AP English: 2016 Essay Question #2, Margaret Thatcher's "Eulogy" on the Death of Ronald Reagan
 |
| A picture capturing an intimate moment between former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the casket of her colleague and friend, Ronald Reagan. |
Bell Ringer Activity:
For today's class, you read three AP English essays on Margaret Thatcher's "Eulogy" on the death of Ronald Reagan (from the 2016 student essay pool). I told you Tuesday that "one was a high example, one was a low example, and one was a medium example."
In the comments section below, tell us what score you gave each essay and why. Since our class time is limited, you don't need to describe everything about the essay, just the big things you think the student did right using the scoring rubric I gave you yesterday.
[ Note: I have posted a picture of a constellation below to illustrate the big message I want you to learn about the College Board's policy for scoring AP essays: as a writer, you will be rewarded for what you do right on a whole, not every little thing you did wrong. ]
2a was written well, but got off topic. It focused more on the relations between England and the US than the rhetorical appeals and format of the eulogy. Their thesis was good, they had strong points, but they didn't properly answer the question asked.
ReplyDelete-Margaret
I gave A a 7 due to being consistent but bland. It was not very clear however. I gave B a 9 due to being clear, effective, and having a complex analysis. I gave C a 4 for simply stating examples of ethos, pathos, and logos. Tucker brought up a good point that these essays are meant to be written by high school seniors, and I believe every essay was somewhat lacking when presented with that info (not that I could really do better). I found myself grading comparatively due to this.
ReplyDeleteI gave 2A a 3 because it did not talk about the rhetorical strategies Margaret Thatcher used in the eulogy, and it was fairly poorly written.
ReplyDeleteI gave 2B a 6 because it was a better written and longer essay than 2A, and it touched on the rhetorical strategies a little more.
I gave 2C a 6 because it was the only essay that actually answered the prompt and talked about the rhetorical strategies Thatcher used. It would have been higher but the essay was really short.
The 2c: I gave the essay a 2 because I thought that the essay was weak. Instead of analyzing rhetorics, they just stated what they were. They lacked the discussion of the essay.
ReplyDeleteThe 2a: This essay I gave a 5 to. It was more than the 1 page but there was a lot of repetition. They repeated many phrases and words which caused me to become annoyed. I also could not read a few words which distracted me from the essay.
The 2b essay was the best out of them all and I thought it got a 7. They discussed enough of the rhetoric and used many mature words in the essay. I however think it was still lacking in the wording so instead of a 9 or 8, I gave it a 7.
I gave essay 2a an 8, since I thought it was in general a very in-depth essay and well thought out. I especially like the part with the counter-point. I gave essay 2b a 7. I enjoyed most of the points and thought that it was very consistent and structured, but at the same time it didn't introduce any counterpoints and just kind of trusted that there was no hidden agenda behind it, and in politics there almost always is. I gave essay 2c a 2, as the person started out with an instant ethos, pathos and logos which is not a very good strategy. There were also lots of grammatical mistakes that really took me out of the rhythm of the essay. There was also no direct cites to the text, which made some of the points kind of drop in importance to me. Their logos instance was also weak in my opinion
ReplyDelete2A. I gave 2a a score of 5. I felt that it focused far too much on the history of the Cold War in the first half and too little on Thatchers writing. It mostly accomplished what it was supposed to in the second half, but it had too many mistakes.
ReplyDelete2B. I felt that this essay was a undeveloped and hastily written (which is understandable). It focused more on Thatcher' s mechanical skills and diction instead of what she does rhetorically.
2C. I gave this essay a 7, because while it is short and undeveloped, but it clearly answers the question.
Essay 2a: I thought that this essay was the lower scored one because it while it did show understanding of the text, there was minimal mention of the rhetoric. The author just summarized what he learned about Reagan.
ReplyDeleteEssay 2b: I thought that this essay was the medium scored one because it showed analysis of the rhetoric and conveyed their point clearly.
Essay 2c: I thought that this essay was the higher scored one because it showed a more in depth analysis of the rhetoric and the author backs up their points with reasoning and quotes.
I gave essay 2A a 2 or a 3 because they talked about Ronald Reagan and the Cold War, but did not talk about what Thatcher did and why she said the things she said. They did not answer the prompt, and instead discussed things that Reagan did in his life and why he was important.
ReplyDeleteI gave essay 2B a 7 because the author listed examples of what Thatcher did and explained why she did it. They analyzed the rhetorical appeals and explained how Thatcher used them to make her essay work.
Lastly, I gave essay 2C a 4 because while it somewhat answers the question, it does not provide examples or explain why Thatcher used the rhetorical appeals that she used. The essay is short, but it does answer part of the question by identifying the appeals that were used.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRIP
DeleteFor 2A, I gave it a 7, I did this because I feel like it adequately analyzed the strategies that the author used.
ReplyDeleteFor 2B, I gave it an eight because it effectively analyzed the strategies that the author used. It was also substantial, you can tell that the writer put a lot of thought into the essay.
for 2C, I gave it a four because I felt that it only scratched the surface of what this article was about. It offers much less than the other two essays.
Q2: for this essay I gave it a score of 5. I gave it a 5 because although it tended to stray off topic it DID seem to answer the question by citing rhetorical appeals a few times and all in all was a good sounding paper.
ReplyDelete2B: for this essay I gave it a 6. It was very well written and showed a lot of the authors thoughts about what effects Margaret Thatchers speech had on the audience. However it did not go specifscly into the rhetorical appeals.
2C: I gave this essay a 4. Although it was short and not organized into paragraphs the author did attempt to answer the question and cited rhetorical appeals. It was a concise but adequate essay I guess.
I gave 2C a 4 as I felt that while they did answer the question, it was not done in such a way that I felt was adequate.
ReplyDeleteI gave 2B a 6 as it answered the question and explained how each device contributed to the effect of the piece.
I gave 2A a 2 as when I read it I could not get over how it seemed more like a history essay than a rhetorical analysis.
Essay 2A earned a score of 4 because the writer did pick up on ethos and explained it well, but not much else, and the conclusion seemed more like a judgment than an analysis.
ReplyDeleteEssay 2B earned a score of 9 because they writer picked up on everything from the nickname to the repetition used. The essay we well developed and explained everything effectively, without judgment of Thatcher herself.
Essay 2C earned a score of 1 because it was rushed, and underdeveloped with a lot of unnecessary filler. The essay would have a lot more potential though, had it been formated better.
I gave 2Ban 8 because it had a strong thesis, sound reasoning and it was well organized. However, the essay also had parts that were awkwardly phrased so I gave it an 8 instead of a 9.
ReplyDelete2A - I gave 2A a rating of 3 because the essay was incredibly off topic and did not have sound reasoning. Additionally, there was clear thesis statement.
2C - 2C got a rating of 4 because while the essay did have a clear organizational structure, it lacked details. While its reasoning was fairly sound, they seemed to define ethos as logos. Also, the thesis was extremely weak and too long .
Essay 2a: I gave this essay a grade of 6. I thought that the thesis was poorly stated, and it was not until I read the essay that I understood the point the writer was making.
ReplyDeleteEssay 2b: I gave this essay an 8. The writer uses a variety of vocabulary to illustrate that they understand what they are saying. They smoothly transition between topics making the essay easier to read. The thesis is also clearly stated and easy to see throughout the essay.
Essay 2c: I gave this essay a score of 2. This essay was poorly written and very choppy. The thesis was unclear and the writer misused one of the major rhetorical elements (logos instead of pathos)
I gave essay 2c a one because I did not find anything to be done well in it. Not once were quotes directly used from the text and not once did the author elaborate on what they said. They simply put down the one sentence of what they thought and that was it. The only reason I did not give them a zero was because they did write something on the paper Essay 2b did do well on analyzing the rhetorical strategies that Margret used and I gave it a 6. It provided evidence and elaboration on why this evidence relates to why it was useful to be said. However I think 2a gave a better analyses. I gave essay 2a an 8 because it gave very good elaboration and evidence on the topics they discussed. They even gave a small background on the cold war allowing for an effective introduction. And of all three essays given to us for an example, it is the only one that provided a real conclusion.
ReplyDelete