AP English Language and Composition

## Learning Outcomes

- Understand what **commentary** is and why it matters more than extra evidence alone
- Identify the difference between **summary**, **evidence**, and **commentary**
- Explain how commentary connects a piece of evidence to a claim and to the overall thesis
- Recognise what creates a **line of reasoning** in an AP argument essay
- Distinguish weaker Row B responses from stronger ones using rubric-based thinking
- Apply a repeatable paragraph structure for Question 3 and other AP Lang essays

## AP English Language and Composition Syllabus

For the AP English Language and Composition, you are expected to understand how commentary develops reasoning in argument writing, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that **Row B: Evidence and Commentary** is worth **0–4 points**
- Identify the difference between **evidence** and **commentary**
- Explain how commentary shows **how and why** evidence supports a claim
- Understand that a **line of reasoning** is a logical chain of connected claims, not just paragraph order
- Distinguish **summary/paraphrase** from real explanation
- Recognise that specific evidence without explanation cannot earn the top Row B scores
- Understand how organisation and transitions help readers follow reasoning across the essay
- Apply claim → evidence → commentary → link as a practical paragraph method for Question 3

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. What is the difference between evidence and commentary in an AP Lang essay?
2. Why does summary usually earn less credit than explanation in Row B?
3. What is a line of reasoning, and how is it different from simple essay structure?
4. How can one paragraph connect back to the thesis instead of feeling isolated?
5. What usually separates a mid-range Row B response from a top-range one?

## Introduction

In AP English Language and Composition, many students lose points not because they lack examples, but because they do not explain those examples well enough. They include facts, books, historical references, or personal observations, then move on. That creates a list of support, not an argument.

This subtopic matters because **commentary** is the part of an essay that turns raw material into reasoning. On Question 3, a reader is not only asking, “Did this student include evidence?” but also, “Did this student explain how that evidence proves the claim and builds the thesis?” If the answer is no, the essay stalls in Row B.

> **Key Term: commentary**
> The writer’s explanation of how or why evidence supports a claim and advances the line of reasoning.

### Evidence, summary, and commentary: what students mix up

The first step is to separate three things students often blur together: **evidence**, **summary**, and **commentary**.

> **Key Term: evidence**
> Specific support used to back a claim, such as an example, fact, quotation, observation, historical reference, or paraphrase.
>
> **Key Term: summary**
> A restatement of what the evidence says or what happened, without explaining its significance.

Evidence is the material. Summary retells the material. Commentary explains the material.

A quick example makes the difference clear. Imagine the prompt asks whether fear can be useful.

- **Claim:** Fear can produce necessary action in moments of danger.
- **Evidence:** During a fire drill or real emergency, fear can push people to evacuate quickly instead of delaying.
- **Summary:** In an emergency, people often move faster because they are afraid.
- **Commentary:** This matters because the fear response can override hesitation. Instead of treating fear as purely harmful, this example shows that fear may serve a protective function when immediate action is necessary.

Notice what changes. The summary repeats the idea. The commentary explains the mechanism: fear reduces hesitation and prompts action. That explanation is what earns credit.

Students often write sentences like:

- “This shows fear is important.”
- “This makes the argument stronger.”
- “This proves the author is right.”

These are too general. They point toward explanation but do not actually do it. Strong commentary names the relationship between the evidence and the claim.

For example:

- Weak: “This shows fear can help.”
- Stronger: “Because fear creates urgency, it can force people to act before doubt or delay puts them at greater risk.”

The second sentence explains **how** the evidence supports the claim.

> **Test Tip:** After every piece of evidence, ask “So what?” If your next sentence answers why the example matters and how it proves your point, you are writing commentary. If it only repeats the example, you are summarising.

### How commentary creates a line of reasoning

Many students think a **line of reasoning** just means having an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. That is structure, but it is not enough.

> **Key Term: line of reasoning**
> The logical progression of connected claims, supported by evidence and explanation, that develops and proves the thesis.

A line of reasoning is the chain linking your ideas. Each paragraph should not feel like a separate mini-essay. Instead, each one should move the argument forward.

Suppose the prompt asks whether neutrality on social issues helps preserve injustice. A weak essay might give three unrelated examples:

- a historical protest
- a school policy
- a personal anecdote

If the writer never explains how those examples connect, the essay becomes a pile of points.

A stronger line of reasoning might look like this:

1. Neutrality often protects existing power because it avoids disrupting current conditions.
2. In unequal systems, “doing nothing” usually benefits those already advantaged.
3. Therefore, neutrality can function less as fairness and more as permission for inequality to continue.

Now each step builds on the previous one. Commentary makes those links visible.

Here is a worked paragraph model:

- **Claim:** Neutrality can preserve injustice because it leaves unequal conditions unchanged.
- **Evidence:** During the civil rights era, many moderates claimed to oppose racism but criticised direct action and preferred order over reform.
- **Commentary:** This response did not challenge inequality itself. Instead, it treated disruption as the greater problem, which protected the existing racial order. The example shows that neutrality is rarely neutral in practice; when one side already has more power, refusing to intervene usually strengthens that side.
- **Link to thesis:** For that reason, neutrality may look balanced while actually helping imbalance continue.

That last move is important. Good commentary does not stop at the paragraph claim. It also reconnects the paragraph to the essay’s main argument.

A useful check is this: if you removed the thesis from the introduction, would the body paragraphs still point clearly toward one central position? If not, the line of reasoning is weak.

### What strong commentary sounds like in practice

Strong commentary usually does at least one of these jobs:

- explains **cause and effect**
- explains **why the example is relevant**
- explains **what the example reveals**
- explains **why the evidence matters in context**
- connects the example to the **larger claim**

Consider a prompt on whether success requires risk.

A weak paragraph might say:

- “Many entrepreneurs take risks. Steve Jobs took risks when creating Apple. This shows risk can lead to success.”

This is not wrong, but it is thin. The evidence is broad, and the explanation is generic.

A stronger version would say:

- “Entrepreneurs often succeed because risk allows them to pursue ideas others reject. For example, major business founders have often invested time and money in products before there was proof of broad demand. What makes this evidence persuasive is not simply that risk happened first, but that the willingness to act under uncertainty created opportunities safer competitors would have missed. In this way, risk is not just an accessory to success; it can be the condition that makes unusual success possible.”

That explanation goes beyond naming the example. It explains the logic.

Students also need to avoid **overcommentary** that drifts away from the point. Commentary should deepen the claim, not become a new unrelated argument. If your explanation starts discussing a side issue that the thesis does not need, you may weaken coherence.

A helpful balance is:

- one clear claim
- one specific piece of evidence
- two to four sentences of focused commentary
- one sentence linking back to the thesis or moving forward

This does not mean every paragraph must look identical. But under timed conditions, this pattern is reliable.

> **Key Term: claim**
> A specific point the writer makes in support of the thesis.

Another common mistake is assuming more evidence automatically raises the score. It does not. Three vague examples with no explanation are weaker than one precise example that is fully unpacked.

Compare these two moves:

- “History proves this. The American Revolution, women’s suffrage, and labour reform all show people must speak up.”
- “Women’s suffrage is especially useful here because it shows that exclusion does not disappear on its own. Without organised protest, lawmakers had little reason to extend political rights. The example therefore supports the idea that silence protects existing structures more than it protects justice.”

The second earns more because the writer enters the argument.

> **Test Tip:** In timed writing, choose evidence you can explain, not just evidence you can name. A simpler example with clear commentary usually scores better than an impressive example left unexplained.

### Row B scoring: what separates weaker and stronger responses

You do not need to memorise every rubric phrase exactly, but you do need a working sense of the differences.

Low Row B responses usually have one or more of these features:

- evidence is general
- the essay repeats the prompt
- examples are listed but not explained
- commentary is only “this shows” language
- paragraphs do not connect into one argument

A mid-range response often improves in one area but not all. It may include some specific evidence and some explanation, but the explanation is uneven. One paragraph may analyse well, while another falls back into summary. Or the essay may explain individual examples but fail to make them part of a coherent line of reasoning.

A strong Row B response does three things consistently:

1. uses **specific** evidence
2. explains **how** that evidence supports the claim
3. maintains a **coherent line of reasoning** across the essay

That word consistently matters. One strong analytical paragraph is not enough if the rest of the essay becomes summary.

A useful way to picture the score progression:

- **1-point level:** “Here is an example.”
- **2-point level:** “Here is an example, and here is some explanation.”
- **3 to 4-point level:** “Here is carefully chosen evidence, and I consistently explain how it supports each step of my argument.”

The essay does not need to sound fancy. It needs to be logically clear.

Here is a side-by-side comparison.

Paragraph version 1:

- “Neutrality is bad. In history, many people stayed silent during injustice. During segregation, some people did not speak up. This shows neutrality helps injustice.”

Paragraph version 2:

- “Neutrality can help injustice survive because silence reduces pressure for change. During segregation, many people who disliked discrimination still avoided direct opposition, which allowed unequal systems to continue with less resistance. The example matters because injustice does not need universal support to survive; it only needs enough passive acceptance. This supports the thesis that neutrality often preserves the status quo rather than correcting it.”

The second paragraph is better because it explains the underlying logic.

### A practical paragraph method for Question 3

On the argument essay, students need a method they can use in 40 minutes. One of the safest is:

claim → evidence → commentary → link

Here is how to use it step by step.

First, make the claim narrow enough to prove in one paragraph. Avoid broad topic sentences like “History shows this is true.” Instead, write something like “Public pressure is often necessary because institutions rarely reform themselves without external challenge.”

Second, choose evidence that fits that exact claim. Do not force a favourite example into the paragraph if it does not match the point.

Third, explain the evidence. This is where commentary lives. Focus on:

- why this example matters
- what it reveals
- how it proves the claim
- how it pushes the thesis forward

Fourth, link out of the paragraph. You can connect back to the thesis or set up the next point.

A model analytical paragraph might look like this:

“Public pressure is often necessary because institutions rarely reform themselves without outside demand. For example, major reform movements in United States history gained traction only after organised protest made inaction costly for leaders. This matters because it shows reform is not usually the automatic result of moral awareness. Instead, those in power often respond only when silence or delay creates political risk. The example therefore supports the argument that speaking out is not merely expressive; it is frequently the force that converts private disagreement into public change.”

Notice several things. The evidence is not dropped in and abandoned. The commentary names a cause-and-effect chain. The paragraph ends by expanding the significance of the example.

If you can write two or three body paragraphs with that level of explanation, you are in strong Row B territory.

A final drafting habit helps: plan your line of reasoning before you write. Ask yourself:

- What is my thesis?
- What are my two or three main claims?
- In what order should they appear?
- How does each one build on the previous point?

This planning matters because commentary is easier when the logic is already clear in your head. Students who start writing without a plan often produce evidence first and reasoning later, if at all.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Commentary is the explanation of how or why evidence supports a claim
- Evidence is the specific support; commentary is not the same thing as evidence
- Summary restates what happened or what the source says, but commentary explains significance
- Row B: Evidence and Commentary is worth 0–4 points
- A line of reasoning is the logical progression of connected claims across the essay
- Strong essays do not just list examples; they explain how examples prove the thesis
- Commentary should connect evidence to both the paragraph claim and the larger argument
- Generic phrases such as “this shows” are usually too weak on their own
- More evidence does not automatically mean a higher Row B score
- A reliable body paragraph structure is claim → evidence → commentary → link
- Organisation helps reasoning when paragraph order and transitions make the logic easy to follow
- On Question 3, the best evidence is evidence you can explain clearly under time pressure

## Key Terms and Concepts

- commentary
- evidence
- summary
- line of reasoning
- claim


Reasoning and Organization - Commentary explains reasoning