<p>Errrr... wow. #2's thesis was something like life without wealth is a miserable existance indeed, no? Or did I misinterpret that as well? I can't tell from the posts in this thread.</p>
<p>I'm probably getting a 4. My possible score ranges are smack dab in between 4s & 5s.. I wasted far too much time on my first essay's intro, and the last MC passage raped me.</p>
<p>karch, i'm wondering the same thing.</p>
<p>maybe if you proved it adequetly you will do okay. </p>
<p>also search the person.. u will find his theories and stuff...</p>
<p>No, the title is not bad, i said in my thesis that what was said in the title is bad for life</p>
<p>^That's what I said about #2, Karch.</p>
<p>mcz and karch im with you. are we completely idiotic? or do we haev a point? im trying to find information about the specfici prompt online</p>
<p>Good...Because I really saw no satire at all.</p>
<p>I didn't see satire, per se. I saw irony, though, and emphasize it wholeheatedly.</p>
<p>I think I nailed that essay on the head, though...</p>
<p>Can anyone answer my question? Specifically regarding today's #2 essay, what if I fully explained all the rhetoric strategies (which really is the question) but explained them assuming that the author was against <em>the essay's title</em></p>
<p>I just agreed with the first sentence; I saw no reason to go against the obvious</p>
<p>Well, if it was wrong (i'm not going to discuss the topic itself) then you would be stuck at a 4-5. Probably not 6 though.</p>
<p>yeah... you see, the question really doesn't ask the position of the author on this subject, but rather how he uses rhetoric strategies to express his stance. I did really well with the strategies themselves, but explained everything as though the author was against what was described in the title of the essay</p>
<p>I see two ways of interpreting it....that the author was against <em>title</em> and the author was for <em>title</em>. I personally said he was for it, which I think is too literal of an interpretation and could hurt me. Does anyone think that he was for it?</p>
<p>he was for it, that's a fact. but what is the max possible points i can receive if I took the wrong stance but had all the rhetorical strategies?</p>
<p>Well, I know for one that history essays allow to misinterpret up to one document in the DBQs and you can still get above a 6 and even a 9.</p>
<p>It would depend on the projected grading rubric for this. If the question was aimed more towards rhetoric, and you nailed the majority of the RHETORICAL functions themselves, you might end up with a 6+. If you mention the intended effects of the rhetorical devices and end up misinterpreting some of them, which I'm sure not all of them are misinterpreted, you may end up with a 5-6. It just depends on the mood of the grader, the amount of people that may have "misinterpreted" the question as you put it, etc. I am in no way talking about the specific 2006 FRQ question, but talking about FRQs in general.</p>
<p>Wait...Can someone explain which side was right...</p>
<p>I said he was for it. No satire. Straightforward. Right???</p>
<p>No satire, correct</p>
<p>So he was for the things he said, then?</p>
<p>Oh ok then...I guess that makes me feel better.</p>
<p>If you argued your point convincingly and used rhetorical strategies to substantiate your claim I can't see how you will do much worse. There is a potential for your AP grader to mark you down because you might have been off from the general consensus but I am almost positive that they will evaluate you based on how you substantiated your claim, not your claim itself. I have seen people saying that you get a 2 for a mis-read but a mis-read probably means something totally ridiculous or un-related. I hope you are right about the topic and I am right about the full credit!</p>
<p>He realized the importance of $ it $, yes.</p>