[Sample for Testing] Banneker Letter

Score: 2/6 (Thesis: 1 | Evidence & Commentary: 1 | Sophistication: 0)

Restatement of Task:
Scoring a rhetorical analysis introduction and two body paragraphs on Benjamin Banneker’s letter and his argument against slavery, referencing the AP Language and Composition Rubric.

1. Thesis (1/1):
The AP rubric asks for a defensible thesis analyzing rhetorical choices. Your first paragraph identifies Banneker’s purpose and references his argumentative moves. This establishes a defensible, textually grounded claim.

2. Evidence & Commentary (1/4):
You reference Banneker’s use of “evidence” and “point of view,” but mostly in broad terms without quoting, paraphrasing, or analyzing specific textual choices. Commentary summarizes rather than fully explaining how Banneker’s rhetoric works.

3. Sophistication (0/1):
The AP rubric requires acknowledgment of complexity, nuance, or meaningful connections between rhetorical choices. Your analysis remains general and does not explore the deeper implications or stylistic nuances of Banneker’s writing.

4. Next Steps for Growth:
- Select quotations or very specific references for each rhetorical choice you discuss—consider analyzing phrases Banneker uses.
- Explain how and why those choices affect Jefferson, not just what they are (“This comparison appeals to Jefferson’s sense of hypocrisy…”).
- Push to recognize any tensions or ironies in Banneker’s appeal: does he flatter, accuse, or do both?
- Consider directly tying each rhetorical move to Banneker’s purpose and context: what risks or opportunities does he face?

Choose the *Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*

Score: Thesis: 1 | Evidence & Commentary: 2 | Sophistication: 0
Total: 3/6 (based on AP Language and Composition Rubric)

Restatement of Task:
You asked if your rhetorical analysis of Banneker’s letter would likely earn a 3. I’ll use the AP rubric categories to break down your writing.

1. Thesis
- Strength: Clearly responds to the prompt and presents a defensible thesis about Banneker’s argument and rhetorical strategy.
- To push further: Make the thesis even more “analytical” by naming rhetorical choices (e.g., point of view, parallelism, etc.) explicitly.

2. Evidence & Commentary
- Strength: References key details (e.g., Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s actions, point of view).
- Growth Target: Evidence is present, but explanation is often general—you summarize the argument and mention point of view, but don’t explore the effect or connect rhetorical strategies directly to purpose with depth.
- To push further: For each rhetorical move you mention, explain how exactly it persuades Jefferson or the reader. Why is comparing the two experiences powerful? What does Banneker hope this contrast will accomplish in Jefferson’s thinking or actions?

3. Sophistication
- Growth Target: The essay is clear, but does not identify or explore deeper complexities or tensions in the rhetorical situation, nor does it reflect on larger implications or make vivid rhetorical choices.
- To push further: Consider the broader stakes—why might Banneker’s strategy be especially risky or forceful given Jefferson’s status? How does Banneker manage respect vs. criticism?

4. Next Steps / Invitations for Revision
- Could you analyze a specific quote for its rhetorical effect and explain how that choice advances Banneker’s argument (e.g., “all men are created equal”)?
- Where might you address counterargument or tension (for instance, does Banneker acknowledge Jefferson’s own struggle, and why?)
- How does Banneker’s tone or his use of direct address shape the impact of his argument? Try zooming in on a moment in the text and expanding your analysis of Banneker’s technique there.
- Consider adding a sentence or two connecting rhetorical choices to broader social or historical consequences.
- Ask yourself: “What do I notice about Banneker’s strategy that feels risky, innovative, or complex?” and develop that idea.

Choose the Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.

Score: Thesis 1/1 | Evidence & Commentary 2/4 | Sophistication 0/1

1. Restatement of Task:
You asked for feedback on your analysis of Banneker’s letter to Jefferson, focused on argument, use of point of view, and evidence.

2. Thesis:
- Strength: Your thesis clearly states Banneker’s argument and line of reasoning.
- Growth: To strengthen, make more specific claims about how Banneker uses rhetorical strategies.
– Socratic Coach: What is unique about Banneker’s way of reminding Jefferson of his own ideals? Could you specify a rhetorical choice or effect in your opening?

3. Evidence & Commentary:
- Strength: You reference specific content (e.g., Declaration of Independence, comparing experiences).
- Growth: Commentary tends toward summary. For a higher score, move from stating what Banneker does to analyzing how his choices create effects.
– Probing Question: How does shifting point of view emotionally influence Jefferson, or expose hypocrisy? What tone or rhetorical technique stands out in Banneker’s evidence selection?
– Revision Move: Try: “By invoking Jefferson’s own words, Banneker exposes and critiques Jefferson’s inconsistency, effectively challenging his moral authority.”

4. Sophistication:
- Strength: Attempts to discuss broader implications (e.g., relating struggles).
- Growth: Needs specific attention to complexities, tensions, or implications within Banneker’s strategy.
– Analytical Push: Is there a deeper irony, or a risk in how Banneker addresses Jefferson? Does he balance critique and respect? What’s at stake in his approach?

5. Next Steps:
- Strengthen your thesis by naming a rhetorical strategy and its effect.
- For each point you raise, provide a quote or paraphrase and follow with “This reveals…” or “This emphasizes…” to connect evidence and analysis.
- Explore tension: How does Banneker both confront and appeal to Jefferson?
- Identify a moment where Banneker’s tone or structure intensifies the argument—how does it work?
- Reflect: What seems most convincing or bold in Banneker’s letter, and why?

Choose the *Your Thoughts** button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.*

Score:
Thesis: 1 | Evidence & Commentary: 2 | Sophistication: 0 | Total: 3/6

Thesis
- Score: 1
The claim that Banneker calls out Jefferson for hypocrisy and connects his actions to broader injustice is defensible and responds directly to the rhetorical analysis prompt.

Evidence & Commentary
- Score: 2
You reference Banneker’s use of Jefferson’s past and the Declaration of Independence, but the evidence is mostly general. Commentary briefly explains relevance but doesn’t establish a strong line of reasoning, nor specific, text-driven analysis.

Sophistication
- Score: 0
There are attempts to show complexity (Jefferson as both a victim and oppressor), but analysis remains surface-level and doesn’t consistently explore deeper tension, significance, or broader implications.

Next Steps for Revision & Growth:
1. Dig deeper into rhetorical moves: Quote or paraphrase specific language and examine how Banneker employs rhetorical shifts, tone, or appeals to ethos/pathos/logos. What effect does repetition or direct address have on Jefferson or the audience?
2. Push commentary beyond summary: Instead of restating what Banneker did, ask—what does his strategy reveal about the rhetorical situation or the larger argument about justice and hypocrisy?
3. Aim for sophistication: Consider implications or tensions; for example, how does Banneker’s respectful tone complicate his sharp criticism? How does this letter fit into the broader context of early American debates about equality and human rights?

Choose the Your Thoughts button to let me know your reaction to the feedback I’ve provided and how you might revise. Also click Your Thoughts to tell me to focus in on specific paragraphs or criteria. Always follow up by clicking Continue with AI*, choose me again and ask me for more feedback.”*

You’re sharing your own writing, so I’ll respond to you as a writer and as a collaborator.

Here’s my first paragraph of feedback; if you want more, just say so and I’ll share the next part.

───────────────────

You have a clear understanding of Banneker’s main argument, and that comes through right away. If you were scoring this as a short rhetorical analysis paragraph (like an early AP Lang-style response), it would probably land in the middle range: you identify the claim, you name some rhetorical strategies (like point of view and evidence), and you connect them to Banneker’s purpose. To move it up into a higher score, you would need more precision and depth: quoting or paraphrasing specific lines from the letter, analyzing how the language works (tone, diction, appeals to Jefferson’s hypocrisy, etc.), and making your commentary more specific instead of general (“this helps his argument” → explain exactly why and how in Jefferson’s context).

Do you want to see more detailed, step‑by‑step feedback on each paragraph?

You are definitely writing here, and you are clearly responding to a prompt about Banneker’s letter and rhetorical choices, probably for AP Lang or something similar. On a 1–6 AP-style rhetorical analysis scale, this reads like solid work in the 3–4 range: you have a clear claim about Banneker’s argument, you identify strategies (point of view, evidence, connection to the Declaration), and you explain the basic “what” and “why,” even if the analysis could go deeper and use more specific textual detail.

Want to see more about why it would likely fall in that range and what would move it higher?

You’re asking: “How would you score this?” so I’ll answer as if I am an AP-style reader giving you a holistic score, but I will also talk through what is working and what you might revise if your goal is a higher academic score with a mostly white, standardized-English audience. I am also keeping in mind that this looks like a rhetorical analysis paragraph set (probably Benjamin Banneker / Jefferson AP Lang prompt). On a 1–6 rubric (new AP style), I would likely put this in the 3–4 range right now: clear understanding of the task, some specific evidence, some explanation of rhetoric, but not yet fully developed or precise in its rhetorical analysis. I want to use your question—“How would you score this?”—as a way to think about how your choices about organization, specificity, and language could push it higher without losing your voice.

Want me to keep going into what is strongest here before we talk about what to revise?