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

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Writing Drill 2)

Drill 2 · Writing · Claims and Evidence — Writing

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

About This Drill

AP English Language: Claims and Evidence (Writing Drill 2) 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 argument. This drill focuses on how a writer can make evidence do more work: selecting the revision that most clearly connects a cited source to the claim it is meant to support.

Passage

The following is a draft of a student argumentative essay on legacy admissions preferences at selective colleges, written for an AP English class. [1] Many elite colleges and universities give preferential treatment to applicants whose parents attended the same institution. [2] This practice, known as legacy admissions, is unfair and should be eliminated. [3] It privileges students who are already privileged and makes the college admissions process less meritocratic than it claims to be. [4] Legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than non-legacy applicants at many selective schools. [5] At some universities, legacy applicants are admitted at rates three to five times higher than the general applicant pool. [6] These students are not more qualified on average; they are simply connected. [7] This gives wealthy, predominantly white families a compounding advantage: they attend elite schools, their children attend elite schools, and the cycle continues. [8] Defenders of legacy admissions argue that these preferences help maintain alumni donations, which fund scholarships, financial aid, and campus infrastructure. [9] This argument has some merit, alumni giving is a real funding source for many institutions. [10] But the assumption that legacy preferences are necessary to maintain alumni giving is not well supported by evidence. [11] Several universities, including MIT and Johns Hopkins, have eliminated legacy preferences without experiencing significant declines in alumni donations. [12] Others argue that legacy students bring a sense of tradition and institutional connection to campus. [13] This argument is the weakest of the three. [14] The idea that an institution's culture requires preferring the children of alumni over equally or more qualified first-generation students is difficult to defend on any principled grounds. [15] Legacy admissions should be eliminated at all selective institutions. [16] The admissions process should be based on merit, potential, and equitable access, not on the accident of birth.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The writer wants to revise sentence 6; 'These students are not more qualified on average; they are simply connected', to support this claim with evidence rather than assertion. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) Legacy students tend to come from wealthy families who have had access to better educational opportunities, which may explain some of the admissions advantage without requiring any special preference for alumni families or any institutional policy favoring them.
  • B) The fact that legacy students are admitted at higher rates suggests that admissions offices are not applying the same standards to all applicants.
  • C) Most admissions officers would privately agree that legacy status should not be the deciding factor in a competitive applicant pool.
  • D) A Harvard study found that legacy applicants were no more academically qualified than non-legacy applicants, in fact, they had lower average academic ratings, yet were admitted at rates four times higher, suggesting the advantage was purely relational. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. The original sentence makes a claim without evidence. Choice D replaces assertion with specific evidence, a named source (Harvard study), a concrete finding (lower academic ratings), a specific statistic (four times higher admission rate), and an explicit conclusion (purely relational advantage). Choices A and B make plausible inferences but do not provide the evidentiary support the question calls for. Choice C cites no source and represents a vague appeal to authority.

Question 2. The writer wants to strengthen the transition from paragraph 3 to paragraph 4 to make the essay's handling of counterarguments feel more organized. Which sentence, added at the beginning of paragraph 4, best accomplishes this?

  • A) In addition to the funding argument already discussed, legacy admissions have also been defended on several other grounds.
  • B) A second argument offered in defense of legacy preferences, that they cultivate institutional tradition, is even less persuasive than the funding rationale. ✓
  • C) Some people think that legacy students contribute to campus culture in ways that justify their admissions advantage.
  • D) Tradition is often cited as a reason to preserve practices that would otherwise be difficult to justify.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The essay is moving through a series of counterarguments. Choice B signals this structure explicitly ('A second argument'), connects to the previous paragraph's funding argument ('even less persuasive than the funding rationale'), and names the new argument ('institutional tradition') before the paragraph develops it. This gives the reader a clear roadmap. Choice A is less specific and does not evaluate relative strength. Choice C is vague and does not signal that this is a second counterargument in a sequence. Choice D introduces a general claim about tradition that is not as precise a transition.

Question 3. The writer wants to add a sentence after sentence 14 to acknowledge a limitation of the essay's argument before reaching the conclusion. Which addition best serves this purpose while maintaining the essay's overall argumentative force?

  • A) Eliminating legacy preferences alone will not produce a fully equitable admissions system, early decision policies, test preparation access, and geographic preferences also advantage wealthy applicants, but it is a concrete step that selective institutions can take immediately and without external mandate. ✓
  • B) Of course, some legacy students are genuinely qualified and would have been admitted regardless of their family's alumni status, and it would be unfair to suggest otherwise.
  • C) It is worth acknowledging that college admissions is an imperfect process in many ways, and legacy preference is just one of several problems.
  • D) Some institutions may face financial constraints that make eliminating legacy preferences more difficult, and these concerns deserve consideration before any policy change is implemented.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. A sophisticated argumentative essay acknowledges the limits of its own proposal. Choice A does this by admitting that eliminating legacy preferences is not a complete solution to admissions inequity, while immediately reinforcing why it is still a worthwhile, achievable step. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument. Choice B concedes a point about individual legacy students that slightly blunts the argument without advancing it. Choice C is a vague acknowledgment that does not add specificity or forward momentum. Choice D introduces institutional financial concerns that are already addressed in paragraph 3 and risks reopening that counterargument.

Question 4. The writer wants to revise sentences 15 and 16 to create a conclusion with greater rhetorical force. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) For all the reasons stated above, legacy admissions should be abolished, and colleges that keep it should face public pressure and legal challenges.
  • B) The elimination of legacy admissions would be an important step toward making college admissions fairer and more representative of the full range of talented students in this country.
  • C) Selective institutions were built on the idea that talent and effort, not parentage, should determine who gains access to opportunity. Legacy admissions contradicts that premise. Eliminating it is not a radical act. It is simply honoring the promise these institutions have always made. ✓
  • D) Legacy admissions is one of the clearest examples of how systemic inequality is reproduced across generations, and eliminating it would send a powerful message about the values these institutions hold without needing additional evidence about admissions outcomes or institutional selection practices.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The original conclusion is flat and generic. Choice C grounds the conclusion in a foundational premise, that selective institutions were built on meritocratic ideals, and then argues that legacy admissions contradicts that premise. The final two sentences reframe elimination not as a radical disruption but as an act of institutional integrity. This is rhetorically stronger because it uses the institutions' own stated values against the practice. Choice A adds enforcement mechanisms that are not developed in the essay. Choice B is accurate but lacks the argumentative punch of Choice C. Choice D is thematically relevant but more abstract than Choice C.

Question 5. A classmate suggests that the essay would be more persuasive if it addressed what should happen to alumni giving if legacy preferences are eliminated. The writer wants to add this without disrupting the essay's flow. Where and how should this addition best be made?

  • A) At the beginning of the essay, as a new introductory paragraph that establishes the financial stakes before presenting the argument.
  • B) After sentence 3, as an early acknowledgment that the writer is aware of the financial counterargument before it gets raised.
  • C) After sentence 16, as a final paragraph proposing alternative fundraising strategies for institutions that eliminate legacy preferences, including alumni campaigns, donor challenges, and scholarship programs created to replace legacy donations.
  • D) After sentence 11, as a sentence that briefly notes that universities can replace alumni giving incentives with tax-deductible giving programs, named scholarships, and alumni engagement opportunities that do not depend on admissions preference. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. The funding counterargument is already addressed in paragraph 3, and the claim that MIT and Johns Hopkins eliminated legacy preferences without significant donation decline is the key evidence. Adding a brief note immediately after sentence 11, explaining how universities can maintain alumni engagement without admissions preference, extends the rebuttal at the moment it is most relevant, without requiring a new paragraph or disrupting the essay's flow. Choice A would front-load the financial issue before the argument is established. Choice B raises the counterargument too early, before the essay has built its case. Choice C adds a new concluding paragraph that shifts the essay's ending from values to logistics.