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

AP English Language: Reasoning and Organization (Writing Drill 3)

Drill 3 · Writing · Reasoning and Organization — Writing

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

About This Drill

AP English Language: Reasoning and Organization (Writing Drill 3) 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 organization, transitions, and logical flow. Questions focus on how well the argument is structured and how effectively the writer guides the reader through lines of reasoning.

Passage

The following is a draft of a student argumentative essay on plea bargaining in the criminal justice system, written for an AP English class. [1] More than ninety percent of criminal convictions in the United States result not from trials but from plea bargains, agreements in which defendants plead guilty, typically to a reduced charge, in exchange for a lighter sentence. [2] This system is defended by prosecutors and court administrators as a practical necessity: without plea bargains, courts would be overwhelmed by trials. [3] But a system that processes the majority of its cases through negotiated settlements rather than adjudicated facts raises serious questions about whether justice is actually being served. [4] The central problem with plea bargaining is that it creates powerful incentives for innocent people to plead guilty. [5] Defendants who reject a plea offer and proceed to trial face substantially higher sentences if convicted, a disparity so large that defense attorneys call it the "trial penalty." [6] A defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years who is offered a plea deal for three years must calculate the odds of acquittal against the risk of losing twelve additional years of freedom. [7] Innocence is not sufficient protection against this calculus. [8] Studies of exonerations, cases where convictions were later overturned, have found that a significant percentage involved defendants who pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit. [9] Defenders of the plea system argue that it benefits defendants by offering certainty and reduced sentences. [10] This argument has some merit in cases involving guilty defendants who might face harsher punishment at trial. [11] But it does not address the structural problem: a system that punishes defendants for exercising their constitutional right to trial is not offering a benefit. [12] It is applying coercion. [13] Reform proposals include limiting the trial penalty, requiring prosecutors to document the evidence basis for plea offers, and expanding access to public defenders who can provide meaningful representation during negotiations. [14] None of these reforms would eliminate plea bargaining, which plays a legitimate role in resolving cases where guilt is clear and the defendant voluntarily accepts responsibility. [15] They would constrain its use in ways that reduce the pressure on innocent defendants to accept deals they do not deserve. [16] A justice system that resolves most of its cases through coerced settlements is not delivering justice; it is delivering efficiency. [17] The question is whether we are satisfied with that trade.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The writer wants to revise sentence 3 to create a more precise thesis that previews the essay's line of argument. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) This system raises serious questions about fairness that have been debated by legal scholars and criminal justice reformers for many years, making the issue important but not necessarily constitutionally distinctive or coercive in practice.
  • B) But when the practical pressures of court administration override the constitutional guarantee of trial, the result is a system that produces convictions, not verdicts, and that punishes the exercise of rights it claims to protect. ✓
  • C) But this raises serious questions about justice, fairness, and the rights of defendants that the legal system really must address.
  • D) But a system this dependent on negotiated outcomes deserves more scrutiny than it typically receives from policymakers and the public.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The original sentence 3 gestures at 'serious questions' without specifying them. Choice B names the precise problems the essay will address, convictions without adjudicated facts, punishment for exercising constitutional rights, and introduces the key tension (practical pressure vs. constitutional guarantee) that structures the entire argument. Choice A is vague and shifts to scholars rather than the essay's own argument. Choice C lists concerns without specifying them. Choice D calls for scrutiny without identifying what the scrutiny should reveal.

Question 2. The writer wants to add a sentence between sentences 7 and 8 to strengthen the logical connection between the 'trial penalty' argument and the exoneration evidence. Which addition best accomplishes this?

  • A) The trial penalty is widely recognized as a problem by defense attorneys, legal scholars, and criminal justice reform advocates.
  • B) Many defendants lack the resources to hire experienced private attorneys who might help them evaluate the risks of going to trial.
  • C) This is not merely a hypothetical concern; it is a documented pattern with real consequences for real people in the system.
  • D) The logical conclusion of this calculus is that a rational but innocent defendant, faced with long odds and a severe trial penalty, may conclude that pleading guilty is the safer choice, regardless of the truth. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. Sentence 7 establishes that innocence does not protect against the plea calculus, and sentence 8 cites exoneration data. Choice D bridges these by making the logical mechanism explicit: a rational innocent defendant, weighing the numbers, may rationally choose to plead guilty. This explains why exonerations occur and gives the data its argumentative meaning. Choice A notes recognition of the problem but does not advance the logic. Choice B introduces a related concern (access to counsel) that belongs in the reform paragraph. Choice C is a transitional assertion but does not supply the missing logical link.

Question 3. The writer wants to revise sentences 11 and 12; 'But it does not address the structural problem: a system that punishes defendants for exercising their constitutional right to trial is not offering a benefit. It is applying coercion', to make this rebuttal more logically precise. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) But the benefit framing obscures a structural reality: when the alternative to accepting a deal is a sentence two to five times longer, the 'choice' to plead guilty is not meaningfully voluntary. A benefit freely offered and a penalty for refusing it are not the same thing, and conflating them makes the injustice invisible. ✓
  • B) But coercion is exactly what this system relies upon, and simply calling it a benefit does not change what it actually is.
  • C) But the argument ignores the fact that many defendants cannot afford to go to trial and face the risk of a much longer sentence.
  • D) But this benefit comes at the cost of defendants' constitutional rights, which should not be waivable under conditions of this kind of pressure.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The original rebuttal makes the coercion point but does not explain the logical distinction between a genuine benefit and a coerced choice. Choice A supplies the logical precision: when refusal carries a severe penalty, the choice is not meaningfully voluntary. It then names the rhetorical move being critiqued, calling coercion a 'benefit' makes the injustice invisible. This is more analytically developed than the original. Choice B asserts coercion without advancing the logic. Choice C introduces affordability, which is a different argument. Choice D identifies the cost but does not explain the logical distinction.

Question 4. The writer wants to add a sentence between sentences 14 and 15 to more clearly explain the relationship between the reforms and the essay's central argument. Which addition best accomplishes this?

  • A) These reforms are supported by a growing coalition of criminal justice advocates, legal scholars, and bipartisan policy groups.
  • B) Implementing these reforms would require legislative action at both the state and federal level, as well as increased funding for public defenders.
  • C) The goal is not to make the system slower or to guarantee acquittals; it is to ensure that the decision to plead guilty reflects genuine choice rather than the weight of an asymmetric threat. ✓
  • D) Prosecutors and court administrators will likely resist these changes, since the current system benefits them by reducing their caseloads and preserving their conviction rates within the framework described.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The reforms paragraph risks being read as a general call for criminal justice improvement rather than a targeted response to the essay's specific argument about coercion. Choice C clarifies the precise goal, ensuring guilty pleas reflect genuine choice, not asymmetric threat, which directly connects the reforms to the problem identified in paragraphs 2 and 3. Choice A notes political support without advancing the argument. Choice B shifts to implementation logistics. Choice D introduces prosecutorial resistance, which is a relevant point but not the bridge the paragraph needs.

Question 5. The writer wants the final two sentences, 'A justice system that resolves most of its cases through coerced settlements is not delivering justice; it is delivering efficiency. The question is whether we are satisfied with that trade', to end the essay with greater rhetorical force. Which revision best accomplishes this?

  • A) The plea system is efficient. But efficiency is not justice, and a society that mistakes one for the other will eventually find that it has optimized itself out of the values it claims to hold.
  • B) A justice system that resolves nine out of ten cases without a verdict is not delivering justice; it is managing a backlog. The question is not whether we can afford to fix it. It is whether we can afford not to. ✓
  • C) When ninety percent of convictions come from bargained settlements rather than adjudicated facts, we should ask whether we have built a justice system or a processing system, and whether the people it processes would recognize the difference.
  • D) Efficiency and justice are not the same thing. A system that treats them as interchangeable will produce efficient outcomes, but not just ones.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The original ending is effective but the phrase 'coerced settlements' repeats what has already been argued, and 'whether we are satisfied with that trade' is slightly passive. Choice B sharpens the reframe ('managing a backlog' rather than delivering justice), removes passivity by reframing the final question as a cost argument rather than mere satisfaction, and closes with a challenge that is harder to dismiss. Choice A is strong but introduces 'optimized itself out of its values,' a new idea that needs more development. Choice C is analytically interesting but the phrase 'would they recognize the difference' is abstract at the moment of conclusion. Choice D is aphoristic but too compressed.