AP English Language and Composition Unit 3: Complex Argument — Free with Answer Explanations

Header banner

Unit 3: Complex Argument

0 of 12 answered

~7 min left

Question 1

Passage 1 (excerpt from an essay on remote work).

Defenders of remote work often argue that it makes workers more productive. The data, on average, supports them. But to stop there is to misread the argument. The serious case against remote work was never that individual workers produce less. It was that organizations as a whole — the mentorship of juniors, the slow accumulation of shared judgment, the unforced encounters that produce ideas no one was tasked with producing — slowly degrade in ways that aggregate productivity numbers do not capture. The aggregate is doing the work of obscuring a question we have not yet answered: what happens to an institution when the next generation has never been in the room?

Passage 2 (excerpt from an essay on standardized testing).

I have been a critic of standardized testing for two decades. So it surprises my friends when I argue against the recent push to eliminate the SAT outright. The case against the test has always been about its misuses: as a proxy for parental income, as a sorting device that masks itself as a measure of merit, as a cudgel against under-resourced schools. None of that is wrong. But the test does one thing that the alternatives proposed to replace it do not: it produces a measurement that is the same for a student in Mississippi and a student in Manhattan. Imperfect measurement is a stubborn good. The proposal to replace the test with admissions essays, letters of recommendation, and 'holistic review' substitutes a measurement we know is biased for a series of evaluations we know are MORE biased — and which can never be audited. This is not a defense of the SAT. It is an argument that the alternative is worse.

Passage 3 (excerpt from an essay on social media).

The argument that social media platforms are 'just neutral conduits' has a serious version and a foolish one. The foolish version says that platforms are like the phone company: they pass traffic, they don't shape it. This is obviously wrong — what shows up in your feed is a sorted, ranked, filtered selection determined by code the platform owns. The serious version concedes the sorting and says that platforms should be neutral about the CONTENT of what they sort, even if they cannot be neutral about the FACT of sorting. I do not agree with the serious version either, but I want to be honest about the trade-off. The price of demanding platforms intervene in content is that we will be governed, in our daily reading, by the values of whoever owns the platform. That price is real, and dismissing it is the cheap move. The expensive move is to argue that we should accept the cost anyway. That argument is what this essay tries to make.

Across Passages 1, 2, and 3, which technique BEST describes a common feature of all three authors' arguments?

A.All three argue from statistical evidence.B.All three grant opponents partial validity before pushing back.C.All three attack opponents' motivations.D.All three call for legal action.

Question 2

Passage 1 (excerpt from an essay on remote work).

Defenders of remote work often argue that it makes workers more productive. The data, on average, supports them. But to stop there is to misread the argument. The serious case against remote work was never that individual workers produce less. It was that organizations as a whole — the mentorship of juniors, the slow accumulation of shared judgment, the unforced encounters that produce ideas no one was tasked with producing — slowly degrade in ways that aggregate productivity numbers do not capture. The aggregate is doing the work of obscuring a question we have not yet answered: what happens to an institution when the next generation has never been in the room?

Based on Passage 1, the phrase 'doing the work of obscuring' suggests that the author believes:

A.Aggregate data should be ignored when making policy.B.Aggregate productivity statistics, while accurate, are being used to bypass a question they cannot answer.C.Remote-work defenders are deliberately misleading the public.D.Productivity is impossible to measure remotely.

Question 3

Passage 3 (excerpt from an essay on social media).

The argument that social media platforms are 'just neutral conduits' has a serious version and a foolish one. The foolish version says that platforms are like the phone company: they pass traffic, they don't shape it. This is obviously wrong — what shows up in your feed is a sorted, ranked, filtered selection determined by code the platform owns. The serious version concedes the sorting and says that platforms should be neutral about the CONTENT of what they sort, even if they cannot be neutral about the FACT of sorting. I do not agree with the serious version either, but I want to be honest about the trade-off. The price of demanding platforms intervene in content is that we will be governed, in our daily reading, by the values of whoever owns the platform. That price is real, and dismissing it is the cheap move. The expensive move is to argue that we should accept the cost anyway. That argument is what this essay tries to make.

The author's argumentative structure in Passage 3 is best described as:

A.Refuting both versions of the opposing argument before stating her own.B.Distinguishing weak and strong versions of the opposing view, conceding the strong version's cost, then arguing the cost is worth paying.C.Defending platform neutrality.D.Avoiding any position on the issue.

Question 4

Passage 1 (excerpt from an essay on remote work).

Defenders of remote work often argue that it makes workers more productive. The data, on average, supports them. But to stop there is to misread the argument. The serious case against remote work was never that individual workers produce less. It was that organizations as a whole — the mentorship of juniors, the slow accumulation of shared judgment, the unforced encounters that produce ideas no one was tasked with producing — slowly degrade in ways that aggregate productivity numbers do not capture. The aggregate is doing the work of obscuring a question we have not yet answered: what happens to an institution when the next generation has never been in the room?

Based on Passage 1, the rhetorical question at the end serves to:

A.Reframe the issue as one about future institutional health rather than current output.B.Concede that the author has no firm position.C.Invite readers to email the author with their opinions.D.Challenge the audience to write their own essay.

Question 5

Passage 1 (excerpt from an essay on remote work).

Defenders of remote work often argue that it makes workers more productive. The data, on average, supports them. But to stop there is to misread the argument. The serious case against remote work was never that individual workers produce less. It was that organizations as a whole — the mentorship of juniors, the slow accumulation of shared judgment, the unforced encounters that produce ideas no one was tasked with producing — slowly degrade in ways that aggregate productivity numbers do not capture. The aggregate is doing the work of obscuring a question we have not yet answered: what happens to an institution when the next generation has never been in the room?

The author's argument is best characterized as:

A.A simple rejection of remote work.B.An acknowledgment that remote-work defenders are partly right, paired with a separate concern they don't address.C.A defense of in-office mandates on financial grounds.D.A claim that productivity data is fabricated.

In-content ad

Question 6

Passage 1 (excerpt from an essay on remote work).

Defenders of remote work often argue that it makes workers more productive. The data, on average, supports them. But to stop there is to misread the argument. The serious case against remote work was never that individual workers produce less. It was that organizations as a whole — the mentorship of juniors, the slow accumulation of shared judgment, the unforced encounters that produce ideas no one was tasked with producing — slowly degrade in ways that aggregate productivity numbers do not capture. The aggregate is doing the work of obscuring a question we have not yet answered: what happens to an institution when the next generation has never been in the room?

Based on Passage 1, which finding would MOST DEEPEN the author's concern?

A.Junior employees at fully-remote firms report less informal feedback from senior colleagues.B.Remote workers complete more lines of code per week.C.Employees report higher job satisfaction at home.D.Companies save money on real estate.

Question 7

Passage 3 (excerpt from an essay on social media).

The argument that social media platforms are 'just neutral conduits' has a serious version and a foolish one. The foolish version says that platforms are like the phone company: they pass traffic, they don't shape it. This is obviously wrong — what shows up in your feed is a sorted, ranked, filtered selection determined by code the platform owns. The serious version concedes the sorting and says that platforms should be neutral about the CONTENT of what they sort, even if they cannot be neutral about the FACT of sorting. I do not agree with the serious version either, but I want to be honest about the trade-off. The price of demanding platforms intervene in content is that we will be governed, in our daily reading, by the values of whoever owns the platform. That price is real, and dismissing it is the cheap move. The expensive move is to argue that we should accept the cost anyway. That argument is what this essay tries to make.

Based on Passage 3, the phrase 'the cheap move' refers to:

A.Refusing to acknowledge the cost of platform intervention.B.Buying ads on social media.C.Quitting social media entirely.D.Demanding platforms be regulated like utilities.

Question 8

Passage 2 (excerpt from an essay on standardized testing).

I have been a critic of standardized testing for two decades. So it surprises my friends when I argue against the recent push to eliminate the SAT outright. The case against the test has always been about its misuses: as a proxy for parental income, as a sorting device that masks itself as a measure of merit, as a cudgel against under-resourced schools. None of that is wrong. But the test does one thing that the alternatives proposed to replace it do not: it produces a measurement that is the same for a student in Mississippi and a student in Manhattan. Imperfect measurement is a stubborn good. The proposal to replace the test with admissions essays, letters of recommendation, and 'holistic review' substitutes a measurement we know is biased for a series of evaluations we know are MORE biased — and which can never be audited. This is not a defense of the SAT. It is an argument that the alternative is worse.

Based on Passage 2, the phrase 'imperfect measurement is a stubborn good' functions to:

A.Concede that the SAT is biased while defending its function.B.Claim that standardized testing is unbiased.C.Argue for replacing the SAT with a new test.D.Suggest that the SAT is too entrenched to remove.

Question 9

Passage 2 (excerpt from an essay on standardized testing).

I have been a critic of standardized testing for two decades. So it surprises my friends when I argue against the recent push to eliminate the SAT outright. The case against the test has always been about its misuses: as a proxy for parental income, as a sorting device that masks itself as a measure of merit, as a cudgel against under-resourced schools. None of that is wrong. But the test does one thing that the alternatives proposed to replace it do not: it produces a measurement that is the same for a student in Mississippi and a student in Manhattan. Imperfect measurement is a stubborn good. The proposal to replace the test with admissions essays, letters of recommendation, and 'holistic review' substitutes a measurement we know is biased for a series of evaluations we know are MORE biased — and which can never be audited. This is not a defense of the SAT. It is an argument that the alternative is worse.

Based on Passage 2, the author's complex argument depends on which assumption?

A.Holistic review tools can never be improved.B.The SAT is more auditable than essays and recommendations.C.Standardized testing has no biases.D.Admissions essays don't reflect student ability.

Question 10

Passage 3 (excerpt from an essay on social media).

The argument that social media platforms are 'just neutral conduits' has a serious version and a foolish one. The foolish version says that platforms are like the phone company: they pass traffic, they don't shape it. This is obviously wrong — what shows up in your feed is a sorted, ranked, filtered selection determined by code the platform owns. The serious version concedes the sorting and says that platforms should be neutral about the CONTENT of what they sort, even if they cannot be neutral about the FACT of sorting. I do not agree with the serious version either, but I want to be honest about the trade-off. The price of demanding platforms intervene in content is that we will be governed, in our daily reading, by the values of whoever owns the platform. That price is real, and dismissing it is the cheap move. The expensive move is to argue that we should accept the cost anyway. That argument is what this essay tries to make.

Based on Passage 3, the author's commitment to acknowledging the cost of her own position is meant to:

A.Suggest that the issue has no good answer.B.Establish that she takes the opposing view seriously and isn't dismissing real trade-offs.C.Argue that costs are typically overstated.D.Suggest that opponents are arguing in bad faith.

In-content ad

Question 11

Passage 2 (excerpt from an essay on standardized testing).

I have been a critic of standardized testing for two decades. So it surprises my friends when I argue against the recent push to eliminate the SAT outright. The case against the test has always been about its misuses: as a proxy for parental income, as a sorting device that masks itself as a measure of merit, as a cudgel against under-resourced schools. None of that is wrong. But the test does one thing that the alternatives proposed to replace it do not: it produces a measurement that is the same for a student in Mississippi and a student in Manhattan. Imperfect measurement is a stubborn good. The proposal to replace the test with admissions essays, letters of recommendation, and 'holistic review' substitutes a measurement we know is biased for a series of evaluations we know are MORE biased — and which can never be audited. This is not a defense of the SAT. It is an argument that the alternative is worse.

Which choice best describes the author's overall position?

A.Standardized testing should be expanded.B.Despite the test's flaws, replacing it with the proposed alternatives would be worse.C.Holistic review is the only legitimate admissions tool.D.All admissions criteria should be eliminated.

Question 12

Passage 2 (excerpt from an essay on standardized testing).

I have been a critic of standardized testing for two decades. So it surprises my friends when I argue against the recent push to eliminate the SAT outright. The case against the test has always been about its misuses: as a proxy for parental income, as a sorting device that masks itself as a measure of merit, as a cudgel against under-resourced schools. None of that is wrong. But the test does one thing that the alternatives proposed to replace it do not: it produces a measurement that is the same for a student in Mississippi and a student in Manhattan. Imperfect measurement is a stubborn good. The proposal to replace the test with admissions essays, letters of recommendation, and 'holistic review' substitutes a measurement we know is biased for a series of evaluations we know are MORE biased — and which can never be audited. This is not a defense of the SAT. It is an argument that the alternative is worse.

Based on Passage 2, which strategy does the author use to manage potential reader resistance?

A.Establishing her credentials as a long-time critic of the very tool she is defending.B.Citing extensive statistical evidence.C.Attacking the credibility of her opponents.D.Promising that the SAT will eventually be replaced.