AP English Language study guide · Chapter 33
Make the example prove something
CHAPTER 32
Make the example prove something
The gap between evidence and commentary is where many argument essays flatten out. After the example appears, the reader still needs to know why it supports this claim and what general principle can be drawn from it. The explanation should make the connection visible without pretending the example proves more than it does.
State what the example actually establishes
Before writing commentary, state plainly what the example actually demonstrates, not what a related but larger claim might hope it demonstrates. An example about one entrepreneur's specific decision establishes something about that decision's conditions, not a universal law about risk in general.
Write the warrant the paragraph is missing
A warrant is the reasoning that connects a specific example to a general claim, the missing logical step explaining why this evidence supports this position. A paragraph that jumps from example directly to claim without stating this connecting reasoning leaves the reader to supply the warrant themselves.
Connect the example back to the claim
After developing an example's specific details, explicitly tie those details back to the paragraph's claim in the paragraph's own language, rather than trusting the reader to make the connection independently. An example that never explicitly returns to the claim has not yet finished its job.
Avoid causal claims the evidence cannot carry
An example showing that one thing happened after another is not automatically evidence that the first thing caused the second. Claiming a causal relationship the evidence only shows as a sequence overstates what the example can actually support.
Use a second example only when it adds new reasoning
A second example is worth including only when it extends or complicates the reasoning the first example already established, not simply when it provides another instance of the same basic point. A second example that only repeats the first one's logic adds length without adding argumentative value.
Build the paragraph around one purpose
Each body paragraph should serve one specific purpose within the essay's larger argument, established at the paragraph's start and developed throughout. A paragraph that drifts across several unrelated points dilutes the specific work any one example could have done.
Make the transition show the logical relationship
A transition between paragraphs should signal the actual logical relationship between them, addition, contrast, or consequence, rather than simply signaling that a new paragraph has begun. A transition that only marks sequence, without indicating relationship, leaves the essay's reasoning chain harder to follow.
End with the argument the evidence has earned
A paragraph's final sentence should state the specific conclusion the evidence and commentary have actually built toward, not a generic restatement of the claim that could have appeared before the evidence was ever introduced. The ending should reflect that something has been established, not simply that the paragraph is over.
|
EXAM DIAMOND After an example appears, state the warrant connecting it to the claim, and end the paragraph with the specific conclusion the evidence has actually earned, not a generic restatement of the thesis. |
CONSTRUCTED-RESPONSE DRILLS
These drills use the risk-taking prompt from Chapter 30.
Drill 1: Write the missing warrant
“In 1879, Edison and his Menlo Park team tested more than 1,600 materials while searching for a practical filament as part of a larger electric-lighting system. The repeated testing consumed time and resources without a guaranteed result, but each trial also narrowed the range of workable materials. Therefore, risk-taking is necessary for significant achievement.”
This paragraph jumps from example directly to claim. Write the missing warrant connecting them.
Model reasoning: A warrant might read: “This case supports a narrower principle: when a goal can be reached only through uncertain experimentation, accepting the cost of failed trials can be part of the information-gathering process. It does not prove that risk is necessary for every significant achievement, or that risk by itself causes success or fame.” This states the reasoning connecting the specific example, sustained team experimentation, to a defensible, narrower claim rather than leaving the reader to infer an overstated one.
Drill 2: Fix an unsupported causal claim
“Edison and his team took risks, and then Edison became famous. This proves that taking risks causes fame.”
Explain why this causal claim overstates what the example can support, and revise it to a claim the evidence can actually carry.
Model reasoning: The original claim treats a sequence, risk-taking followed by fame, as though it proves risk-taking directly causes fame, ignoring other necessary factors like the eventual success of the invention itself and its historical timing. A revised claim might read: “The team's willingness to risk sustained, uncertain experimentation was part of what made the eventual success possible, though risk-taking alone does not guarantee either success or recognition.” This states a more precise, defensible relationship the evidence can actually support.
CHAPTER 32 PRACTICE
These questions use the risk-taking prompt from Chapter 30. Answer all six questions before checking explanations.
Question 1
- AA. That in this specific case, sustained team experimentation across many tested materials was part of what allowed a systematic narrowing toward a workable filament
- BB. That risk-taking always guarantees eventual success in any field
- CC. That failure is more valuable than success in every circumstance
- DD. That inventors are naturally more successful than other professionals
Question 2
- AA. “Edison was a famous inventor.”
- BB. “The lightbulb is used in homes today.”
- CC. “Many people use lightbulbs every day.”
- DD. “Each tested material consumed time and resources, but that repeated testing also allowed a systematic narrowing of workable options, without which a viable filament could not have been identified.”
Question 3
- AA. “The Menlo Park team's willingness to risk sustained, uncertain experimentation was part of what made the eventual viable filament possible, though risk-taking alone does not guarantee success.”
- BB. “Edison took risks, and then he became famous. This proves that taking risks causes fame.”
- CC. “Taking risks always leads directly to fame and success.”
- DD. “Anyone who takes enough risks will eventually become as famous as Edison.”
Question 4
- AA. Always including as many examples as possible regardless of whether they add new reasoning
- BB. Removing the Edison example entirely in favor of the new one
- CC. Reconsidering whether this second example adds new reasoning beyond what the first example already established, since a second example that only repeats the same logic adds length without adding argumentative value
- DD. Combining both examples into a single sentence without separate development
Question 5
- AA. “Next, here is another example.”
- BB. “However, risk does not always resolve so favorably, as a different kind of case demonstrates.”
- CC. “In addition, here is more information.”
- DD. “Moving on to a different topic now.”
Question 6
- AA. “In conclusion, risk-taking is important, as this example shows.”
- BB. “This example is interesting and worth thinking about.”
- CC. “That is the end of this paragraph about Edison.”
- DD. “Edison's case shows that risk becomes productive specifically when repeated failure generates usable information that narrows the path toward a working solution.”
ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS
Show the answers and explanations
1. Correct answer: A
A (correct): This states precisely what the specific example demonstrates, a particular mechanism in one documented case, rather than inflating it into a universal claim about all achievement.
B: This overstates what a single example can establish; one case cannot prove a universal guarantee, which is exactly the overreach this chapter warns against.
C: This claim goes well beyond what the specific example about repeated experimentation actually shows; it introduces a broader value claim the evidence does not establish.
D: This claim about inventors as a professional category is not supported by a single example about one team's specific experimental process.
2. Correct answer: D
A: This sentence states a fact about Edison's reputation without explaining any reasoning connecting the example to the claim about risk.
B: This sentence describes a consequence of the invention's success without supplying any reasoning connecting the risk-taking process to the paragraph's claim.
C: This sentence describes present-day usage and does not supply the missing logical connection between the specific risk-taking example and the paragraph's claim.
D (correct): This sentence explicitly states the reasoning connecting the specific example to the general claim, explaining the mechanism rather than leaving the connection implicit.
3. Correct answer: A
A (correct): This claim precisely states a narrower, defensible relationship the evidence can support, while explicitly avoiding the overstated guarantee a simpler causal claim would assert.
B: This claim treats a mere sequence, risk-taking followed by fame, as proof of direct causation, ignoring other necessary factors the evidence does not rule out.
C: This overstated universal claim goes well beyond what one example about one team's specific process can establish.
D: This claim extends a single case into a guaranteed outcome for anyone, which the evidence about one team's specific circumstances cannot support.
4. Correct answer: C
A: This contradicts the chapter's guidance, which specifically warns against including a second example that only repeats the first one's logic.
B: The chapter does not recommend replacing developed evidence; it recommends considering whether additional evidence adds new reasoning, not discarding existing, well-developed evidence.
C (correct): Add a second example when it extends or complicates the reasoning. Another instance of the same point adds little.
D: Combining examples without separate development would likely leave neither with enough detail for the commentary to work.
5. Correct answer: B
A: This transition only signals sequence, that another example follows, without indicating any specific logical relationship between the two paragraphs.
B (correct): This transition explicitly signals a contrast relationship, moving from a successful case to a less favorable one, rather than merely marking that a new topic follows.
C: This vague transition does not specify what kind of relationship, contrast, addition, or consequence, actually connects the two paragraphs' content.
D: This transition explicitly signals an unrelated shift rather than the meaningful contrast that actually connects a success story to a failure story on the same underlying question.
6. Correct answer: D
A: This generic restatement could apply to virtually any example in any paragraph about risk; it does not reflect the specific conclusion this particular paragraph's evidence actually earned.
B: This vague, non-argumentative statement does not state any specific conclusion the evidence has established; it merely comments on the example's general interest.
C: This sentence only announces that the paragraph is concluding without stating any specific argumentative conclusion the evidence has earned.
D (correct): This ending states a specific conclusion earned by the particular mechanism the paragraph developed, rather than a generic statement that could have appeared before any evidence was introduced.