AP English: Synthesis Essay
As with your homework for Tuesday, I asked that you review your Question 1 (synthesis essay) from the AP English Language and Composition practice test we took in December. If you could revise your essay, what would you change/add/improve/alter to bring up your score?
Break into groups (selected randomly using my fancy cup of popsicle sticks), and discuss your answers to the above questions. You will get the most out of this exercise if you share your essay with your group and re-read the sources for the synthesis prompt.
Handout: Rubric for the Synthesis essay.
When you have finished, post your answers using the comments section below. Reminder: make sure to use ASR (Apt Specific References) for full credit on this writing task.
Ian Ammerman - Question 1 Review
ReplyDeleteIn question 1, the college board asked us to take a postitioin on whether or not lotteries are a good way to raise state revenue for education. We were given 8 sources to choose from and needed to include at least three in the paper.
In my paper, I took the stance that lotteries were a poor way to raise revenue. I pointed out the issues economically and how they more than offset the benefits of the extra money. One major piece that I do not like about my essay is that I did not pay much attention to the part of the prompt about the money being used for education. In addition, it would have aided my paper to be less specific, allowing me to bring the prompt back to education and not leave ethics out as much as I did. As for my use of sources, I am confident that I did a good job, and my shortfall was in how specific my thesis was.
The question asked for an essay that was well developed with at least 3 sources that took a position of the ethics of using state lotteries to help fund education. After reading the sources I wrote in favor of using the lottery for education. In my response I used the required number of sources and I answered the question, however, my topic sentences were lacking in addition to a lot of repetition. Had I had more time I would fix those issues. I would also elaborate more when discussing the quotes and information that I included.
ReplyDeleteMy argument was that the lottery system should be removed and replaced with something more efficient and less detrimental. This was relatively difficult to identify, so I would revise this to be more clear, most likely by replacing my thesis with a clearer statement. In addition, I was extremely repetitive with my statements, as well as my word choice. Both that and the mechanical problems with grammar are things that I would take out if I were to revise this essay.
ReplyDeleteQ1 Review: Essay question wants us to synthesize our sources together, and either defeat, challenge, or qualify if lotteries are an ethical and effective way to raise revenue for legislature. I need to make my argument a large part of my paper, and to make it coherent and properly cited, which I have done. If I could change anything, I would perhaps make it longer, but I am very satisfied with it.
ReplyDeleteThe synthesis essay prompt asked the following: “Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in and essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that lotteries are an ethical and effective way to raise state revenues for education.” Within my essay I chose to argue in favor of state lotteries, even though the sources challenging the lottery were far more plentiful than the ones supporting it. My thesis stated that state lotteries are beneficial in that they raise money for education, provide harmless thrill and mental stimulation, and serve as an effective form of voluntary taxation (rather than mandatory taxation).
ReplyDeleteLooking back on my essay, it is obvious that the introduction is flawed. Upon inspection, one can see that it provides little background on the subject and contains many rough transitions. I usually prefer to write my introduction after I finish the body paragraphs, since by that time I can properly construct a summary of what I spoke about (or what I’m going to speak about, if you’d rather think of it that way) without being forced to go back and modify the paragraph whenever I adjust the body of the text. Knowing this, writing the introduction first felt a bit strange. If I were to rewrite this piece, I would tweak my wording in the introduction and I would adjust my transitions to make them smoother.
Secondly, I noticed that my first and second body paragraphs (mainly the second…) were lacking in terms of analysis. I managed to incorporate two different sources into the first paragraph alone, but my analysis ended up fairly weak and certainly had room for improvement. My second body paragraph’s source analysis was weak as well, but on a greater scale. While I only used one source in this segment, I somehow managed to skip my analysis almost entirely (I merely incorporated an introduction to my quote). If I could go back and adjust this piece, I would increase the amount of analysis for all of my body paragraphs (the first two in particular).
The question wanted me to synthesize at least three of the sources to help me take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that lotteries are an ethical and effective way to raise state revenues for education. In my response I accomplished the prompt since I did utilize at least three sources and I was persuasive. However, I wish I had used better word choices. For example, I used the word "sickening," but that word was too strong for the context and I should have been changed it to a word with a weaker negative connotation. I also had a lot of subject-verb argument where I mixed up singular pronouns and plural pronouns. If I had time to reread my essay more times, I would have gotten a higher score because I would have fixed my awkward wording.
ReplyDeleteThe only marked problem in my synthesis essay was on one of my topic sentences. I used the word "Despicable," which was too strong a word. I had to rephrase the sentence in order to change the word. The original sentence also did not make much sense, but the revised product is much better: "A state-run lottery that would support and encourage gambling will lead to many negative effects on the populace"
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to be able to make my essay longer and go into even more depth into all aspects of this argument, but due to time restraints I was unable to. Another problem I had was that most of my topic sentences do not make much sense when I re-read them so long after writing the paper. I will be leaving an extra line above new paragraphs in order to allow for revisions during the writing process in the future.
For the synthesis essay on this practice AP I was asked to write an essay that took a defined stance on whether gambling is moral and to support it with evidence effectively. I argued on the side of pro gambling and I took evidence from what I felt were the best sources to support my stance. I think that I did fairly well, I scored an 8, but I could have done better. However, there were a few issues that were pointed out. I was not given much feedback on it and the only comment was on a use of slang that I did not realize counted as such at the time. In the future when writing essays in similar circumstances I will watch out for that. If I had to change anything else in my essay I probably would add a section about the fundamental right of human agency in America, and how that relates to the choice to partake in activities that might not be the best for oneself. I think I alluded to this in my essay but I didn’t say it how I wanted to. If I had time to revise this essay I would work on how my points fit together as well as word choice and transitions.
ReplyDeleteI generally liked my essay. I had strong points that covered multiple angles. If I could revise my essay to upgrade from an 8 to a 9, I would make mostly mechanical changes as I liked my content. I would smooth out my transitions so the essay as a whole flowed better, I would introduce my quotes and analyze them more thoroughly to connect the points of view. Lastly I would add more about the connection of a gambling addiction and the poverty line. Specifically how one can easily slip into debt without being fully conscious of what is happening and be placed in a position unable to change. I would also love to do my own research on the opposing side as the articles didn't have compelling arguments that I felt like I could use.
ReplyDeleteIn essay 1 I took the stance that lotteries were destructive to lower class people because they are gravitated to playing the lottery and spend more due to the fact that they have already spent so much. However, I did not make my argument as apparent as I needed to. During the AP test I need to state my argument throughout the essay to show what I am arguing better.
ReplyDeleteFor the synthesis essay I got a 9, which I say not to brag or pretend I couldn't improve but to say that there were few quick fixes that were apparent. The most obvious to me was my organization. When I started writing the essay and intro I didn't have a clear vision of all my points, so the basic structure of my essay suffered. This in turn led to a less clear readthrough. There aren't many things I would change to clear up my organization, instead I would just make sure that the information is relevant to the paragraph and that the paragraphs were in a sensical order.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the prompt was to synthesize and develop an argument surrounding the ethics of funding schools with lottery money. We were supposed to integrate sources given to us, and I believe I did a good job of integrating relevant information. Also, I took the position that it is unethical, because I thought it would make a stronger argument based off the given info.
DeleteQuestion number one asked us to write a coherent essay with structure and at least three sources that argued for or against raising revenue for education through lotteries. If I could revise this essay, I would expand the vocabulary used in it. The use of the word "used" decreases the quality of the essay overall. The poor word choice could be a result of the time constraint. The best way to solve this problem would to be memorize more synonyms to utilize in the essay before the test. I would also make my transitions smoother, so that the essay flowed better.
ReplyDeleteThis question asks writers to use at least 3 of the provided sources to take a postion on the topic of libraries being used to provide state funding and the ethics of the situation. Using a well-thought out argument, writers are required to develop and defend a position on this topic. My essay defended the idea that lotteries are a poor system for states to use due to their exploitation of the poor and those addicted to gambling. Two of the things I would change in this essay are some of my incorrect or absent citations, and my focus in the past half of the essay. In the first half of my essay, I focused on the presence and effect of greed in these lotteries, but this analysis tapered off as I ran out of time. Next time, I hope to improve upon my writing speed and strength in order to make my essay that much better.
ReplyDeleteWhat I most wanted to improve in my essay is my development on my quotes. I got a 7 on my synthesis essay so I did enough to adequately get my point across but upon re-reading I see spots where I didn't fully present my level 1, 2, or 3 thinking. This would have helped improve my score because it would show more critical analyzing of the sources on my part. Additionally, I think I could have written a better hook and overall stronger outline that more accurately presented what I talked about. Finally, since this was a timed essay, I didn't structure my time well enough to leave time for myself to carefully proofread my writing. Next time, I want to leave myself more time to insure I have less careless errors (spelling / punc. / grammar)
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple of things that I could've done better to improve my essay. The first topic of alteration is the organization of my essay. 3/4 through my essay, I stated information from an outside source about Maine's most recent referendum. One of the questions was about building a casino in york county. I stated the outcome of that question, with well over 60% of Maine residents voting against the casino. I used it as a supporting source, however I should have saved it for my conclusion, maybe to support my claim by showing how many people in real life besides me dislike the idea of gambling. Speaking of conclusion, That was another thing I needed to fix. What I had as my conclusion didn't function as such, and just left an open ending. Creating a real and strong conclusion would have made my essay much stronger.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1 asked me to synthesize at least three sources and to "take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that lotteries are an ethical and effective way to raise state revenues for education". I synthesized four sources, sources B, C, D, and F, to challenge and go against the idea that lotteries are an ethical way to raise money for schools. As stated by Dr. Brigman, I should have used more direct quotes in my essay instead of simply paraphrasing parts of each source. I also think that I could have discussed each source more and given more evidence to go along with my argument that lotteries are not beneficial in our society. In my third body paragraph, I use two sources, Source B and Source C, and I could definitely expand on both of these sources with quotes and explanations. I only used a couple sentences for each source, but if I had used an additional quote, my evidence would support my argument better. I think that I could improve on adding more quotes and evidence to make my essay stronger and raise its score.
ReplyDeleteIf you could revise your essay, what would you change/add/improve/alter to bring up your score?
ReplyDeleteThe first question asked for me to synthesize 3 sources and "take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that lotteries are an ethical and effective way to raise state revenues for education." I argued that lotteries are in fact ethical and effective. I used both the sources that argued in my favor (Fahrenkopf and Source C) to support my thesis as well as the opposition (Thompson and Nelson) to argue against. However, I feel like I could have went into more depth with the sources (more level 1, 2, 3). If I could revise my essay I would also go back and simply make some of the sentences make sense. In the time we had I just barely finished and was not able to proofread it super well. All in all I would really like to improve my writing under time and pressure. One thing I learned after taking the test is the importance of clearing my head and focusing on the prompt and getting my ideas down. Over all though I was happy with what I got down.