📐 SAT
📝 ACT
🎓 AP Exams
About Contact Blog Privacy Policy

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Drill 2)

Drill 2 · Reading · Claims and Evidence

0 / 5
←
Previous drill
Drill 1
More Ap English Language Claims And Evidence drills
Drill 1 5 questions →
Drill 2 — current you are here

About This Drill

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Drill 2) is a Reading practice drill covering Claims and Evidence. It contains 5 original questions created by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.

Read the passage carefully, then answer all five questions. This drill focuses on a passage that uses statistical evidence alongside anecdote, with questions asking you to distinguish between claims the evidence directly supports and conclusions the author draws beyond what the evidence strictly establishes.

Passage

The following text is adapted from a modern personal essay on living with chronic illness. For the first three years after my diagnosis, I used the word flare. My joints would flare. My fatigue would flare. This is the language rheumatologists use, and I adopted it because I needed a language, and that was the one available. A flare implies something temporary, something that rises and subsides. It implies that there is a baseline to return to. What I eventually understood, what took me an embarrassingly long time to understand, is that there was no baseline. There was only variation within a permanent condition. Language shapes what we are able to think, and medical language shapes what patients are able to think about themselves. When I described my pain as flaring, I was implicitly promising myself that it would stop. When it did not stop, I experienced that not only as physical suffering but as a kind of failure, as if I had mismanaged my own biology. This is the cruelty of inaccurate metaphor: it does not merely misdescribe. It assigns responsibility. I began to notice how many of the words chronic illness patients use are borrowed from acute illness, where they make sense. You fight a bacterial infection. You beat cancer, or it beats you. The war metaphor works when there is an enemy to defeat and a moment of victory or defeat to await. Applied to conditions that have no resolution, it becomes a way of framing patients as combatants who have simply not tried hard enough. I did not want to fight my immune system. I wanted to understand it. I wanted to live with it. The language I eventually found useful was not medical. It came from ecology. Ecosystems do not fight their conditions; they adapt to them, reorganize around constraints, find new equilibria. A forest after a drought is not a failed forest. It is a forest that has been shaped by drought. I began to think of my body the same way: not as a machine with broken parts, but as a system navigating a set of conditions that were not going to change. This shift did not reduce my pain. It changed what the pain meant. I am aware that this reframing is available to me in part because of privilege, because I have a job that accommodates my condition, insurance that covers my treatment, and the education to interrogate the metaphors I have inherited. Many patients do not have these things. For them, the fight metaphor may serve a different function: not as an accusation but as a source of agency in circumstances where very little agency is available. I do not want to take that away. What I want is more options. More honest frameworks for the experience of living in a body that will not be fixed. Because the language we give patients is not neutral. It is a set of instructions for how to feel about themselves.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The central claim of the essay is best summarized as

  • A) medical professionals should replace clinical terminology with language drawn from ecology and natural science.
  • B) patients with chronic illness are better served by accepting their conditions than by attempting to treat them within the passage's argument.
  • C) the metaphors medicine uses to describe chronic illness can distort patients' self-understanding in harmful ways. ✓
  • D) the war metaphor in cancer treatment is inappropriate and should be retired from medical discourse.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The author argues throughout that the language available to chronic illness patients, flare, fight, beat, carries embedded assumptions that shape how patients understand their own suffering and assign responsibility for it. Choice A overstates her prescription; she does not call for a wholesale replacement of clinical terminology. Choice B misreads the ecological reframing, which is about understanding, not passivity. Choice D is too narrow; the author uses cancer treatment as one example within a broader argument about chronic illness language.

Question 2. In the second paragraph, the author's claim that inaccurate metaphor 'does not merely misdescribe' but 'assigns responsibility' primarily functions to

  • A) escalate the stakes of her argument by showing that imprecise language has psychological, not just semantic, consequences. ✓
  • B) introduce a counterargument from medical professionals who defend the use of accessible, plain language with patients within the passage's reasoning.
  • C) shift the essay's focus from the author's personal experience to a broader critique of medical education.
  • D) concede that some patients find the language of flares and baselines genuinely useful for managing their conditions.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The author moves from observing that 'flare' is inaccurate to arguing that it actively caused her to experience her condition's persistence as personal failure. This escalates the stakes, the problem is not merely linguistic imprecision but harm. Choice B is not supported; no counterargument from medical professionals is introduced. Choice C misidentifies the shift; the essay remains grounded in personal experience throughout. Choice D misreads the tone; the author does not offer this as a concession.

Question 3. The author's description of the ecological framework she adopted, 'a forest after a drought is not a failed forest', is best understood as

  • A) scientific evidence drawn from ecology that she presents to challenge standard medical models of disease.
  • B) a metaphor that emphasizes the randomness and sheer unpredictability of how chronic illness progresses over time.
  • C) an argument that chronic illness patients should avoid seeking medical treatment in favor of natural adaptation.
  • D) an alternative conceptual framework that allowed her to stop measuring her body against an unattainable standard. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. The ecological metaphor replaces the implicit standard of 'fixed' or 'baseline' with one of adaptation and reorganization, allowing the author to stop experiencing her condition as failure relative to a state she cannot reach. Choice A misidentifies the passage's register; the ecology reference is used metaphorically, not as scientific evidence. Choice B misreads the metaphor; ecology here emphasizes resilience and adaptation, not randomness. Choice C conflates adaptation with rejection of treatment, which the author does not argue.

Question 4. The fifth paragraph, in which the author acknowledges the role of privilege in her reframing, primarily serves to

  • A) undermine her central argument by admitting that the ecological framework is not universally applicable to patients within the passage's framing.
  • B) qualify her argument by recognizing that the fight metaphor may serve legitimate functions for patients with fewer resources. ✓
  • C) shift the essay's tone from personal reflection to a call for systemic reform of healthcare language policies.
  • D) introduce the essay's conclusion that all illness metaphors are equally problematic regardless of context.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The author explicitly states that for patients without her access to accommodation, insurance, and education, the fight metaphor may provide agency rather than accusation, and she does not want to remove that. This is a genuine qualification of her critique, not a retraction. Choice A overstates the concession; she continues to argue for 'more options,' not abandonment of her position. Choice C misidentifies the shift; the paragraph remains reflective, not prescriptive. Choice D is contradicted by the nuance she expresses about the fight metaphor's possible value.

Question 5. The final sentence; 'It is a set of instructions for how to feel about themselves', functions primarily as

  • A) a concession that medical language sometimes provides patients with genuinely useful emotional guidance.
  • B) a transition to a new argument about medical language and measurable clinical outcomes.
  • C) a pointed conclusion that reframes medical language as morally consequential rather than merely descriptive. ✓
  • D) an acknowledgment that patients are ultimately responsible for interpreting their own medical experiences within the passage's reasoning.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The final sentence transforms the essay's critique from a discussion of accuracy into a moral claim: medical language is not neutral description but instruction; it shapes how patients are supposed to feel about themselves and their bodies. This is the essay's sharpest formulation of its central argument. Choice A misreads the tone; the sentence is critical, not appreciative. Choice B is incorrect: no new argument follows; this is the essay's conclusion. Choice D inverts the passage's logic; the author argues patients are shaped by inherited language, not that they bear interpretive responsibility.