John McCain Essay

Score (AP Lang 1–6 scale for rhetorical analysis): 2/6
(Rubric translation: Thesis 1 / Evidence & Commentary 1 / Sophistication 0)

1. 1) What you asked for
   You asked me to grade your rhetorical analysis paragraph about John McCain’s 2017 speech on a 1–6 AP scale and explain why.

1. 2) Thesis (AP rubric: 0–1)
   Score: 1

- You do make a defensible claim about McCain’s message: parties should work together and compromise.
- But: your thesis focuses more on what he argues than on how he argues it (his rhetorical choices).

Revision questions:
- Can you add a phrase that names at least one specific rhetorical choice (tone, diction, appeals, structure, anecdotes, etc.) he uses to push that call for unity?
- How might you show a line of reasoning, not just a position (e.g., “He does X and Y in order to Z”)?

1. 3) Evidence & Commentary (AP rubric: 0–4)
   Score: 1

Evidence:
- You use 1 direct quote (paragraph 8), which is good, but AP expects multiple specific details.
- You mention “strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic parties,” but you don’t give concrete examples from the speech.

Commentary:
- You summarize what the quote suggests about compromise.
- You don’t quite explain how the specific language (“incremental progress,” “muddling through”) works rhetorically on his Senate audience.
- The last sentence (“I think that McCain’s argument is very valid…”) shifts to your opinion, not analysis of his methods or their effect.

Revision questions:
- What exact words or phrases in that quote signal McCain’s realistic tone about government?
- How might those words affect his audience of senators (e.g., appeal to their experience, humility, shared frustration)?
- Can you bring in one more specific moment from earlier or later in the speech (a story, contrast, or appeal to patriotism) that supports your claim about unity?

1. 4) Sophistication (AP rubric: 0–1)
   Score: 0

- You stay fairly surface-level: McCain wants unity and compromise, and that’s good.
- AP looks for either a nuanced understanding of his situation or tensions/complexities in his argument.

Revision questions:
- How is it complicated that McCain is a Republican criticizing his own party and also calling out Democrats?
- What tension exists between “incremental progress” and the public’s desire for big, fast change?
- How could you briefly gesture to the political context of 2017 (polarization, health care debate) without going off-topic?

1. 5) Next steps: 3 specific moves to raise this toward a 3–4

1. Refocus your thesis on rhetoric, not just message.
Ask: “What main techniques does McCain rely on to sell unity to his Senate audience?” Try naming 2 of them in your opening.

2. Add at least one more concrete piece of evidence.
Look for a passage where McCain:
– appeals to shared identity (“we,” “our duty”), or
– uses contrast between partisan bickering and real governing.
Then explain how that choice pushes senators toward compromise.

3. Shift from “I agree” to “here’s how it works.”
Replace personal reactions with thinking like:
– “By describing compromise as ‘muddling through,’ he normalizes slow, imperfect progress, which might…”
Focus on purpose + effect on audience every time you discuss a quote.

If you paste a revised version, we can re-score it and see if it moves up a band on the AP rubric.

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 (for this paragraph as a rhetorical analysis claim):
- Thesis: 0/1
- Evidence & Commentary: 1/4
- Sophistication: 0/1

1. 1) What you’re trying to do here

You’re explaining McCain’s message about unity and compromise and briefly mentioning how he expresses it. For the AP rubric, this needs to turn into:
- a clear analytical thesis about his rhetorical choices
- specific evidence + commentary connecting those choices to his purpose.

1. 2) Thesis / Claim Level

Strengths:
- You clearly see that McCain wants unity and compromise.
- You mention his “point-of-view” and “strengths and weaknesses” of both parties.

Growth move:
- The AP rubric wants a defensible thesis that analyzes rhetorical choices, not your agreement.
- Right now your last sentence is your opinion (“I think…”) rather than an analytical claim about his writing.

Try revising your central claim to answer:
- Through what strategies/choices does McCain persuade the Senate that unity and compromise are necessary?
- How do those choices fit his audience (Senators) and context (2017 health care vote, party division)?

You might jot a rough answer in your own words, without using “I think” or “I agree.”

1. 3) Evidence & Commentary Level

Strengths:
- You quote a specific sentence from paragraph 8.
- You link it to “unity and compromise” and “a better overall system of government.”

Growth moves:
- The rubric expects you to move from summary (“this quote helps us understand…”) to analysis (“this language makes his audience feel/think X because Y”).
- Right now, you mostly restate the quote’s idea.

To deepen commentary, ask yourself:
- Why does McCain praise “incremental progress” and “muddling through” instead of big victories?
- How might those phrases affect Senators who are used to thinking in terms of winning/losing?
- What does “each side criticizes but also accepts” suggest about his attitude toward conflict?

Use those answers to explain how the specific words in the quote work on his audience.

1. 4) Sophistication / Nuance Level

Strengths:
- You hint at tension: “compromise, with some challenge.” That’s a seed of complexity.

Growth moves:
- The AP rubric’s sophistication point often comes from exploring a tension or implication, not just saying “this is valid.”
- For example, you could explore:
– the tension between idealism (big change) and McCain’s realism (“muddling through”)
– the implication that our system is designed for slow, messy compromise, not quick partisan wins

Ask: What bigger idea about democracy is McCain suggesting when he calls “muddling through” the most we can expect? Is he criticizing, accepting, or defending that?

1. 5) Next-step invitations

Here are three concrete revision directions you could try:

1. Sharpen your thesis into analysis.
Rewrite your first 2–3 sentences so they clearly answer: What is McCain’s main message about unity, and what key rhetorical move does he use to communicate it (e.g., acknowledging both parties’ faults, realistic tone, shared identity, etc.)? Cut the “I think / I agree” from the main claim.

2. Upgrade the quote commentary.
Under your quote, free-write 2–3 bullet points answering:
– How might Senators feel when hearing that “incremental progress” is the most we can expect?
– How does that push them toward compromise instead of grandstanding?
Then turn those bullets into 2–3 sentences of analysis.

3. Add one more specific rhetorical choice.
Look back at the paragraph around your quote. Does he:
– use inclusive pronouns (“we,” “our”)?
– contrast past cooperation with present division?
– appeal to their duty or reputation?
Pick one technique and explain how it reinforces his call for unity.

If you paste your revised version, I can rescore it and help you push toward the next level on the AP rubric.

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 (current draft):
- Thesis: 1/1
- Evidence & Commentary: 2/4
- Sophistication: 0/1

1. 1) What you’re asking for + big picture

You want to sound more “sophisticated” without losing clarity or your own voice. On the AP rubric, that connects especially to the Sophistication point, but also to stronger Evidence & Commentary.

1. 2) Thesis & focus (clarity before fancy language)

Right now you do have a defensible thesis (“McCain…dictate that…need to focus on working together…”), so you’d earn the thesis point.

To sound more mature, focus on precision and focus first:

- Where exactly do you state your claim about how McCain argues (his rhetorical choices) rather than just what he believes?
- Can you name his methods more clearly (e.g., his position as a senator, his critique of both parties, his appeals to shared duty)?

Try revising your opening so it answers:
“McCain uses his position as ___ and his strategy of ___ + ___ to argue that…”

Don’t write it here—just sketch ideas in your own words.

1. 3) Evidence & commentary (moving from summary to analysis)

AP rubric language: right now you “explain how some of the evidence relates,” but your line of reasoning is a bit thin and drifts into agreement (“I think that McCain’s argument is very valid”).

To sound more sophisticated:

- Zoom in on words/phrases in the quotation:
– “incremental progress”
– “compromises that each side criticizes but also accepts”
– “muddling through”
– “it’s usually the most we can expect”

Ask yourself:

- What attitude toward government do these phrases reveal (optimistic? resigned? realistic?)
- How does that attitude help him persuade Senators who might dislike compromise?
- Why might calling it “muddling through” actually be a strategic choice, not just casual language?

Try writing out answers like:
- “When McCain calls progress ‘just plain muddling through,’ he suggests that… which helps him…”

Again: your words, not mine.

1. 4) “Sophisticated language” (what it actually looks like)

On the rubric, sophistication isn’t big words; it’s nuance + control. A few moves you can try:

1. Name rhetorical moves instead of just the topic.
– Instead of “McCain uses his point-of-view…” → what does that do? Appeal to ethos? Shared identity? Experience?

2. Show tension or complexity.
– He both criticizes partisanship and accepts the system’s limits.
– He sees compromise as “criticized” and necessary.

3. Cut filler and repetition.
– You repeat “uses his point-of-view” and the idea that parties should “work together.”
– See if you can say each idea once, sharply.

Questions for you:

- Where in your paragraph could you add one sentence that shows a tension in his view (e.g., unity vs. conflict, idealism vs. realism)?
- Which single sentence right now feels most “basic” or repetitive that you’d like to upgrade?

1. 5) Next steps: targeted revision invitations

Pick one or two of these to try in your next draft (don’t do everything at once):

1. Sharpen your claim about strategy:
– Revise your first sentence so it clearly says what rhetorical strategy (not just topic) you’ll analyze.
– Ask: “What two or three key moves does McCain use to promote unity?”

2. Deepen your analysis of the quote:
– Write 2–3 new commentary sentences just on “incremental progress” and “muddling through.”
– Focus on: What picture of government does he paint? How might that picture affect Senators listening?

3. Add nuance for sophistication:
– Add 1–2 sentences that show complexity, like: McCain knows compromise is frustrating but still necessary.
– Ask: “How does he acknowledge his audience’s frustration while still pushing them toward unity?”

If you’d like, paste just your revised paragraph next time, and tell me which of these three you focused on. I’ll rescore using the AP rubric language and help you tweak for more sophistication.

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.*