AP English Language and Composition · ⁨AP 영어 어법 및 작문⁩

AP English Language is not a literature course. It is a course in how texts do work on readers, and Unit 1 installs the two ideas everything else is built on: the rhetorical situation and the claim-plus-evidence paragraph.

The CED defines the rhetorical situation 修辞情境 as the exigence, purpose, audience, writer, context, and message taken together. Each has a precise meaning, and using them precisely is what separates a strong answer from a vague one:

• The exigence 促因 is the part of the situation that inspires, stimulates, provokes, or prompts a writer to create a text. It is the reason this text exists now.
• The purpose 目的 is what the writer hopes to accomplish. A text may have more than one purpose.
• The audience 受众 has shared as well as individual beliefs, values, needs, and backgrounds - so "the audience" is never a single uniform thing.
• The context 语境 includes the time, place, and occasion in which the text was created.
• The message is what the text actually says and does.

The most common weak answer in this course names a device and stops. The rhetorical situation is what turns a device into an argument: this writer, prompted by this exigence, made this choice to move this audience toward this purpose.

• Writers convey their positions through one or more claims 主张 that require a defence.
• Writers defend their claims with evidence and/or reasoning 证据与推理.
• Types of evidence include facts, anecdotes, analogies, statistics, examples, details, illustrations, expert opinions, and personal experience - a deliberately wide list, because recognising an anecdote or an analogy as evidence is itself a skill.
• Effective claims provoke interest and require a defence, rather than stating an obvious, known fact that requires no proof.

That fourth point is the most useful test you have. Ask of any sentence: could a reasonable person disagree? If not, it is not a claim - it is a fact, and building a paragraph on it produces writing with nothing to prove.

Finally, writers relate source material to their own argument by syntactically embedding quoted, paraphrased, or summarised material into their own sentences. The evidence is not dropped in beside your sentence; it is built into it.

Unit 1's writing objective is deliberately small: write one paragraph containing a claim and evidence that supports it. Everything later in the course is an elaboration of this.

A working shape:

1. A claim that requires defence - arguable, specific, and narrower than the whole thesis.
2. Evidence chosen because it supports this claim, embedded syntactically rather than dropped in.
3. Commentary explaining how the evidence supports the claim - the step students skip, and the one that carries most of the marks on the exam.

The single most common failure on the AP Language essays is a paragraph in which the evidence is present and the explanation is absent. The reader can see the quotation; what they cannot see is why you think it proves your point.

The free-response section has three questions, and they use the same skills in different arrangements:

• Question 1, Synthesis 综合写作: you are given several sources and must build your own argument, using the sources as evidence rather than summarising them.
• Question 2, Rhetorical Analysis 修辞分析: you are given one text and must explain the choices the writer makes and how those choices contribute to purpose - which is the rhetorical situation applied.
• Question 3, Argument 论证写作: you are given a claim or a scenario and must argue a position, using evidence from your own knowledge and experience.

All three are marked on a six-point rubric with the same three rows: thesis (1 point), evidence and commentary (4 points), and sophistication (1 point). Knowing that shape from Unit 1 tells you where the marks are: four of the six come from evidence and the commentary on it, so a plan that produces evidence without explanation caps you at low marks no matter how good the writing sounds.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). A Rhetorical Analysis prompt asks you to "explain the writer's rhetorical choices" in a given passage. A row-scoring answer does not say "the writer uses a rhetorical question." It says: "Faced with an audience that already agrees on the problem but not on its urgency, the writer opens with a question rather than a statement, forcing readers to supply the answer themselves and so to feel the conclusion as their own rather than as one imposed on them." Notice what earns the points: the audience, the choice, and the effect on purpose - the rhetorical situation, used.

• Learn the six components by name and use the names. Precision here is directly rewarded.
• Exigence is not the same as purpose. Exigence is what prompted the text; purpose is what the writer wants to achieve.
• Test every claim with could a reasonable person disagree? If not, it is a fact, not a claim.
• Embed evidence in your own sentence. Dropped quotations read as unprocessed.
• Four of six points are evidence and commentary. Write the commentary; it is where most lost marks live.
• Never name a device without saying what it does to the audience. A device with no effect earns nothing.

Unit 1 established that a text has an audience. Unit 2 makes that audience the engine of every choice a writer makes.

• Writers' perceptions of an audience's values, beliefs, needs, and background guide the choices they make. Note the word perceptions: what steers the writing is the writer's picture of the audience, which may be accurate or not.
• To achieve a purpose, writers make choices in an attempt to relate to an intended audience's emotions and values.
• Arguments seek to persuade or motivate action through appeals 诉求 - the modes of persuasion 说服方式.

The same three statements now become a writing instruction. Before drafting, decide:

• What does this audience already believe about the subject?
• What do they need - information, reassurance, a reason to act?
• What do they value, and which of those values can honestly be connected to my position?

An argument that ignores these produces writing addressed to nobody. And the CED's framing gives you a useful test for your own drafts: if this paragraph would read identically to a completely different audience, it has not been shaped by one.

Unit 2 deepens Unit 1's treatment of evidence with three claims about how evidence works:

• Writers use evidence strategically and purposefully to illustrate, clarify, set a mood, exemplify, associate, or amplify. Evidence does a job, and naming that job is analysis.
• Strategically selected evidence strengthens the validity and reasoning of the argument, relates to an audience's emotions and values, and helps establish the writer's credibility 可信度.
• An effective argument contains sufficient evidence 充分的证据 - sufficient when its quantity and quality provide apt support for the line of reasoning.

That third point is often misread as "more is better". Sufficiency is quantity and quality together: three well-chosen pieces of evidence that bear directly on the claim beat six that only touch it.

Applying the above to your own writing, choose each piece of evidence for a stated reason. In practice this means being able to finish the sentence: I am using this piece because it ...

• ... illustrates a claim that would otherwise stay abstract;
• ... establishes my credibility on a subject where readers may doubt it;
• ... connects my position to a value the audience already holds.

Evidence chosen this way produces commentary almost automatically, because you already know what the evidence is doing. Evidence chosen because it was available produces the blank space where commentary should be.

• A thesis 论点 is the main, overarching claim a writer seeks to defend or prove by using reasoning supported by evidence.
• A writer's thesis is not necessarily a single sentence or an explicit statement, and may require a thorough reading to identify.

That second point matters for the reading side of the exam. On a rhetorical-analysis passage, the thesis may be distributed across the text or implied by its structure. Do not assume the first sentence of the second paragraph is the thesis because that is where you would put yours.

The writing objective is precise: write a thesis statement that requires proof or defence and that may preview the structure of the argument.

Two independent requirements sit in that sentence:

• It must require defence. Apply the Unit 1 test again: could a reasonable person disagree? A thesis that states a fact cannot be defended, only repeated.
• It may preview the structure - optional, but useful, because a thesis that names the lines of reasoning it will pursue gives the essay its shape.

On the exam, the thesis point is one of six and it is the cheapest point on the rubric: a defensible thesis in response to the prompt earns it. A restatement of the prompt does not.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). For a Question 3 argument prompt asking you to take a position on the value of a proposed practice, compare two openings. "There are many arguments both for and against this practice." - that earns nothing, because nobody could disagree with it. "Because the practice rewards visible effort rather than actual improvement, it produces the appearance of progress while removing the incentive to seek it." - that earns the point: it is arguable, specific, and it previews the reasoning the essay will develop.

• The audience drives everything. If a paragraph would read the same to any audience, it has not been shaped for one.
• Name what evidence does - illustrate, clarify, associate, amplify. That is analysis; listing evidence is not.
• Sufficiency is quantity and quality, not volume. Three apt pieces beat six loose ones.
• A thesis in a passage may be implied or distributed. Read the whole text before deciding.
• Your own thesis must be arguable. Restating the prompt earns zero of the six points.
• Previewing your line of reasoning in the thesis is optional but makes the rest of the essay easier to organise.

Unit 3 is where the course stops being about parts and starts being about structure. Its subject is the line of reasoning 推理线索 - the path an argument takes from where it starts to what it proves.

First, four claims about how evidence gets into an argument properly:

• Effective use of evidence uses commentary 评述 to establish a logical relationship between the evidence and the claim.
• Writers introduce source material using commentary to integrate it into their line of reasoning - so commentary comes before as well as after.
• Synthesis 综合 requires consideration, explanation, and integration of others' arguments into one's own. That is the exact skill Question 1 tests, and the word integration rules out a paragraph that simply summarises each source in turn.
• Writers must acknowledge the words, ideas, images, and texts of others through attribution and citation 归属与引用.

Applied to your own writing, the change from Unit 2 is that commentary now has two jobs, not one: it introduces the evidence into the reasoning, and it explains the relationship afterwards.

A paragraph that does both reads: claim - a sentence positioning the evidence - the evidence, embedded - commentary establishing the logical relationship - the link onward. The sentence before the quotation is doing as much work as the one after it, and most students write neither.

The CED allows two arrangements, and both are valid:

• Writers may lead readers through a line of reasoning and then arrive at a thesis - the argument builds to its claim.
• Writers may express a claim and then develop a line of reasoning to justify it - the argument declares and then defends.

Whichever order is used, the same requirements hold:

• Writers explain their reasoning through commentary that connects chosen evidence to a claim.
• Commentary explains the significance and relevance of evidence in relation to the line of reasoning.
• The sequence of paragraphs in a text reveals the argument's line of reasoning - which is the practical tool for reading. To find a writer's reasoning, write one sentence per paragraph and read the list.
• Flaws in a line of reasoning may render an argument specious or illogical.

For your own essays, the useful discipline is to decide the order of your claims before writing any of them. An essay whose paragraphs could be shuffled without loss has no line of reasoning - it has a list.

Test a draft by asking of each paragraph: why does this come after the one before it? If the only answer is "it is another thing I know about the topic", the structure is a list and the reasoning point is at risk.

Methods of development 展开方法 are common approaches writers use to develop and organise the reasoning of an argument. The CED's list: narration, cause-effect, comparison-contrast, definition, and description. This unit treats the first two.

• Developing through narration 叙述: writers offer details about real-life experiences and reflections on them. The reflection is what makes narration an argument rather than a story - an anecdote with no reflection has supplied no reasoning.
• Developing through cause-effect 因果: writers present a cause, then assert the effects or consequences of that cause - or begin from an effect and trace it back.

Choosing a method is a rhetorical decision, not a stylistic one. Narration works when the audience needs to feel the situation before they will accept a claim about it. Cause-effect works when the audience already accepts the facts but not the connection between them.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). On a Question 1 synthesis prompt, compare two paragraphs using the same two sources. The weak version: "Source A says X. Source C says Y. Both discuss the issue." That is summary in sequence - no claim, no integration, no reasoning. The strong version: "The strongest objection to the proposal is not that it fails but that it succeeds too narrowly: Source A's data show the intended outcome improving, while Source C's account of the same programme records the second-order costs that the measurement in Source A was never designed to capture." Here the sources are integrated into the writer's own claim, and the commentary establishes the logical relationship - which is what the four evidence-and-commentary points are awarded for.

• Commentary has two jobs: introducing evidence into the reasoning, and explaining the relationship afterwards. Write both sentences.
• Synthesis means integration, not summary in sequence. A paragraph per source is the classic low-scoring shape.
• To find a writer's line of reasoning, summarise each paragraph in one sentence and read the list.
• Ask of your own paragraphs: why does this one follow that one? No answer means no line of reasoning.
• Narration needs reflection. An anecdote without it has told a story, not made an argument.
• Choose a method of development for a rhetorical reason and be able to say what it is.

Unit 5 turns from what an argument contains to how it holds together. It has two subjects: coherence 连贯 and the beginnings of style 文体.

The CED's statement of the body paragraph is exact and worth memorising: the body paragraphs of a written argument make claims, support them with evidence, and provide commentary that explains the relationship of the evidence to the claim.

Three parts, in that order, in every body paragraph. When an AP essay loses evidence-and-commentary points, it is almost always because the third part is missing from paragraphs that have the first two.

Applied to your own writing: draft the claims first, as a list, before writing any paragraph. You then have the line of reasoning in front of you and can check that it moves.

Then, for each claim, write the paragraph in its three parts deliberately. A useful habit under exam conditions is to make the commentary sentence begin with a word that forces a relationship - because, which means, so, the effect of this is - because those words cannot be followed by a restatement.

Coherence occurs at different levels in a piece of writing:

• In a sentence, the idea in one clause logically links to the idea in another.
• In a paragraph, each sentence builds on the one before it.
• Across the whole text, each paragraph relates to the line of reasoning.

The CED then names the devices that create those links:

• Repetition 重复, synonyms 同义词, pronoun references 代词指代, and parallel structure 平行结构 may indicate or develop a relationship between ideas.
• Transitional elements 过渡成分 are words or other elements - phrases, clauses, sentences, or whole paragraphs - that assist in creating coherence.

Transitions have a second job the CED names explicitly: they introduce evidence or indicate its relationship to other ideas or evidence.

That is the difference between decorative and functional transitions. Furthermore adds nothing - it says only "here is another sentence". Even in the cases where the effect is smallest tells the reader what relationship is coming. Choose transitions that carry information about the relationship, not ones that merely mark a boundary.

Note also that a transitional element may be a whole paragraph. In a long argument, a short paragraph whose only job is to turn the reasoning is legitimate and often elegant.

Unit 5 opens the course's treatment of style with three claims about diction:

• Words have both connotative and denotative meanings 内涵义与外延义. Denotation is what a word refers to; connotation is what it carries.
• Descriptive words - adjectives and adverbs - not only qualify or modify what they describe but convey a perspective toward it.
• Precise word choice reduces confusion and helps the audience perceive the writer's perspective.

The second is the analytically useful one. When a rhetorical-analysis passage calls a policy ambitious rather than expensive, no fact has changed and the reader's disposition has. That is a rhetorical choice, and it is exactly what the question asks you to explain.

For your own writing, precision is worth more than range. A concrete rule: prefer the word that is exactly right to the word that is impressive. Examiners reward control, and an inflated word used slightly wrongly reads as loss of control.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). In a rhetorical-analysis passage a writer describes a proposal's supporters as "determined" in one paragraph and "unyielding" in the next. A low-scoring answer notes that the writer uses "strong diction". A scoring answer explains the shift: "Both words denote persistence, but 'determined' carries approval and 'unyielding' carries obstruction. By moving from one to the other without changing the facts described, the writer withdraws sympathy from the supporters while appearing only to continue describing them - so the audience's judgement shifts before any counter-argument is made." That is connotation, tone, and effect on audience in one move.

• Every body paragraph: claim, evidence, commentary. Lost points are nearly always the third.
• Draft your claims as a list first. It is the only way to see whether the reasoning moves.
• Begin commentary with because, which means, so - words that cannot be followed by a restatement.
• Know the coherence devices by name: repetition, synonyms, pronoun reference, parallel structure, transitions.
• A transition should carry the relationship, not just mark a boundary. Furthermore usually carries nothing.
• Connotation is where diction analysis lives. Same denotation, different disposition, is a rhetorical choice worth explaining.

Unit 6 is the synthesis unit, and it contains the single sharpest distinction in the course.

• When synthesising, writers draw on arguments from multiple sources, strategically select the most relevant information, and integrate it into their own argument.
• A source provides information for an argument, and some sources are more reliable or credible than others.
• A position and a perspective are different. Sources may hold the same position on a subject and yet each come from a different perspective.
• The strongest arguments recognise and acknowledge the other positions that exist.
• The degree to which a source considers other positions reflects the degree to which that source is credible - a test you can apply to any source on the exam.

The position-and-perspective distinction is what makes synthesis possible. If you sort the sources only by position, you get two piles - for and against - and a paragraph per pile. If you sort them by perspective, you can say things like:

Both the economist and the teacher support the measure, but they support it for reasons that do not survive together: one values the measurable gain, the other the change in what students attempt.

That sentence is synthesis. It uses two sources, is grounded in what each actually says, and produces a claim neither source makes.

Also examinable: use the credibility test. A source that never acknowledges any other position is, by the CED's own standard, less credible - and saying so about a source is legitimate evidence in your essay.

A short but load-bearing point: consideration and use of new evidence may require revision of the thesis statement and/or changes to the line of reasoning.

Reading a text, this means a writer's thesis may be responsive - shaped by the evidence rather than imposed on it. Look for where an argument turns.

Writing under time pressure, this is permission you should use. If, while drafting, you find the evidence does not support the thesis you began with, change the thesis, not the evidence. Examiners reward an argument that fits its evidence; there are no marks for having predicted your own conclusion.

In practice, spend the first minutes reading sources and sketching claims before fixing the thesis. A thesis written after the evidence is nearly always better than one written before it.

• A writer's tone 语调 is the writer's attitude or feeling about a subject, conveyed through word choice and writing style.
• Readers infer tone from word choice - especially from the positive, negative, or otherwise charged associations of the words chosen.
• A writer's shifts in tone 语调转变 from one part of a text to another may suggest qualification, refinement, or a change in perspective.

The third is the analytical gold. A tone shift is a visible event in a text: something changed at that point, and explaining what the writer wanted the reader to do differently after it is exactly the kind of answer that scores.

In your own writing, tone should be consistent and controlled, and deliberately shifted only where the argument turns - for example when moving from stating your position to conceding part of an opposing one.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). On a synthesis prompt, compare two uses of the same two sources. Weak: "Source B agrees with Source D that the policy should continue." That is position-sorting, and it produces nothing. Strong: "Sources B and D both defend the policy, but B defends it as an administrator measuring compliance while D defends it as a participant describing what it made possible - so the agreement is thinner than it appears, and the case rests on whether we are measuring the policy's operation or its effect." Same two sources, but the perspectives are doing the work, and the claim belongs to the writer.

• Position and perspective are different. This one distinction lifts most synthesis essays out of the middle band.
• Sort sources by perspective, not by side. Sorting by side produces a paragraph per pile and no argument.
• Use the CED's credibility test: a source that ignores all other positions is weaker, and you may say so.
• If the evidence does not fit the thesis, change the thesis. There are no marks for consistency with your first idea.
• A tone shift is a visible event. Say what changed and what the reader was meant to do after it.
• Keep your own tone controlled. Shift it only where the argument genuinely turns.

Unit 7 returns to introductions and conclusions with more experience behind you, then moves to the two things that most separate competent writing from strong writing: qualification 限定 and sentence structure.

On introductions and conclusions, the CED's statements are unchanged - the introduction introduces subject and writer to the audience; the conclusion brings the argument to a unified end and may present the thesis, explain its significance, or situate the argument in a broader context.

At this stage the useful upgrade is to make the conclusion do the work the CED permits. A conclusion may:

• Explain the significance of the argument - why it matters that this is true;
• Situate it in a broader context - what larger question it belongs to;
• Present the thesis in its final, now-earned form.

The third is the strongest under exam conditions: restate the thesis in language you could not have used in the introduction, because the argument had not yet been made.

• A lack of understanding of the complexities of a subject can lead to oversimplification or generalisation 过度简化与以偏概全.
• Because arguments are usually part of an ongoing discourse, effective arguments often avoid expressing claims in absolute terms.
• Writers may strategically use words, phrases, and clauses as modifiers to qualify or limit the scope of an argument.

This is counter-intuitive for many students, who assume that a stronger-sounding claim scores better. The opposite is true: an unqualified claim is easy to defeat with one counter-example, while a qualified claim survives it. Schools should ban phones invites a single exception. Schools should restrict phone use during instructional time, where the cost to attention is measurable does not.

The tools are ordinary words used deliberately: in most cases, where X holds, for this population, unless, to the extent that. Each narrows the claim to the ground the evidence actually covers.

Qualification is also what the sophistication point most often rewards. A student who states a position, then shows they know its limits and defends it anyway, has demonstrated exactly the control the rubric is looking for.

• Writers express ideas in sentences, made up of clauses, at least one of which must be independent 独立分句.
• The arrangement of sentences in a text can emphasise particular ideas.
• Subordination and coordination 从属与并列 express the intended relationship between ideas in a sentence.
• Writers use coordination to illustrate balance or equality between ideas.
• Writers use subordination to illustrate imbalance or inequality between ideas.
• The arrangement of clauses, phrases, and words within a sentence can emphasise ideas.

Those two middle statements make sentence structure analysable rather than decorative. The measure was expensive, and it worked treats cost and effect as equals. Although the measure was expensive, it worked subordinates the cost - it is still true, but it has been ranked below the result. Same facts, different argument.

For your own writing: decide the relationship first, then choose the structure that expresses it. If two ideas genuinely carry equal weight, coordinate them. If one is a concession and the other your point, subordinate the concession - and put your point in the independent clause, where the emphasis falls.

• Grammar and mechanics that follow established conventions enable clear communication.
• Writers use punctuation strategically to demonstrate relationships among ideas.
• Punctuation - commas, colons, semicolons, dashes, hyphens, parentheses, quotation marks, end marks - advances the argument.
• Design features such as italics or boldface create emphasis.

The examinable framing is that punctuation is argumentative, not merely correct. A colon promises that what follows explains what preceded. A semicolon asserts that two independent statements belong together. A dash interrupts, and the interruption is the point.

Worked example (a real AP exam task). A rhetorical-analysis passage reads: "The programme was popular; it was also, by every measure the department itself proposed, ineffective." A low answer notes "the writer uses a semicolon". A scoring answer explains the structure: "The semicolon presents the two facts as equal and simultaneous rather than as a contrast, so the reader cannot dismiss the failure as an objection to popularity - both are simply true at once. The parenthetical 'by every measure the department itself proposed' then removes the department's escape route before the word 'ineffective' arrives." That is syntax analysed as argument.

• Qualify your claims. An absolute claim is defeated by one counter-example; a qualified one is not.
• Qualification is the most reliable route to the sophistication point.
• Coordination = balance. Subordination = imbalance. The CED says so, and it makes syntax analysable.
• Put your point in the independent clause. Concessions belong in the subordinate one.
• Punctuation advances the argument. A colon explains, a semicolon joins as equals, a dash interrupts.
• Never write "the writer uses a semicolon" without saying what relationship it asserts.

Unit 9 is short and it is the course's final move: how to handle the arguments that oppose yours. Everything here is directly rewarded on the exam, and the three key verbs are constantly confused.

The framing first:

• Effectively entering an ongoing conversation about a subject means engaging the positions that have already been taken. An argument that ignores them is not participating in the discussion, only announcing into it.
• Evidence and sources will either support, complement, or contradict 支持、补充或反驳 a writer's thesis. All three are usable - contradicting evidence is not a problem to be hidden but material to be handled.
• Writers enhance their credibility when they refute, rebut, or concede opposing arguments and contradictory evidence.

The three moves, in the CED's own definitions:

• Concede 让步: writers accept all or a portion of a competing position or claim as correct, and agree that the opposing point has merit.
• Rebut 反驳: writers offer a contrasting perspective on an argument and its evidence, or provide an alternative interpretation.
• Refute 驳倒: writers demonstrate, using evidence, that all or a portion of a competing position or claim is incorrect.

The distinction is what your evidence lets you do. Refuting requires evidence of error; if you do not have it, refuting is bluffing and a reader will see it. Rebutting requires only an alternative reading of the same facts, which is far more often available. Conceding requires honesty, and it costs nothing - the CED says explicitly that it enhances credibility.

Two further points:

• Transitions may be used to introduce counterarguments - and, as in Unit 5, the transition should signal the relationship. Critics argue announces one; the strongest objection to this is announces one and ranks it.
• Not all arguments explicitly address a counterargument. True of texts you read, and worth noting when analysing - an argument that engages no opposition has told you something about its intended audience.

For your own writing, the strongest and most reliable shape on Question 3 is:

1. State your position, qualified to the ground your evidence covers.
2. Concede the part of the opposing position that is genuinely correct.
3. Rebut or refute the rest - rebut if you have an alternative reading, refute only if you have evidence of error.
4. Show why your position survives the concession.

Step 4 is the one most students omit, and it is where the sophistication point lives. Conceding and then not returning to your own argument reads as having changed your mind.

Worked example (a real AP exam question). On a Question 3 argument prompt, compare two treatments of the same objection. Weak: "Some people disagree, but they are wrong." That names an opposing position without engaging it - it is neither concession, rebuttal, nor refutation. Strong: "The objection that the policy is too costly is correct as far as it goes: the direct expenditure is higher than any alternative considered. But cost is only decisive if the alternatives achieve the same result, and the same report shows they do not - so the comparison the objection depends on is not available." That paragraph concedes the cost, refutes the comparison with evidence, and returns to the writer's own position. Three moves, and every one of them is on the rubric.

• Concede, rebut, refute are three different claims. Do not use the words interchangeably.
• Refute only with evidence of error. Without it, rebut instead - an alternative interpretation is almost always available.
• Conceding raises credibility, by the CED's own statement. It is not a weakness.
• After conceding, come back. An unreturned concession reads as agreement with the other side.
• Use a transition that ranks the counterargument: the strongest objection to this is beats some people say.
• When analysing a text, notice when it addresses no counterargument. That absence tells you who it was written for.