2023
AP
®
English Language
and Composition
Sample Student Responses
and Scoring Commentary
Set 2
© 2023 College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, AP, AP Central, and the acorn logo are registered
trademarks of College Board. Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
AP Central is the ocial online home for the AP Program: apcentral.collegeboard.org.
Inside:
Free-Response Question 1
Scoring Guidelines
Student Samples
Scoring Commentary
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Synthesis Essay 6 points
Vertical farms are indoor agricultural facilities in which plants are grown, often in a hydroponic (soilless) environment, on tall stacks of shelves. Plants
are given water, nutrients, and light mostly through automated processes. Advocates say that vertical farms are key to providing food for the future,
yielding high-quality produce while making efficient use of land and water. Critics warn about the energy consumption associated with vertical farms’
automated processes as well as problems related to cost and nutritional value.
Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least
three of the sources and develops your position on the value, if any, of vertical farms to the future of agriculture.
Source A (Severson article)
Source B (Ling and Altland interview)
Source C (table from Kozai and Niu)
Source D (Foley article)
Source E (Benke and Tomkins article)
Source F (graphic from Despommier)
In your response you should do the following:
• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
• Select and use evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support your line of reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through
direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
• Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row A
Thesis
(0–1 points)
0 points
For any of the following:
• There is no defensible thesis.
• The intended thesis only restates the prompt.
• The intended thesis provides a summary of the issue with no apparent
or coherent claim.
• There is a thesis, but it does not respond to the prompt.
1 point
Responds to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Only restate the prompt.
• Do not take a position, or the position is vague or must be inferred.
• Equivocate or summarize others’ arguments but not the student’s (e.g.,
some people say it’s good, some people say it’s bad).
• State an obvious fact rather than making a claim that requires a
defense.
Responses that earn this point:
• Respond to the prompt by developing a position on the value, if any, of vertical farms
to the future of agriculture, rather than restating or rephrasing the prompt. Clearly
take a position rather than just stating there are pros/cons.
Examples that do not earn this point:
Restate the prompt
• “Proponents of vertical farms argue that they are the key to providing
food in the future, while critics warn about the cost and energy
consumption of vertical farms.”
Address the topic of the prompt but do not take a position
• “Vertical farms, or indoor farms where food is grown in tall towers, have
been touted as a way to address potential food shortages in our
growing global population.”
Address the topic of the prompt but state an obvious fact as a claim
• “If the world’s population continues to grow at its current rate, we will
eventually run out of arable land to grow enough food for everyone.”
Examples that earn this point:
Present a defensible position that responds to the prompt
• “With the amount of farmland diminishing across the globe, vertical farms are the
future of agriculture.”
• “Although vertical farms may seem like a viable solution for providing food for our
growing population, important factors such as cost and energy consumption prevent
it from being a fully sustainable model of agriculture.”
• “Because vertical farming still has some drawbacks, it should not replace traditional
agricultural methods. However, vertical farming can be a good supplemental or
alternative method of farming, especially in urban areas where farmland is scarce.”
Additional Notes:
• The thesis may be more than one sentence, provided the sentences are in close proximity.
• The thesis may be anywhere within the response.
• For a thesis to be defensible, the sources must include at least minimal evidence that could be used to support that thesis; however, the student need not cite that
evidence to earn the thesis point.
• The thesis may establish a line of reasoning that structures the essay, but it needn’t do so to earn the thesis point.
• A thesis that meets the criteria can be awarded the point whether or not the rest of the response successfully supports that line of reasoning.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Scoring Criteria
Evidence
AND
Commentary
(0–4 points)
0 points
Simply restates thesis (if
present), repeats provided
information, or references
fewer than two of the
provided sources.
1 point
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least two of
the provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Summarizes the evidence
but does not explain how
the evidence supports the
student’s argument.
2 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides evidence from or
references at least three of the
provided sources.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence relates to the
student’s argument, but no
line of reasoning is established,
or the line of reasoning is
faulty.
3 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific evidence
from at least three of the
provided sources to support
all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Explains how some of the
evidence supports a line of
reasoning.
4 points
EVIDENCE:
Provides specific evidence from at
least three of the provided sources
to support all claims in a line of
reasoning.
AND
COMMENTARY:
Consistently explains how the
evidence supports a line of
reasoning.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn
0 points:
• Are incoherent or do not
address the prompt.
• May be just opinion with
no textual references or
references that are
irrelevant.
Typical responses that earn
1 point:
• Tend to focus on
summary or description
of sources rather than
specific details.
Typical responses that earn
2 points:
• Consist of a mix of specific
evidence and broad
generalities.
• May contain some
simplistic, inaccurate, or
repetitive explanations
that don’t strengthen the
argument.
• May make one point well
but either do not make
multiple supporting claims
or do not adequately
support more than one
claim.
• Do not explain the
connections or progression
between the student’s
claims, so a line of
reasoning is not clearly
established.
Typical responses that earn
3 points:
• Uniformly offer evidence
to support claims.
• Focus on the importance
of specific words and
details from the sources
to build an argument.
• Organize an argument as
a line of reasoning
composed of multiple
supporting claims.
• Commentary may fail to
integrate some evidence
or fail to support a key
claim.
Typical responses that earn
4 points:
• Uniformly offer evidence to
support claims.
• Focus on the importance of
specific words and details from
the sources to build an
argument.
• Organize and support an
argument as a line of
reasoning composed of
multiple supporting claims,
each with adequate evidence
that is clearly explained.
Additional Notes:
• Writing that suffers from grammatical and/or mechanical errors that interfere with communication cannot earn the fourth point in this row.
AP® English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Guidelines
© 2023 College Board
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row C
Sophistication
(0–1 points)
0 points
Does not meet the criteria for one point.
1 point
Demonstrates sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the
rhetorical situation.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Responses that do not earn this point:
• Attempt to contextualize their argument, but such attempts consist
predominantly of sweeping generalizations (“In a world where . . .”
OR “Since the beginning of time . . .”).
• Only hint at or suggest other arguments (“While some may argue
that . . .” OR “Some people say . . .”).
• Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is ineffective
because it does not enhance the argument.
Responses that earn this point may demonstrate sophistication of thought and/or a
complex understanding of the rhetorical situation by doing any of the following:
1. Crafting a nuanced argument by consistently identifying and exploring complexities
or tensions across the sources.
2. Articulating the implications or limitations of an argument (either the student’s
argument or arguments conveyed in the sources) by situating it within a broader
context.
3. Making effective rhetorical choices that consistently strengthen the force and impact
of the student’s argument throughout the response.
4. Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.
Additional Notes:
• This point should be awarded only if the sophistication of thought or complex understanding is part of the student’s argument, not merely a phrase or reference.
Sample 1A (1 of 2)
Sample 1A (2 of 2)
Sample 1B (1 of 2)
Sample 1B (2 of 2)
Sample 1C (1 of 3)
Sample 1C (2 of 3)
Sample 1C (3 of 3)
AP
®
English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1
Note: Student samples are quoted verbatim and may contain spelling and grammatical errors.
Overview
Students responding to this question were expected to read six sources on the topic of vertical
farming and then write an essay that synthesized material from at least three of the sources and
developed their position on the value, if any, of vertical farms to the future of agriculture. Students
were expected to respond to the prompt with a thesis that takes a defensible position; use evidence
from at least three provided sources to support their line of reasoning clearly, properly citing the
sources; explain how the evidence supports their line of reasoning; and use appropriate grammar
and punctuation in presenting their argument.
As per the Course and Exam Description, students were expected to be able to read the prompt,
understand the task, use sources provided to write paragraphs that reflect their ability to establish
claims and provide evidence, and demonstrate their understanding of prose and their ability to write
using cogent, meaningful discourse.
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-4-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The first sentence of the response is a defensible thesis that addresses the prompt: “While many
would like to believe that vertical farms are the future of produce due to thier adaptability and
modernity, but in reality those systems are overvalued and only necessary for very niche
applications.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 4
The response establishes a line of reasoning to support the thesis and supports each claim with
sufficient evidence. The first major claim, that “[v]ertical farms are expensive—both in initial and
operating costs” (paragraph 2), is supported by evidence from sources C and D and by additional
observations about the cost of power. The second claim, that the current success of vertical farming
is based on “gimicky marketing” (paragraph 3) instead of genuine advantages, is supported with
evidence from source A, which is used to show a supportive article relying on “celebrity
testimonials.”
The response provides specific evidence from sources C, D, and A. In paragraph 2, it includes
specific details from source C, the chart comparing costs of initial investment for vertical farms to
“fields, greenhouses, and hydroponic systems,” tying that information to the specific cost of “over 80
thousand dollars per container” given in source D. In paragraph 3, the response incorporates specific
details from source A, including the references to Justin Timberlake and Natalie Portman, along with
the fact from source D that “the lettuce from Green Line Growers costs more than double the market
price of organic lettuce.” Although there are no direct quotes from the sources, these references do
represent specific evidence.
The commentary consistently explains all the evidence the response uses. In paragraph 2, the
commentary clearly explains how high operating costs make vertical farming “unreasonable to
implement in low income areas where access to local produce is needed the most” and that until
AP
®
English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
vertical farms can find a way to decrease their costs, they are “simply out of reach for most
communities.” In paragraph 3, the explanation that the “food produced using vertical farming is
marketed to the upper class … because they are the only ones who can afford it” explains the claim
and evidence about “gimicky marketing” and connects it to the line of reasoning regarding high
costs established in the previous paragraph.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response articulates the limitations of an argument (in this case, the argument in Source A) by
situating it in a broader context. It goes beyond a cursory examination of potential bias in a source
and focuses on the broader context revealed by that bias: celebrity endorsements were not chosen
randomly as a marketing ploy, but because people “who would consider the opinion of Natalie
Portman in thier grocery shopping” are the exact market being targeted. By suggesting alternative
methods to increase food production in an affordable way through “better distribution of resources to
low income communities” and “working to eliminate food waste,” the response once again
articulates a broader context of limited access to fresh, healthy food while identifying other potential
solutions to the problem.
In addition, the response consistently makes effective rhetorical choices that strengthen the impact
of its nuanced argument. Not only is the chosen evidence concise and accurate, but the connections
within the line of reasoning are very clear. For example, paragraph 2 effectively explains the
problems with high initial costs and then goes on to explain why operating costs of vertical farms
will also remain much higher than those of traditional farms. Paragraph 3 keeps its focus on brand
owners and marketing, creating a nuanced response to the argument presented in Source A.
Sample: 1B
Score: 1-3-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found at the end of paragraph 1: “I agree that vertical farms are key to
providing food for the future since it is very convenient for farmers to grow and very friendly to the
planet since there would not be enough arable land for the future generations.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 3
The response develops a line of reasoning and provides specific evidence to support each claim in
that line of reasoning. In paragraph 2, the claim that “[v]ertical farms can be built everywhere” is
supported by direct quotes from Source B. Source A is used to support an anticipated objection that
vertical farms built in suboptimal locations might not deliver food that is equivalent in taste. In
paragraph 3, the claim that vertical farms are helpful in limited conditions is again supported by
direct quotation from Source B and information from Source F.
The response does not consistently integrate the evidence, and it only explains how some of the
evidence supports the line of reasoning. Paragraph 2 presents a strong explanation of the
advantages of building vertical farms “everywhere” by explaining the implications for both urban
dwellers and people who live in deserts. The reference to “abandoned parking lots” in New York City
is geographically inaccurate, but it does not affect the underlying line of reasoning. However, in
paragraph 3, the explanations are less complete: the idea that vertical farming will be profitable
because it can provide “daily vegetables” is not fully developed. Paragraph 4 attempts to address the
AP
®
English Language and Composition 2023 Scoring Commentary
© 2023 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1 (continued)
argument that vertical farming is costly, but its quotation from Source B is not elaborated on with
sufficient commentary to integrate it into the argument.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
In paragraph 4, the response attempts to address the implications of Source B but does not situate
the argument within a broader context. Instead, it offers the oversimplified claim that “[i]f we have
the materials and space to build vertical farms, then it would not be an expensive style of farming
anymore.” The response does not explore complexities or tensions across the sources, and the
rhetorical choices are not consistently effective. Although the response shows some control of
language, it does not employ a style that is consistently vivid or persuasive.
Sample: 1C
Score: 1-1-0
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
Paragraph 1 as a whole is a defensible thesis: “Vertical farming will not only support us with year-
round crops, it also do it for the future generations to come. There are many admirable qualities in
our tradicional ways of farming, yet vertical farms grant other valuable benefits that tradicional
farming does not.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 1
The response does provide evidence in the form of direct quotes and paraphrases from three
sources—E, B, and C—but summarizes or describes the evidence rather than explaining how it
supports an intended argument. For example, the first sentence of paragraph 3 reads, “On the
following interview a plant pathologist, (Kai-Shu ling) and an research horticulturalist (James
Altland), explained and expanded their viewings on this new vertical farming.” This is a description
of the source’s content rather than a claim. The rest of the paragraph continues to summarize the
source rather than use it to build an argument.
Sophistication (0–1 points): 0
The response focuses on three sources in isolation rather than consistently exploring complexity or
tensions across the sources. It does not articulate the implications or limitations of an argument, and
its rhetorical choices are not consistently effective. The response also does not employ a style that is
consistently vivid or persuasive.