Strength Of Ap Language

At the beginning of the year, I found that I could not succeed at AP Language with what I had learnt in EAP. Under timed settings, I had a hard time building claims and finding evidence; in other time, my writing could be redundant and hard to understand. Therefore, I have set a list of goals, and I have critically reflected my writings according to these goals. Throughout the year, one of my strengths is clear transitions between ideas in my essays. Another strength has been applying SOAPStone to integrate sources after I became familiar with the analysis tool. Redundancy, on the contrary, has been the major weakness of my writing. Thus, one of my goals is reducing redundancy, toward which I have been progressing by rewriting. To improve my

I discover that by analyzing the “meta-information,” the information beyond the literal text, such as occasion and purpose, I can use a source to support my own idea in a way that shows my insightful understanding of the text. For instance, in the synthesis essay about the English language, I illustrate the ineffectiveness of a guideline for elementary school teachers by considering its purpose and implication. At the first glance, the guideline is a boring table with “inappropriate” usages and their “clinical” counterparts. But considering the purpose, which is to encourage the use of politically correct, often euphemistic language in classrooms full of preteens, how will the instruction affect the class dynamics? I argue that children in elementary school may not understand the meaning of various euphemisms, so the exposure to language becomes meaningless, and their early development in linguistic intelligence may be hampered. This negative prospect supports my argument against overly political correctness. By exploring the purpose, I successfully extract useful information from the monotonous guideline and organically integrate it into my writing. Likewise, in another synthesis essay on technology and school, I rebut a technology advocate by indicating that his claim has become outdated. The enthusiast says that using a word processor has improved his writing flow, and by induction he argues for using technology in creative works. The induction, nevertheless, is invalid in this Internet age. I assert that the abundance of available information has undermined the desire to create new things for most people, which supports my stand against applying technology in school. By contrasting the original occasion (the “O” in SOAPStone) and now, I turn a seemingly persuasive opposite argument into a support. There are other examples that show SOAPStone’s power, and they all are more