Practice Test 1: Answers and Explanations

PRACTICE TEST 1 ANSWER KEY

Once you have checked your answers, remember to return to this page and respond to the Reflect questions.

PRACTICE TEST 1 EXPLANATIONS

Multiple-Choice Questions

1. B

This first passage, taken from Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” is a relatively straightforward one. If you take the author’s proposal seriously, then (A), (C), (D), and (E) are plausible; the key is to understand that the author is not making a serious proposal, but rather satirizing other so-called scientific studies that, under the guise of humanitarianism, tend to offer cruel (if not sadistic) “solutions” to poverty. Therefore, (B) is the only acceptable answer.

2. D

Even if you are not familiar with the term “arguments from authority,” you should be able to guess the meaning. The authorities cited are “a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan” (paragraph 1), “our merchants” (paragraph 2), and “a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London” (paragraph 4). These are dubious authorities, which is one of the sources of humor in the passage.

Use Process of Elimination (POE), a strategy we will discuss later on in this book. The easiest and fastest way to use POE in this case is to examine the shortest of the paragraphs, the fourth. There are no similes, (A), or extended metaphors, (C), in the fourth paragraph, so there is no need to check the first or second paragraphs for these rhetorical devices. The other two answers are more esoteric, but logic leads you to eliminate them, even if you do not fully understand them as rhetorical terms. There is no appeal being used in paragraph 4, so eliminate (E). There is also no attempt to argue a point, so get rid of (B).

3. B

The “merchants” and the “American” both seem to believe the prospect of selling and eating children is feasible. The entire piece is a satire, though, so (A) is too literal. The merchant is not necessarily an aristocrat, so eliminate (C). There is no evidence to suggest that their sentiments are typical of all Londoners, so rule out (E). Since the author is satirizing, the merchants and American are no doubt fictional, so (B) is the best choice.

4. C

The irony comes from the clever juxtaposition of the phrase “nutriment and rags” with the sum of money, twelve pounds (four times three pounds). Twelve pounds is a paltry sum and indicative of the abject poverty of the children and their families, so (C) most accurately captures the irony of the statement. We have no idea what the price of food was at that time, (A), nor what the children are wearing, (E). Approximation is not ironic, (B), and most likely the parents are NOT being aided by the kingdom, (D), thus their poverty.

5. C

You may or may not be familiar with the word “fricassee,” but when you read it in context, the answer may become apparent—the entire paragraph is about food, and you should understand the other terms (stewed, roasted, baked, boiled ). Reading the term in context allows you to eliminate the other choices: “animal,” “child,” “place,” and “master.”

6. A

The best approach to this question is to use Process of Elimination. You can eliminate (B) and (C) right away. If you remember that deductive reasoning means starting with a generality and working logically to a specific conclusion, you will know that (D) is also incorrect. Choice (E) may be tempting because of the phrase “which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine,” but this paragraph is not dominated by analogy. Although this comparison is extended, it is not really a pattern. Process analysis, (A), is the best answer; in this paragraph, the author analyzes a problem and proposes a process that will bring about a solution. The proposal describes the process for breeding, fattening, and preparing this very unusual source of protein.

7. D

This question is related to the previous one. The proposal is to fatten the children for slaughter, just as if they were livestock (sheep, cattle, or pigs). Choice (D) is the answer.

8. A

By using Process of Elimination, you should be able to narrow your choices down to (A) and (C). The author says that the new meat will be expensive, and only the rich landlords will be able to afford it. The correct answer is (A).

9. A

By this point, you must have digested (forgive the pun) the satire, so you understand that the landlords have “devoured” the parents by charging unreasonably high rents and that, according to the author, they may as well literally devour (eat) their poor tenants’ children. Choice (A) is correct. It is understandable that (E) may tempt you, but the diction in this sentence is hardly a revelation; behind the comical satire is the rage of a man disgusted by the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

10. D

The reference to farm animals serves to show that the poor and their children are being treated like chattel, similar to the way animals are treated by their owners. Choice (D) captures the point of this analogy. Breeding is not the point, so eliminate (B) and (C). Marriage is also not the point, so eliminate (E). Humane treatment is not mentioned, so rule out (A).

11. B

To answer this question, think in terms of main idea. This is a fairly straightforward question that asks you to consider the type of material you are reading and what the author is saying within that context. In this piece of literary criticism, the author is making a connection between what Gulliver experienced and what an 18th-century Londoner might have seen exhibited in fairs and inns.

12. C

The author describes Swift’s achievement in Gulliver’s Travels in generally positive terms, so (C) is correct. If the author were “cleverly subversive,” he would have attempted to undercut his generally positive portrayal of Swift in some way, but he never does; eliminate (A). Authors on the AP exam are rarely only “halfheartedly engaged,” so (D) can also be eliminated. Both (B) and (E) are wrong and cannot be substantiated in the passage.

13. E

This is a challenging question because the author provides no explicit definition for the “Scriblerians” in the passage. You know that they were “fascinated with popular entertainments” (line 16) and that they “satirized them in many of their works” (lines 17–18), which means they are authors, not book craftsmen, (A), or literary characters, (B). There is no evidence that they worked as either historians or politicians, so eliminate (C) and (D).

14. C

In lines 18–19, you learn that Swift “shared this fascination with his fellow Scriblerians,” which makes him a member of the circle. Therefore, (C) is correct. While he does have a distinct interest in public entertainments, he is not necessarily a “producer” of one himself, so (B) can be eliminated. There is simply no evidence in the passage for any of the other answer choices.

15. A

The first two paragraphs maintain a consistent tense and person, so (B) can be eliminated. The author does not invest time in drawing historical allusions or extended metaphors, so (C) and (D) can also be eliminated. He does make some claims that could be considered “asides,” but they are hardly for “didactic” (i.e., educational) purposes, and they are not the “most evident” stylistic feature, so eliminate (E) as well. The correct answer is (A) because the author uses a parallel, consistent syntactical structure throughout these paragraphs.

16. D

The author wants readers to see the connection between miniature people and landscapes in Gulliver’s Travels and the common public entertainments of Swift’s London. Thus, he emphasizes their “commonness,” (D), over other features. This directly contradicts “obscurity” in (B), which can be eliminated. He does not emphasize merely the fact that they are small, so eliminate (A) as well. “Transcience,” (E), which emphasizes their fleeting nature, is not discussed in the final paragraph; neither is “magnificence,” (C), so both answer choices can be ruled out.

17. B

The series of quotes in the final paragraph substantiate the author’s claim that Gulliver’s Travels was at least somewhat based on the kinds of popular entertainments that people often saw in London. Therefore, (B) is the correct answer. The author does not really aim his argument at other scholars or at claims that “Gulliver’s Travels was purely imaginative,” so eliminate (A) and (C). While he certainly does include information from other sources, his primary purpose is not to “inform readers of the sources,” so eliminate (E).

18. E

The first section of the essay introduces readers to the connection between Gulliver’s Travels and popular entertainments, while the second section provides evidence to support that claim. Thus, (E) is correct. There really are no “series of questions,” “positions of scholars,” or “technical definition,” so (A), (C), and (D) can be eliminated. It is not accurate at all that the second choice “challenges” claims made in the first, so (B) is wrong as well.

19. C

Footnote questions were added to the test in response to concerns raised by colleges and universities. In these days of easy access to information via the Internet, colleges are becoming increasingly concerned that students do not take seriously the intellectual property of authors and end up plagiarizing, knowingly or not. Footnotes give information about authorship and publication place and date, and can also provide hints as to the purpose of a piece of writing or its context. This particular footnote simply indicates that the quote about Lilliput does indeed come from Gulliver’s Travels, part of a 14-volume set of works by Swift.

20. D

This quote from Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne helps to set an elaborate scene, and the footnote helps to lend credibility to Todd’s purpose in describing the imaginative miniature worlds of Swift’s day.

21. B

By paying attention to the title, author, subject matter, and footnotes, you can use POE to eliminate (D) and (E). And while the subject matter of this essay might be of interest to an anthropologist, (A), the content and format is inconsistent with literary criticism, (C). The answer is (B).

22. B

The tone of this passage is scholarly and generally positive, which is somewhat more difficult to detect than more overtly negative tones. Therefore, (B) is correct. He does support his claims, but not frantically, so (A) is incorrect. He is not “dejected” (i.e., sad), so (C) is also incorrect. “Intransigent” basically means stubborn, so eliminate (E). And while this passage certainly is “erudite” (i.e., learned), he does not show any signs of cynicism, so (D) is incorrect.

23. B

POE is the best way to approach this question. Choices (A), (C), (D), and (E) are all partially wrong (and therefore completely wrong). Take a look at (B). The author is being ironic when she says in the first line, “My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures….” The second part of (B), “exposition,” is defined as “a setting forth of meaning or intent,” and that is exactly what the author is doing in this first paragraph. Choice (B) is correct. Note that in this context, “apology” has nothing to do with being sorry; it most nearly means “defense of an idea.”

24. A

The author addresses women directly and pretends to excuse herself for addressing them as strong, confident people, instead of the weak, overly sentimental creatures that society wants (and expects) them to be. The correct answer is (A).

25. E

Since men aren’t mentioned anywhere in the first paragraph, your choice should boil down to (D) and (E). When the author says, “I wish to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body,” she means intellectual and physical strength, (E). Had she wanted to stress emotional strength, she would have replaced mind with heart.

26. E

“Soft” and “weakness” are important words in both paragraphs; the author uses them in the second paragraph to tie this paragraph in with the first one. The correct answer is (E).

27. A

Narrow down your choices to (A) and (B). The best way to approach this type of question is to substitute each of the answer choices for the original word to see which one makes the most sense. Try (A): “supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker sex.” This seems great, but try (B) too, just in case: “supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker woman.” Not as good. Naturally, in this case, the weaker sex is woman, but you are asked to find the meaning for “vessel” only. Choice (A) is the best answer.

28. C

Using Process of Elimination, get rid of choices (B), (D), and (E). Now you have choices (A) and (C). The author states that “the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex.” Thus, you should eliminate (A) because she is not suggesting that a comparison be made between a man and woman. This leaves choice (C) as the answer.

29. A

The author wishes to convince the reader by the force of her cogent arguments and the sincerity of her emotions, so the answer is (A). If “cogent” is not on your vocabulary list, add it now. It means “appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing.” You can eliminate the other choices because the author states unequivocally that she does not wish to polish her style, to employ the bombast and periodic sentences of a rhetorical style, to write elegantly, or to use flowery diction.

30. C

The author points out that the “flowery diction” expected of women relegated them to a world outside that of men. The difference in the social level of men and women was reflected in the way they used language. Only men could use the crude words that attempt to express the harsh realities of life. Women were not supposed to know those same harsh realities and, therefore, could not use the crude words that fit with those realities.

31. E

The sugary diction becomes associated with the taste of a cloyingly sweet delicacy. This is an extended metaphor, so Process of Elimination allows you to eliminate (A), (B), and (D); this is not a caricature of women, nor is it a critique of bombast (pompous speech or writing). If you do not know the meaning of “panegyric,” then add it to your list of vocabulary. A panegyric is a statement of high praise. It should be clear that the author does not sing the praises of sugary writing.

32. E

In this passage, the author suggests that women have the capacity to be independent equals of men. Therefore, she is most likely to agree that if women were educated in the same manner as men, they would be more likely to be viewed as equal with men in the eyes of the world. The correct answer is (E).

33. A

Use Process of Elimination, especially if you don’t know what “sardonic” means (harsh, bitter, or caustic). “Lyrical” is far too positive, so rule out (B). “Frivolous,” (D), is a trap: the women are perceived as frivolous, but that is not the author’s tone. The author is quite passionate and not at all reserved, so rule out (E). “Condescending,” (C), is a trap as well; lines 55–59 seem to convey this mood, but it directly contradicts the message of line 2 (“rational creatures”) as well as the main idea of the passage as a whole. The last line of the passage betrays the author’s true purpose: to point out the illogic of assuming that women are helpless, useless creatures unfit for positions of responsibility.

34. C

The entire passage is about learning and, most importantly, the reason for learning. This is simply a big-picture question in disguise. In this passage, the writer claims that teaching methodologies are overrated because there are many ways to teach and learn; what is important is having a reason for learning. The correct answer is (C).

35. A

The phrase “So it is with learning,” which follows the example of the ways to learn tribal lays, is a big clue that an analogy, (A), is being used here. The other answer choices are not plausible; Process of Elimination can lead you with certainty to the correct answer.

36. C

Don’t be thrown off by the use of the term “infinitives” in this question. Infinitives are verb forms that function as substantives (a noun) while retaining some verb characteristics. Some examples of sentences with infinitives are “We want him to win the lottery,” or “To go willingly will prove that you are innocent.” So this question specifically refers to the line “There is no one who can say that this or that is the best way to know things, to feel things, to see things, to remember things, to apply things, to connect things and that no other will do as well.” Based on the context, learning is a positive experience, so any answer choice that uses a negative adjective should be eliminated. Learning is (not supposed to be) “tedious,” “impersonal,” “trivial,” or even “mechanical”; this leaves you with only (C). In fact, learning is an active and varied process.

37. D

If you have a good grasp of the passage, you should be able to narrow your choices to (C) and (D); motivation, in the author’s words, is fleeting (or momentary). Although the author does not say outright that a motivation is concrete, he does set up a clear rhetorical contrast between motivation and reason. Given that he describes reason as abstract, it figures that motivation should be roughly the opposite—or at least not the same. The only textual clue that tells us motivation is concrete is the word “event.”

38. E

Remember the string of infinitives in the first paragraph; in the third paragraph, you may have already noticed the parallel series of prepositional phrases (in which the preposition “for” is repeated). Choice (E), notable parallelism, is correct. Review the other choices. An aphorism, (A), is a pithy saying or proverb. Syllogistic reasoning, (C), proceeds along the lines of a syllogism: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Here is an example of syllogistic reasoning: all Princeton Review books are useful; this is a Princeton Review book; therefore, this book is useful. Ad hominem arguments, (D), consist of attacks against a person’s character. If you were to say, “This book must be awful because you wrote it,” you would be adducing an ad hominem argument to prove your point.

39. C

Choices (A) and (B) may trap readers who fail to consider the context in which the word is used; “god” in this case has nothing to do with religion. The entire second half of the text is about the reason for education. One big clue that the author isn’t using the word “god” literally, is the phrase “must have a god to serve, or, even better, several gods.” If this were a literal use of “god,” then the term would not have been pluralized later.

40. C

In this case, the authority is Nietzsche, and the author gives a clear rhetorical statement of his use of analogy, (C), in the sentence that follows the quote: “This applies as much to learning as to living.”

41. A

This might be a good time to review two terms that are closely related: oxymoron and paradox. An oxymoron is an apparent contradiction of terms; a paradox is an apparent contradiction of ideas. The important word here is “apparent.” In this case, the last sentence is built on an apparent contradiction of terms: schooling will be brought to an end if it has no end. Nonsense? No. You are supposed to understand that, in context, the second “end” is synonymous with reason (or goal or objective). Choice (A) is correct.

42. E

In this passage, the author insists that education must serve a higher purpose; otherwise it has no meaning for students. Therefore, the contrast is between motivation—which the author defines as temporary and superficial—and purpose—which gives meaning to everything a student can do in a classroom. Therefore, (E) is correct. He alludes to religion, but it is hardly the “principal contrast,” so (D) can be eliminated. Choices (A), (B), and (C) are all appealing because they refer to education in one way or another, but are wrong because they do not represent the central distinction in the passage.

43. B

As seen in the previous question, the author argues that students need more than temporary motivation to succeed in education, so (B) is correct. The author does not really examine the “historical development of educational institutions,” so (A) is incorrect. And while the circumstances are “challenges” and he does lament a “lack” of something in education, neither (C) nor (D) is correct in its full form, so eliminate those choices as well.

44. E

Overall, this is a reasoned (and reasonable) argument rather than a “dramatic” or “impassioned” work, so eliminate (D) and (B). There is neither evidence of a “narrative” in the sense of a story, nor of objectivity, so (C) and (A) can be ruled out as well. Choice (E) is correct.

45. B

Process of Elimination should allow you to eliminate (C) and (E). Choices (A) and (D) are similar in meaning, and both imply that the speaker is a politician—of which we have no proof. Choice (B) is your best bet. If you noticed the allusions to law in the body of the text and the judgment of the final statement, then you may have realized that the passage is the dissenting opinion of a judge in a federal case—and you would have been correct to assume that this was a case that went before the Supreme Court.

46. B

Perhaps the biggest clue that tells you an analogy, (B), is being employed is the phrase “upon like grounds.” Almost everyone would agree that it would be unthinkable, for example, to segregate passengers by religion (Catholic and Protestant). If you agree that this (and the other examples) are analogous to the case before the court (segregation of passengers by race), then you are forced to agree with this judge.

47. A

The “it” in this instance refers to the “white race” mentioned much earlier in line 25; therefore, (A) is the correct answer. If you think about the verb “remains” that follows immediately after “it” in line 28, follow the story back to its source. “It” is remaining “true to its great heritage.” Whose great heritage? Keep working backward through the passage until you find out he is speaking about the “white race” in line 25 and its future.

48. A

The brief sentence “There is no caste here” has the effect of changing the syntactical style of the sentence to restate the point made in earlier sentences. Thus, (A) is correct. He is not primarily concerned with the caste system as such, so both (B) and (E) are incorrect. He does use “a simple syntactical structure,” so (D) is appealing, but it is incorrect because his primary purpose in this sentence is not to refute “the claims of his opponents” per se.

49. B

Were you tempted to choose (C)? Did you choose (C)? If so, you fell into a trap. Today, it would be normal to expect this judge to propose both civil and racial equality, but the judge bases his arguments solely on the issue of civil rights. In fact, the judge says that the white race is the dominant one “in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.” Based on the passage, the speaker appears to believe that racial equality will never be a reality, although civil equality exists.

50. E

If you do not know the meaning of the word “pernicious,” use Process of Elimination. Choices (A) and (C) can be eliminated; their meanings are the opposite of the speaker’s tone and meaning. If you know that “propitious” is roughly equivalent to (C), “useful,” you can eliminate that choice as well. As for (B), although “unjust,” like “harmful,” fits the context, the latter choice is the better synonym for the original term (“pernicious”). As long as you can narrow the choices down to two or three, you should take a guess even if you are not sure. The definition of pernicious is “causing great harm.”

51. A

In this passage, the phrases “may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts” and “duty to maintain the supreme law of the land” provide the answer: the Louisiana law is subject to censure by either the United States Congress or the United States Supreme Court, (A).

52. D

The word “mischievous” is often associated with playful mischief, which is why the test writers included choices like (A) and (C). But in this context, the meaning of “mischievous” is closer to “harmful,” so (D) is correct. Always be sure to go back to read the word in context so that you are not distracted by the most common meanings of the word or by the wrong answer choices.

53. C

The final paragraph of this decision outlines why the author will dissent from the majority opinion of the court. This makes (C) the correct answer. The author does not describe objections to his argument or contrasts to earlier claims; (A), (D), and (E) can be eliminated. The author is not primarily interested in his opponents in this paragraph, so (B), while appealing in some respects, is also incorrect.

54. D

Process of Elimination is the way to go on this one. Remember to look for one inappropriate word in each answer. Neither adjective in (A) is really appropriate, so eliminate (A). Try (B). Although one may argue that the style is “dry,” it is not “objective”—the speaker is arguing only one side of an issue, so (B) is out. The passage could be thought of as “legalistic,” but it is not at all “abstract,” so get rid of (C). As for (E), the passage is “probing,” but it is certainly not “subtle.” The speaker comes right out and says what he believes, calling this decision as pernicious as the Supreme Court’s judgment of the Dred Scott Case. Therefore, (D) is the answer.

Free-Response Questions

Question 1—Synthesis Essay

The following essay would most likely receive a score of around 7. Its use of language is skilled, it is reasonably well constructed, and its thesis strikes an original stance straddling both views of humanity. However, its introduction is quite repetitive and a bit too long, which is a common occurrence. The well-argued first body paragraph is probably the strongest part of the essay, but the second body paragraph could be developed more. The conclusion acknowledges the possibility of a global citizen mentality, but then provides a nuanced point that it is something that people achieve for themselves through personal growth.

It is possible that people will always be able to embrace their role as global citizens, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only role that they have. In fact, the primitive roles of mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, or neighbor come first in life, and much more naturally. The basic fact is that many people also identify with the people around them, people in their community, people who they look like, talk like, eat like, and live like. This is the group that we come from and it’s the one many people feel most comfortable belonging to. After all, this is how humanity lived for millions of years, isolated in small tribes and villages. While it’s true that some people won’t ever be able to see themselves as members of humanity, it’s also true that with some effort most of us can see the bigger picture.

One of the greatest things that unites the world is trade. Often trade brings us together in positive ways. For example, in Source E, Pirie points out that economic ties help countries “grow into the habit of resolving disputes by negotiation and agreement instead of by armed conflict.” This is what happened after World War II, when the countries in Europe decided that if they became economically dependent upon one another, they wouldn’t ever have another massive war. This is one of the reasons for the birth of the European Union. However, sometimes trade can unite the world in negative ways. Source F shows us that China’s enormous industrial economy has created air pollution that blows across the Pacific Ocean and lands in California, Oregon, and Washington. Instead of starting war with one another, the two parties recognize this negative effect and try to find a solution that will satisfy both groups.

Some people have trouble seeing themselves as global citizens because other groups have shut them out, and so they turn inwards toward one another. The Kurds, discussed in Source A, don’t have their own country; they are scattered among six other countries, and have been treated badly by many of those governments. Doesn’t it make sense that they would only trust one another, and see themselves as Kurds first and foremost? We can’t attribute the tribal mentality only to ignorance.

Arguments to the contrary, such as Source G (an illustration of all the countries that have contributed to the International Space Station) definitely carry some weight, but they miss the underlying truth. We are not born citizens of the world; instead, we are born local, and only through conscious acts of will we build ourselves up to that role. This change can be accomplished through travel, foreign exchange students and study abroad, books, documentaries, and social media. While some of the people who see themselves as only members of their tribe are under-informed, detached, and even prejudiced, others may not have had the opportunity to change themselves yet.

Question 2—Rhetorical Analysis Essay

The following sample essay is a strong one; the writer could expect to receive a score of 8 or even a 9. One important thing to note about the essay is the well-organized structure. A clear thesis is stated up front in the introduction, which is concise and straightforward. Each of the body paragraphs focuses on a different strategy, and the student provides evidence directly from the text to support his or her assertions. The last body paragraph ends a bit too abruptly, and the conclusion could be stronger, but overall this is a well-developed, focused essay that sticks to the thesis throughout.

Emmeline Pankhurst’s “Freedom or Death” address, given in 1913, reflects her intention and need to defend the tactics of the British suffragette movement, which was criticized at the time for being radical and militant. Upfront she declares that she is not there to “advocate women’s suffrage”; rather, she reiterates the fact that “women are human beings” and then goes on to show why the tactics deployed by women suffragists are necessary and, in fact, logical. She directs her argument specifically to male listeners, using appeals to reason, war-related analogies, and both historical and relatable, real-life examples to bolster her case and convey her message.

As Pankhurst’s speech is directed to men, she seems to use rhetorical strategies that would appeal to their sensibilities. Throughout the speech, she uses rhetorical questioning and examples to highlight the logic behind the movement’s tactics; her aim is to show that its means of protest are based on reason. She asks, “Suppose the men of Hartford had a grievance, and they laid that grievance before their legislature, and the legislature obstinately refused to listen to them…what would be the proper and the constitutional and the practical way of getting their grievance removed?” The diction here is deliberate and helps to build her reason-based argument; she uses words such as “proper,” “constitutional,” and “practical.” She then asks the men to imagine what recourse they would take if they did not have voting rights (like women) and poses another question: “what would men do then?” The “perfectly obvious” conclusion is that they would either need to accept their fate passively or “rise up.”

This is where another rhetorical strategy comes into play: Pankhurst cites American history to show that the suffrage movement’s tactics are based on historical precedent. This is also a clever appeal to U.S. patriotism. She states, “Your forefathers decided that they must have representation for taxation, many, many years ago…and when their arguments were absolutely disregarded, when every other means had failed, they began by the tea party at Boston, and they went on until they had won the independence of the United States of America.” Later in the speech, she turns this example on its head, pointing out that the Boston Tea Party participants (all of whom, undoubtedly, were male) had sacrificed tea and not whiskey, calling the decision to deprive women of their tea but not men of their whiskey “extraordinary,” which is both an ironic and hyperbolic use of the word. The rhetorical effect of this is twofold. First, it shows that throughout history, women have suffered from the actions of men. At the same time, it upholds her argument that in times of war—which is what she equates the suffrage movement to—sacrifice is necessary.

Another interesting rhetorical choice is Pankhurst’s decision to use real-life examples and analogies to underscore and legitimize her point of view. These examples are relatable but perhaps more so to women. For instance, she uses an example of a crying baby as compared to a patient baby; in this scenario, the baby that is impatient, “cries lustily, screams and kicks and makes everybody unpleasant until it is fed” is attended to first. She uses this analogy to show why it is important to “make more noise than anybody else” and be obtrusive; it is this tactic that gets noticed and achieves results. Later in the speech, she uses a cooking metaphor to reinforce the reality of civil wars and movements: “you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs.” These analogies connect activism with the mundane, which listeners can relate to and agree with. They also juxtapose the traditional female experience (child-rearing, household work) with the more male-centered analogies and metaphors that appear in the speech. For example, early in the speech she calls herself a “soldier who has temporarily left the field of battle” in order to give the speech and explain the movement’s position. Pankhurst is thus representing two opposing experiences—that of the home and that of war—which are joined in the women’s suffrage movement.

One of the most effective lines in the speech is the rhetorical question she poses, “is there any limit to what we can do except the limit we put upon ourselves?” This reference to “ourselves,” which refers to women, seems to be a rallying cry directed to female listeners. Thus, the speech as a whole speaks directly both to men and women and uses specific strategies to target both audiences simultaneously. She at once appeals to reason and history to build an argument that is irrefutable, while calling upon women to continue the fight, instilling in them the knowledge that they are capable of real change.

Question 3—Argument Essay

The following sample essay is very strong. The one noticeable flaw is the discussion of Switzerland; this detour pertains to neutrality, but it is not clear how it relates to racism. It is difficult to gauge just how deleterious the flaw may be. Certainly, the essay would earn a score of at least 7 and may get an 8.

Often, it is believed that if one ignores an issue or a problem, it will merely disappear. Mothers tell their children to ignore bullies, and even the Bible instructs us to turn the other cheek. However, when certain issues are not dealt with, they can fester until they become something far more serious than they were originally; racism is one such issue. As the passage suggests, colorblindness and neutrality are not equalizers; they are merely blinders that allow people to continue as though nothing is out of balance. By adopting a “neutral stand” and by failing to recognize the innate differences between racial groups, one not only perpetuates racism, but also promotes the homogenization of cultures and races, in itself a form of racism.

Sooner or later, the issues one faces must be dealt with. Ignorance, in this case, is not bliss; the longer a problem is put aside, the harder it is to conquer when one finally decides to face it. In the United States, the quintessential example of such a problem is racism. The 1950s and 1960s were a demonstration of just what can happen when an entire nation pretends that nothing is wrong or unequal. Race riots all over the country were the culmination of a race’s mounting frustrations. The passage states that “identifying problems and actively promoting solutions are necessary to effect useful change.” In fact change, in the form of various civil rights legislatures, only took place when racism was recognized and dealt with by the federal government. Only strong action, like the integration of the Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, could ever hope to remedy the situation. By bringing the problem into the spotlight and making everyone consider it and its implications, the government steps toward change, progress, and equality.

The only successful neutral stance ever taken in history was by Switzerland, during all the wars that raged around the country’s borders. However, a neutral stance requires more effort to maintain than a stance that is evidently one-sided, because neutrality involves denying the “social and historical context for every situation…[and]…ignoring personal contexts.” When this occurs, it would seem that one is assenting that we are all the same equal people, yet that very assertion is flawed, since it eliminates the “differences that exist.” If one does not take a side or a stance, one is, in effect, resigning oneself to the current state of affairs, the status quo. As the author of the passage points out, ignoring inequalities and differences allows “the inequalities to continue to exist, given that [one] wouldn’t do anything to help change them.” Until the public began noticing and sympathizing with the victims of racism, it took no collective action to change the status quo. Finally recognizing the inequality which was the status quo, the public could no longer remain neutral—it split into those who wanted to maintain the status quo and those who wanted to change it and improve the situation.

In essence, neutrality is supposed to be an equalizer because it declares that there are no differences between human beings. However, that denial takes away that which makes us inherently human. Without our cultures and races, we would have nothing to separate one person from another. Thus neutrality states that it is better for a group of people to lack differences than to embrace those differences. Racism is looking down on and rejecting the differences between two people. In much the same way, neutrality turns a blind eye to differences, lending validity to ignorance. Without action and discussion, societies become stale. It is only with a firm stance that one can hope to incite progress and reform; there must be recognition and a definite lack of neutrality if racism is to be prevented. “Being neutral is consenting to the status quo,” a status quo which is unequal, unfair, and socially unbalanced.