English Language &
Composition Study Library.

Rhetorical situation: speaker, audience, purpose, subject, context, exigence · Identifying and describing claims in nonfiction texts · Evidence types: anecdotal, logical, empirical, authoritative · Claim-evidence-commentary paragraph structure · Introduction to the four Big Ideas: RHS, CLE, REO, STL · Defensible thesis statements that go beyond restatement

Audience appeals: ethos, pathos, logos · Developing arguments that engage with and respond to multiple texts · Incorporating and attributing source material (synthesis skill foundation) · Identifying how writers position themselves in relation to other arguments · Evaluating the effectiveness of different appeal types for different audiences · Integrating quotations and paraphrases with commentary

Strengthening evidence-commentary connections beyond summary · Traditional development methods: definition, classification, comparison, causal analysis · Building a line of reasoning: ordering claims so each advances the thesis · Selecting evidence that is specific, concrete, and relevant · Transitioning between evidence and commentary within body paragraphs · Recognizing and avoiding circular reasoning

Crafting effective introductions that establish context and thesis · Writing conclusions that go beyond summary to extend or complicate the argument · Strategic rhetorical choices in essay structure: ordering for impact · Adjusting tone, register, and diction for specific audiences and purposes · Using framing devices (anecdote, statistic, rhetorical question) to open arguments · Aligning structural choices with argumentative purpose

Achieving coherence through strategic transitions between paragraphs and sentences · Precise word choice and connotation: denotative vs. connotative meaning · Syntactic choices: simple, compound, complex, cumulative, periodic sentences · Using comparison and analogy to clarify and strengthen arguments · Parallel structure and its effect on emphasis and persuasive rhythm · Evaluating MCQ revision questions focused on transitions and cohesion

Source credibility and bias: identifying perspective, stake, and potential limitations · Distinguishing primary, secondary, and tertiary sources · Evaluating evidence quality: specificity, recency, representativeness · Revising thesis claims to account for contradictory or complicating information · Synthesis source selection: choosing which of 6 sources best supports a specific claim · Recognizing logical fallacies: hasty generalization, false dichotomy, ad hominem, slippery slope

Qualifying claims: using hedges, concessions, and conditional language purposefully · Acknowledging and addressing counterarguments without abandoning the thesis · Concession-rebuttal structure: granting a point while reasserting the line of reasoning · Punctuation as a rhetorical choice: dashes, colons, semicolons, and their persuasive effects · Nuanced thesis writing: building complexity into the claim from the start · Understanding how qualification contributes to Row C sophistication

Rhetorical devices and their effects: anaphora, antithesis, chiasmus, juxtaposition, allusion, analogy · Diction analysis: Latinate vs. Anglo-Saxon register, formal vs. colloquial, charged vs. neutral · Syntax for effect: sentence length variation, periodic vs. cumulative sentence strategy · Tone identification and analysis: irony, sarcasm, understatement, hyperbole · Revision strategies: cutting redundancy, improving concision, sharpening argumentative focus · Analyzing how stylistic choices create specific effects for a specific audience

Refutation strategies: directly challenging an opposing claim's logic, evidence, or assumptions · Concession-refutation vs. concession-rebuttal: choosing the right response to opposing views · Mastery integration: synthesizing skills from Units 1–8 into polished full-length arguments · Time management across the three FRQ essays (15-min reading period + ~40 min per essay) · Triage strategy for MCQ: reading vs. writing/revision question types under time pressure · Exam-level sophistication: genuine complexity, not performative hedging