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

AP English Language: Rhetorical Situation (Drill 2)

Drill 2 · Reading · Rhetorical Situation

0 / 5
←
Previous drill
Drill 1
Next drill
Drill 3
→
More Ap English Language Rhetorical Situation drills
Drill 1 5 questions →
Drill 2 — current you are here
Drill 3 5 questions →

About This Drill

AP English Language: Rhetorical Situation (Drill 2) is a Reading practice drill covering Rhetorical Situation. 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 persuasive speech, with questions that ask you to identify the specific rhetorical moves the speaker uses to establish credibility and appeal to the values of the audience.

Passage

The following text is adapted from a modern essay on public housing demolitions in American cities. When cities tear down public housing, they almost always explain it the same way. The buildings were deteriorating. The crime was too high. The original design had failed. What they rarely explain, what the press releases and planning documents quietly omit, is what happens to the people who lived there. I have spent the last decade studying five major public housing demolitions across the United States, and the pattern I have found is not complicated, though it is consistently ignored: the residents who are displaced do not, in the aggregate, end up better off. They end up scattered. They end up in neighborhoods that are cheaper for the same reasons their old neighborhoods were, disinvestment, neglect, distance from employment centers. And the communities they built over years of shared hardship simply cease to exist. Planners and politicians speak often about the pathologies of concentrated poverty. They use the phrase as if poverty's greatest harm is that it pools in one place, as if the solution is dispersal. But what this framing leaves out is that concentrated communities, even poor ones, generate social capital that dispersal destroys. Neighbors who watch each other's children. Grandmothers who know which corner is dangerous at which hour. The informal economy of favors, warnings, and connections that allows people with very little money to navigate lives of enormous complexity. You cannot relocate this. You can only lose it. The argument for demolition is not entirely wrong. Some buildings were, in fact, badly designed, cut off from street life, indifferent to safety, built cheaply to house people cheaply. Some of the crime was real, the deterioration genuine. I do not want to romanticize conditions that were in many cases genuinely harsh. But there is a difference between acknowledging that a policy failed and concluding that the people it housed were the problem. Most demolition rhetoric makes this conflation quietly, without ever quite saying it aloud. What would a serious reckoning with public housing's history require? It would require admitting that the original sin was not the towers themselves but the deliberate decision to concentrate poverty, deny maintenance, and exclude public housing from the neighborhoods where it might have integrated rather than isolated its residents. It would require asking not just what we should build but who gets to stay. And it would require measuring success not by the gleam of the replacement development but by what became of the people who were moved to make room for it. The cities that demolished their housing projects did not fail their residents by building badly, though many of them did build badly. They failed them by treating displacement as a solution, and then declining to follow up.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. The primary purpose of the essay is to

  • A) propose a specific federal policy to compensate residents displaced by public housing demolitions.
  • B) argue that public housing demolitions have systematically harmed displaced residents while obscuring that harm. ✓
  • C) compare the cost and scale of five specific public housing projects across different American cities in the context the passage describes.
  • D) defend the original design principles behind mid-twentieth-century public housing towers.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. The author's central argument is that demolitions scatter residents into worse conditions, destroy social capital, and are rhetorically framed in ways that avoid accountability for those outcomes. Choice A misses the mark: the author does not propose a specific policy. Choice C mischaracterizes the five demolitions; they are the basis of his research, not the subjects of individual comparison. Choice D is off because the author explicitly acknowledges the design failures of many towers.

Question 2. In the third paragraph, the author's description of grandmothers who 'know which corner is dangerous at which hour' primarily serves to

  • A) romanticize poor communities in ways that obscure the genuine dangers residents face.
  • B) argue that elderly residents are the single most severely harmed group in displacement policy within the passage's argument.
  • C) provide a concrete example of the informal social knowledge that dispersal permanently destroys. ✓
  • D) suggest that residents, not planners, are best positioned to design safe public spaces.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The example is specific and vivid, illustrating the abstract concept of 'social capital' through an image of tacit neighborhood knowledge that cannot be packed up and moved. Choice A echoes the author's own concern about romanticization (raised in paragraph four), but this example is functional rather than sentimental; it illustrates loss, not idealization. Choice B attributes a claim about elderly residents that the author does not make. Choice D introduces a design argument not present in the passage.

Question 3. The author's concession in the fourth paragraph that 'the argument for demolition is not entirely wrong' most likely serves to

  • A) shift the essay's focus from housing policy to the broader failure of urban planning as a discipline within the passage's context.
  • B) suggest that residents themselves frequently petitioned the city to demolish their own buildings.
  • C) undermine his central argument by acknowledging that demolitions were sometimes justified.
  • D) strengthen his credibility by demonstrating that he has considered evidence that complicates his position. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. By acknowledging genuine design failures and real crime, the author demonstrates intellectual honesty; he is not a partisan advocate but a careful analyst. This concession makes his subsequent critique more credible because it cannot be dismissed as ignorance of countervailing facts. Choice A is not supported; the essay remains focused on demolition and displacement throughout. Choice B is not stated. Choice C misreads the function; the concession is immediately followed by a distinction that sharpens, not undermines, his argument.

Question 4. The phrase 'quietly, without ever quite saying it aloud' at the end of the fourth paragraph suggests that demolition rhetoric

  • A) relies on implicit conflation to assign blame to residents while maintaining plausible deniability. ✓
  • B) has been largely ineffective at persuading the public to support demolishing aging towers.
  • C) is primarily developed by real estate developers rather than elected officials or planners.
  • D) has become less explicit over time as cities have grown more aware of its effects on residents within the passage's context.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. The author argues that demolition rhetoric conflates policy failure with resident failure, treating displaced people as the problem, but does so without explicit statement, allowing it to operate beneath the surface of official language. 'Without ever quite saying it aloud' signals deliberate euphemism or strategic vagueness. Choice B is not supported; the author does not address whether the rhetoric has been effective at persuasion. Choice C introduces a claim about who produces the rhetoric not present in the passage. Choice D is speculative and unsupported.

Question 5. The final paragraph functions primarily to

  • A) summarize the five public housing demolition case studies the author examined over his decade of research within the framework the passage establishes.
  • B) concede that some demolitions were ultimately beneficial for the broader urban community.
  • C) restate the essay's central distinction between building failure and failure of accountability to displaced residents. ✓
  • D) call on city governments to issue formal apologies to residents displaced by demolition projects.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. The final paragraph sharpens the essay's core argument: the failure was not architectural but moral, treating displacement as a solution and then refusing to track its consequences. This restates and clarifies the distinction the author has been building throughout. Choice A is incorrect: no case studies are summarized in the final paragraph. Choice B contradicts the essay's argument; the author does not concede broader benefit. Choice D introduces a demand for apologies not stated in the text.