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

AP English Language: Reasoning and Organization (Writing Drill 1)

Drill 1 · Writing · Reasoning and Organization — Writing

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

About This Drill

AP English Language: Reasoning and Organization (Writing Drill 1) is a Writing practice drill covering Reasoning and Organization — 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 improve its structure, transitions, and logical flow. Questions focus on how well the argument is organized and how effectively the writer guides the reader through lines of reasoning.

Passage

The following is a draft of a student argumentative essay on mandatory voting, written for a civics class. [1] Voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest of any established democracy. [2] In the 2020 presidential election, a year with unusually high engagement, only 67 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. [3] In midterm elections, turnout regularly falls below 50 percent. [4] Some countries have addressed this problem through compulsory voting laws, which require eligible citizens to participate in elections or face a penalty. [5] The United States should adopt a similar system. [6] Mandatory voting would make electoral outcomes more representative of the full electorate. [7] Currently, non-voters skew younger, poorer, and less educated than voters, groups whose policy preferences often differ significantly from those who do vote. [8] When these groups are systematically absent from the electorate, elected officials have less incentive to address their concerns. [9] Mandatory voting would correct this imbalance. [10] Mandatory voting also has a practical track record. [11] Australia has required voting since 1924 and maintains turnout above 90 percent. [12] Researchers who have studied Australian elections have found that compulsory voting reduced the wealth gap in political representation and increased attention to the policy concerns of lower-income voters. [13] Belgium, Luxembourg, and several Latin American countries have similar systems with comparable results. [14] Critics argue that mandatory voting violates freedom of conscience, the right not to participate in a process one finds illegitimate or corrupt. [15] This objection has some force. [16] But most compulsory voting systems address it by providing a "none of the above" option or allowing voters to submit a blank ballot. [17] The law requires presence, not preference. [18] Freedom of conscience is preserved; only abstention is restricted. [19] The objection that mandatory voting is coercive is real but overstated. [20] Every functioning democracy requires participation in certain civic obligations, jury duty, taxation, census participation. [21] Voting is the most fundamental of these obligations, and treating it as purely optional has produced an electorate that systematically underrepresents large portions of the population. [22] Mandatory voting is not a perfect solution. [23] It is a better one.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The writer wants to revise sentence 5; 'The United States should adopt a similar system', to create a thesis that more clearly signals the essay's argument and structure. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) For this reason, the United States should seriously consider following the example of countries that have implemented mandatory voting laws.
  • B) The United States should adopt compulsory voting, not because it is a perfect solution, but because it would produce a more representative electorate, has a proven track record in comparable democracies, and can be implemented in ways that preserve freedom of conscience. ✓
  • C) The United States should adopt mandatory voting laws similar to those used in Australia, Belgium, and other established democracies.
  • D) Given the severity of the voter turnout problem, mandatory voting is the most promising policy solution available to American democracy today, because it would raise participation directly while making civic education, registration changes, and outreach work unnecessary.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The original thesis is simple and unqualified. Choice B preserves the argument while adding three elements that will structure the essay: representativeness, track record, and conscience protection. It also acknowledges the 'not perfect' qualification that appears in sentences 22–23, giving the essay intellectual honesty from the start. Choice A is tentative ('seriously consider') and weaker. Choice C is cleaner but does not preview the essay's three-part argument. Choice D makes a strong claim without signaling the structure.

Question 2. The writer wants to add a sentence between sentences 8 and 9 to make the logical connection between non-voter absence and policy outcomes more explicit. Which addition best serves this purpose?

  • A) This means that politicians campaign on issues that matter to their actual voters, not to the full population of eligible voters.
  • B) Low-income voters in particular are underrepresented in the current electorate, which helps explain why policies that benefit the wealthy receive more legislative attention.
  • C) Studies have shown that when low-turnout groups vote at higher rates, the policy priorities of elected officials shift measurably toward those groups' concerns. ✓
  • D) The result is a democracy that functions, in practice, as a government of the participating rather than a government of the people.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The logical gap between sentences 8 and 9 is the empirical link: does official behavior actually change when non-voter groups vote more? Choice C fills this gap with a direct evidentiary claim, studies show the connection, before sentence 9 draws the conclusion ('mandatory voting would correct this imbalance'). Choice A makes a reasonable inference but is speculative rather than empirical. Choice B narrows to low-income voters specifically, which is useful but less comprehensive than Choice C. Choice D is rhetorically effective but does not provide the empirical bridge the question asks for.

Question 3. The writer wants to revise the transition between paragraphs 3 and 4 to make the shift from evidence to counterargument feel more purposeful. Which sentence, replacing sentence 14, best accomplishes this?

  • A) Not everyone agrees that mandatory voting is a good idea, and there are several objections worth considering.
  • B) Despite this evidence, some people remain opposed to mandatory voting on philosophical grounds.
  • C) The practical case for mandatory voting is strong, but the most serious objection is not about outcomes; it is about rights.
  • D) Critics of mandatory voting raise several concerns, but the most important is the argument from freedom of conscience. ✓

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The transition needs to do two things: acknowledge the strength of the preceding evidence and signal why the counterargument still deserves serious engagement. Choice C does both; it validates the practical case while elevating the objection to a different register (rights, not outcomes), which is more honest about why the objection has force and sets up the rebuttal more effectively. Choice A is a generic transition that does not acknowledge the preceding argument's strength. Choice B is an improvement but does not distinguish the type of objection. Choice D is functional but less rhetorically precise than Choice C.

Question 4. The writer wants to revise sentences 22 and 23; 'Mandatory voting is not a perfect solution. It is a better one.', to create a conclusion that ties the essay's argument together more explicitly before the final statement. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) No single policy can repair every fracture in American democracy. But mandatory voting addresses the most fundamental one: that the people who govern us are chosen by a fraction of the people they govern. Mandatory voting is not a perfect solution. It is a better one. ✓
  • B) Mandatory voting has worked in other countries and it can work here. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a better one than what we currently have.
  • C) In conclusion, mandatory voting would increase turnout, improve representation, and preserve freedom of conscience, making it the best available solution to the voter turnout crisis because it solves the problem without creating any meaningful trade-offs for citizens or elections.
  • D) The United States has always aspired to be a government of the people. Mandatory voting would bring us closer to that ideal. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a better one.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The original ending is punchy but arrives too abruptly. Choice A adds a sentence that names the specific problem the essay has been building toward, governance by a fraction of the governed, before landing on the 'not perfect, but better' formulation. This gives the aphorism its full argumentative weight. Choice B is an improvement but generic. Choice C is a clean summary but the 'in conclusion' signal is mechanical and the claim of 'best available solution' is overclaiming. Choice D uses the 'government of the people' framing effectively but does not name the specific problem as precisely as Choice A.

Question 5. A classmate suggests that paragraph 2 would be more logically organized if it moved from the general problem to its specific causes before reaching its conclusion. Which reordering of sentences 6–9 best accomplishes this?

  • A) Sentence 8, sentence 7, sentence 6, sentence 9
  • B) Sentence 6, sentence 7, sentence 8, sentence 9 ✓
  • C) Sentence 7, sentence 6, sentence 8, sentence 9
  • D) Sentence 9, sentence 6, sentence 7, sentence 8

Explanation: Choice B is correct; this is the original order, which is already logically sound: general claim (sentence 6: mandatory voting improves representation), evidence about who non-voters are (sentence 7), the consequence for policy (sentence 8), and the conclusion (sentence 9). The classmate's suggestion does not improve on this structure, and the question tests whether students recognize that the original order already follows the recommended logic. Any reordering disrupts the paragraph's clear movement from claim to evidence to consequence to conclusion. Choice A buries the main claim. Choice C leads with the demographic evidence before establishing the claim. Choice D illogically begins with the conclusion.