through the article.
Look for words that signal transitions.
Question 2 involves some summary, but the response should be focused on explanation.
Explain the relationship among the claims.
Avoid a list of claims.
Look for signals/transitions that indicate counterarguments or a new claim/part of the argument (e.g., "however").
Possible phrases to use:
- The author presents the scenario that…
- The author contrasts this with…
- The author supports this claim by…
- The author follows this by…
- The author outlines…
- The author applies…
- The author addresses…

Evaluate (judge or determine).
Underline specific pieces of evidence and mark those with an "E" as you annotate the text.
Choose key pieces of evidence.
Evaluate their relevance to the argument, their credibility, and their connection to the claims.
Explain how/why you came to your evaluation.
- Say what makes the evidence strong, weak, credible, or relevant.
In order to evaluate the evidence, some summary may be needed.
Use an objective tone.
Evaluate specific pieces of evidence, not just the evidence as a whole.
Include an evaluation of what may be successful/compelling evidence and what may be lacking.
It's okay to be nuanced (e.g., "This partially explains or supports the claim, but…").
Key words for evaluation: assessing, critiquing, determining, judging.
Consider footnotes as part of your evaluation because they may provide the origin of the information.
Don't guess at things you don't know.
It's fine to say that evidence is lacking.
Remember that you cannot evaluate content that you don't have.
Helpful phrases:
- The evidence is particularly effective because…
- The argument could have been strengthened had the author included…
- The author provides no evidence to support this claim.

The first part of the text discusses the value of reading fiction.
Fiction seems to stimulate different regions of the brain.
Later, the author goes into more detail on how reading fiction benefits our social interactions with other people.

Key claims from the article include:
- Reading fiction has value.
- Reading fiction stimulates the brain.
- Reading fiction benefits social interactions.
A high-scoring response will accurately identify most of the author's claims and explain the connections between them.

A high-scoring response will identify multiple pieces of evidence and evaluate how specific pieces are relevant to the claims or from a credible source.
Specific reasons why something is credible should be explicitly stated.

The author asserts that neuroscience is proving that fictional stories stimulate the brain and benefit social capabilities.

Have confidence; you're ready for this.
Use the language that you already know (claims, evidence, relevance, credibility, support, effective, strengthen, weaken, conclusions).
Question 1: Don't overgeneralize; look for all the parts of the argument.
Question 2: Explain, don't summarize.
Question 3:
- Evaluate beyond credibility.
- Look at missing evidence.
- How does evidence support the claims the author makes?
- Say why you have made that assessment.
Don't guess about content; respond only to what the author has presented.
Don't stress about time; use up to 45 minutes if needed.
Digital Exam Takers: Once you’ve clicked next after Question 3, you can’t go back, so make sure you do each part before you move on.