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

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Writing Drill 1)

Drill 1 · Writing · Claims and Evidence — Writing

0 / 5
Next drill
Drill 2
→
More Ap English Language Claims And Evidence Writing drills
Drill 1 — current you are here
Drill 2 5 questions → Drill 3 5 questions →

About This Drill

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Writing Drill 1) is a Writing practice drill covering Claims and Evidence — Writing. It contains 5 original questions created by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.

Writing drills ask you to 'read like a writer', analyzing a student draft and choosing revisions that strengthen its claims, evidence, and reasoning. Questions focus on how well the argument is supported and how effectively the writer handles evidence and counterarguments.

Passage

The following is a draft of a student argumentative essay on social media and adolescent mental health, written for an AP English class. [1] Social media has been linked to rising rates of depression and anxiety among teenagers, and platforms should be required to implement stronger protections for young users. [2] The evidence for this connection is significant and should not be ignored by policymakers. [3] Studies have shown that teenagers who spend more time on social media report higher rates of depression and lower self-esteem. [4] One commonly cited study found that girls who used Instagram for more than three hours per day were significantly more likely to report depressive symptoms than those who used it less. [5] Social media platforms know about these harms. [6] Internal documents from Meta showed that the company's own researchers had found that Instagram was harmful to the mental health of teenage girls and that executives chose not to act on this information. [7] Some people argue that social media also has benefits, connecting isolated teenagers, providing communities for LGBTQ+ youth, and offering platforms for creative expression. [8] These benefits are real. [9] But they do not outweigh the harms. [10] The same platforms that provide connection also expose teenagers to cyberbullying, unrealistic body image comparisons, and algorithmically curated content designed to maximize engagement regardless of its effect on wellbeing. [11] Platforms should be required to give users under eighteen default privacy settings, limit algorithmic amplification of content linked to eating disorders or self-harm, and provide transparent reporting on the mental health effects of their products. [12] These are reasonable steps that would reduce harm without eliminating the benefits social media provides. [13] The question is not whether to act but whether policymakers have the will to do so.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The writer wants to revise sentence 3 to make the claim more precise and harder to dismiss. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) Multiple peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2023 have found a consistent correlation between heavy social media use, defined as more than three hours per day, and elevated rates of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and low self-esteem among adolescents. ✓
  • B) Research has confirmed that social media is harmful to teenagers' mental health, and this finding has been replicated across many different studies and populations, leaving little room for uncertainty about whether social media itself is the primary cause of the problem.
  • C) Teenagers who use social media more tend to be more depressed, and scientists have studied this relationship fairly extensively.
  • D) The link between social media and teen depression has been proven by studies, and the results are consistent enough that policymakers should take action.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The original sentence 3 is vague ('studies have shown,' 'higher rates'). Choice A adds temporal specificity (2017–2023), methodology (peer-reviewed), a precise definition of 'heavy use' (three hours per day), and specific outcomes (depressive symptoms, anxiety, low self-esteem). These additions make the claim harder to dismiss as anecdotal. Choice B remains vague ('research has confirmed') and overstates certainty. Choice C is informal and lacks specificity. Choice D uses 'proven,' which overstates what correlational studies establish.

Question 2. The writer wants to revise sentence 9; 'But they do not outweigh the harms', to provide reasoning that supports this claim rather than simply asserting it. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) But they do not outweigh the harms, which are more severe and affect a larger number of users.
  • B) But the harms are clearly more serious than the benefits, as anyone who has studied the research can see.
  • C) But these benefits could be preserved through thoughtful regulation while reducing the algorithmic and design features most strongly linked to harm.
  • D) But the platforms have shown they will not voluntarily protect users, so the benefits they provide cannot justify allowing the harms to continue. ✓

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The original sentence makes a comparative claim ('do not outweigh') without reasoning. Choice C advances the argument by dissolving the false either/or; it is not a choice between benefits and harms but a question of whether harms can be reduced while preserving benefits through regulation. This also previews the policy proposals in paragraph 4. Choice A adds emphasis ('more severe') without reasoning. Choice B is dismissive and does not advance the argument. Choice D introduces a new claim about platform behavior that is not yet supported.

Question 3. The writer wants to add a sentence after sentence 6 to more clearly connect the Meta internal documents to the essay's central claim about regulatory need. Which addition best serves this purpose?

  • A) This is hardly the first time a major technology company has concealed damaging research findings from the public and regulators.
  • B) That a company would knowingly allow its product to harm children while suppressing evidence of that harm is precisely the kind of market failure that regulation exists to correct. ✓
  • C) These internal documents were later published by journalists and led to congressional hearings on the regulation of social media platforms.
  • D) The fact that Meta chose profit over the wellbeing of its youngest users shows that technology executives cannot be trusted to act in the public interest.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The Meta evidence is striking, but its connection to the essay's regulatory argument needs to be made explicit. Choice B does this directly: it frames the concealment as a 'market failure', the exact condition that justifies government intervention, bridging the evidence to the essay's policy claim. Choice A broadens to other companies, which dilutes focus. Choice C adds historical context about what happened next but does not advance the argument about regulatory need. Choice D draws a conclusion about executive character that goes beyond what the evidence establishes.

Question 4. The writer wants to strengthen the essay's handling of the counterargument in paragraph 3. Which revision of sentences 7–9 best accomplishes this?

  • A) Some people argue that social media has benefits, but these people are simply ignoring the overwhelming and well-documented evidence of its harm.
  • B) Some people argue that social media also has benefits. While this is true, the harms are so severe that the benefits cannot justify allowing the current situation to continue.
  • C) Some people argue that social media also has benefits, connecting isolated teenagers, providing communities for LGBTQ+ youth, and offering platforms for creative expression. These benefits are real and should not be dismissed. The question, however, is not whether social media provides value, but whether its current design maximizes harm alongside that value, and whether regulation could preserve one while reducing the other. ✓
  • D) Some people argue that social media has benefits, and some of these arguments are persuasive. However, the research clearly shows that the harms outweigh the benefits for most teenagers.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. A strong argumentative essay engages the best version of the counterargument rather than dismissing it. Choice C preserves the original's acknowledgment, explicitly validates the benefits ('should not be dismissed'), and then reframes the question entirely, not benefits vs. harms but whether regulation can preserve benefits while reducing harms. This is a more sophisticated and persuasive response to the counterargument. Choice A is dismissive. Choice B acknowledges but does not engage. Choice D concedes without advancing the argument.

Question 5. The writer wants to revise sentence 13; 'The question is not whether to act but whether policymakers have the will to do so', to create a stronger, more specific conclusion. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) The evidence is in. The harms are documented, the policy tools are available, and the platforms have demonstrated they will not act voluntarily. What remains is a choice, not a technical one, but a moral one: whether we decide that the mental health of a generation of children is worth protecting. ✓
  • B) Policymakers have been slow to act on social media regulation, but the evidence presented here makes clear that the time for any further delay has now passed.
  • C) In conclusion, social media platforms must be regulated to protect teenage users, and policymakers should act immediately to implement the measures described above.
  • D) The will to act is the only thing standing between the current situation and meaningful reform, and voters should hold their representatives accountable for failing to address this issue rather than weighing the practical limits, competing priorities, or evidence discussed elsewhere in the argument.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The original conclusion gestures toward political will without fully developing the moral stakes. Choice A synthesizes the essay's argument (evidence is in, tools are available, platforms won't self-regulate), then reframes the remaining question as explicitly moral rather than merely political, 'whether we decide that the mental health of a generation of children is worth protecting.' This is specific, forceful, and earned by the essay's argument. Choice B is a slight improvement but remains vague. Choice C is a generic summary. Choice D shifts to a voter-accountability argument that is not developed in the essay.