What this rubric measures
The AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric (FRQ 2) is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on AP English Language assessments. It is an Analytic rubric that scores responses across 3 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 3 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official College Board AP English Language scoring guide.
1 Row A: Thesis
Responds to the prompt with a defensible thesis that analyzes the writer's rhetorical choices.
- Responds to the prompt rather than restating or rephrasing the prompt, and the thesis clearly takes a position rather than just stating that there are pros and cons.
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.
- Only restates the prompt.
- Fails to address the rhetorical choices the writer of the passage makes.
- Describes or repeats the passage rather than making a claim that requires a defense.
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 passage 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.
2 Row B: Evidence and Commentary
EVIDENCE: Provides specific evidence to support all claims in a line of reasoning. AND COMMENTARY: Consistently explains how the evidence supports a line of reasoning. AND Explains how multiple rhetorical choices in the passage contribute to the writer's argument, purpose, or message.
- Uniformly offer evidence to support claims.
- Focus on the importance of specific words and details from the passage 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.
- Explain how the writer's use of rhetorical choices contributes to the student's interpretation of the passage.
EVIDENCE: Provides specific evidence to support all claims in a line of reasoning. AND COMMENTARY: Explains how some of the evidence supports a line of reasoning. AND Explains how at least one rhetorical choice in the passage contributes to the writer's argument, purpose, or message.
- Uniformly offer evidence to support claims.
- Focus on the importance of specific words and details from the passage 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.
EVIDENCE: Provides some specific, relevant evidence. 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.
- 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.
EVIDENCE: Provides evidence that is mostly general. AND COMMENTARY: Summarizes the evidence but does not explain how the evidence supports the student's argument.
- Tend to focus on summary or description of a passage rather than specific details or techniques.
- Mention rhetorical choices with little or no explanation.
Simply restates thesis (if present), repeats provided information, or offers information irrelevant to the prompt.
- Are incoherent or do not address the prompt.
- May be just opinion with no textual references or references that are irrelevant.
Writing that suffers from grammatical and/or mechanical errors that interfere with communication cannot earn the fourth point in this row. To earn the fourth point in this row, the response may observe multiple instances of the same rhetorical choice if each instance further contributes to the argument, purpose, or message of the passage.
3 Row C: Sophistication
Response demonstrates sophistication of thought and/or a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation. 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:
- Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer's rhetorical choices (given the rhetorical situation).
- Explaining a purpose or function of the passage's complexities or tensions.
- Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.
Does not meet the criteria for one point. Responses that do not earn this point:
- Attempt to contextualize the text, but such attempts consist predominantly of sweeping generalizations.
- Only hint at or suggest other arguments.
- Examine individual rhetorical choices but do not examine the relationships among different choices throughout the passage.
- Oversimplify complexities in the passage.
- Use complicated or complex sentences or language that is ineffective because it does not enhance the analysis.
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.
How to score with the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric (FRQ 2).
A practical guide for teachers and norming teams. How to apply each descriptor consistently, the pitfalls that hurt inter-rater reliability, and a workflow for calibrating with colleagues.
Three rows, scored independently
- Score Row A first (binary, 0 or 1), then Row B (0 to 4), then Row C (binary, 0 or 1). Sum for the FRQ total out of 6.
- Row A and Row C are pass/fail style, the response either meets the criteria for the point or it does not.
- Row B is the heaviest-weighted row and the most common source of score variance between graders.
Apply decision rules literally
- For Row A, the thesis must take a defensible position on the writer's rhetorical choices. A thesis that summarises the passage without making an analytical claim does not earn the point.
- For Row B 3 or 4, the response must explain at least one (3) or multiple (4) rhetorical choices the writer uses, not just identify them.
- For Row C, sophistication must be PART of the analysis, not just a single sophisticated phrase or sentence.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding Row B 3 or 4 to a response that lists rhetorical choices without explaining HOW each choice contributes to the writer's purpose.
- Awarding Row B 4 to a response with grammar or mechanics errors that interfere with communication, the rubric explicitly caps such responses at 3.
- Awarding Row C 1 for a response that simply names complexities without explaining their purpose or function.
Tips for AP norming
- Anchor your norming session with the College Board's released sample responses, scored and annotated by AP Readers.
- Score the first 5 student essays silently, then compare. Discuss any row where graders are more than one point apart.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. The 6-point scale is sensitive to drift, especially on Row B.
Notes for the AP English Language Rhetorical Analysis Rubric (FRQ 2)
Rhetorical analysis is the most analytically demanding of the three AP Lang FRQs. Students must move beyond identifying rhetorical choices to explaining HOW each choice contributes to the writer's argument, purpose, or message. Identification without explanation typically caps Row B at 1.
Row B 4 explicitly allows multiple instances of the same rhetorical choice (e.g. anaphora used three times) if each instance further contributes to the passage's argument. Penalising a response for not naming multiple different choices misreads the rubric.
Common passages used: historical speeches by FDR, Lincoln, MLK Jr., JFK, RFK; rhetorical essays by writers like Susan Sontag, Joan Didion, James Baldwin; period pieces from the 19th century. Students should be familiar with a wide range of rhetorical situations.
Mechanical and grammatical errors that interfere with communication cap Row B at 3 by explicit rule. A response with strong analysis but error-laden prose cannot earn the top Row B point.
See this rubric in action.
EnlightenAI scores student writing on this exact rubric, with per-criterion feedback that mirrors how you grade by hand. The sample response below shows how the rubric applies to a real piece of student writing, scored against every criterion.
How Kennedy uses contrast and ironic framing to dismantle economic myth
Speaking to Yale graduates in 1962, John F. Kennedy faced an audience presumed to hold deeply traditional views about American economic policy. Rather than confront those views directly, Kennedy uses ironic framing, structural contrast, and the rhetorical authority of Yale itself to dismantle the inherited "myths" he claims dominate economic debate, replacing them with what he frames as the unsentimental clarity of fact.
Ironic framing of Yale's authority
Kennedy opens by congratulating his audience on receiving a Yale degree, immediately invoking Yale's status as the "stronghold of orthodoxy" in matters of economic thought. This is rhetorical jiu-jitsu. By praising the institution's reputation for traditional economic views, Kennedy positions himself as the gentle outsider questioning that orthodoxy from within. The praise is not flattery; it is set-up. The Yale audience cannot easily dismiss a critique of inherited economic myth when the speaker has just framed them as the inheritors of that myth. The ironic framing makes the rest of the speech possible.
Structural contrast between myth and fact
Throughout the speech, Kennedy returns to a sustained contrast between "myth" and "fact." Each rhetorical move is built on this binary. Myths, he argues, are "stereotypes"; facts are "stubborn things." Myths "perpetuate themselves"; facts "speak for themselves." This contrast is not subtle, and it is not meant to be. By making the choice between myth and fact appear so clear, Kennedy frames any disagreement with his policy positions as a vote for the soft, comfortable, untrue side of the contrast. The structural repetition does the persuasive work that direct argument would have made harder.
Self-effacing humor as a disarming move
Kennedy peppers the speech with self-deprecating humor, joking that he himself was once a victim of the same economic myths. This is the third rhetorical move that makes the whole address work. The self-effacement makes Kennedy's authority feel earned rather than imposed, and it gives the Yale audience permission to laugh at their own inherited assumptions. A more direct critique would have provoked defensiveness; the humor diffuses it before it can form.
Conclusion
Kennedy's address succeeds because he never argues against Yale's economic orthodoxy directly. He invokes Yale's authority, frames inherited views as myth in contrast to fact, and uses self-effacing humor to disarm his audience. The combined effect is to make the new policy framework feel not radical, but obvious, the position any reasonable person, once freed from myth, would adopt.
Defensible thesis analyzing rhetorical choices
The thesis identifies three specific rhetorical choices (ironic framing, structural contrast, rhetorical authority) and stakes a defensible analytical position about HOW Kennedy uses them. It earns the Row A point.
Multiple rhetorical choices explained as a line of reasoning
Three rhetorical choices (ironic framing of Yale, myth/fact contrast, self-effacing humor) each explained with specific textual evidence ("stronghold of orthodoxy", "stubborn things"). Forms a coherent line of reasoning about how the speech works. Clean Row B 4.
Explains significance of rhetorical choices given the situation
Explicitly addresses why each choice works given the audience (Yale graduates) and the rhetorical situation (a commencement address). Explains the purpose of the myth/fact tension rather than just observing it. Earns Row C.
Score this rubric consistently, with the feedback students actually use
EnlightenAI is trained on your standards and your exemplars, then scores at the speed of your classroom.
Trained on your rubric
Upload this rubric, or any custom one, and the AI learns your exact criteria, descriptor language, and score level boundaries.
Per-criterion feedback
Students receive specific, actionable comments tied to each criterion, exactly the way you'd grade by hand.
Built for K–12 schools
Roster sync, FERPA-aligned data handling, and per-school configuration so every campus uses the same standards.
About the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Rubric (FRQ 2)
What is the AP English Language Rhetorical Analysis rubric (FRQ 2)?
What counts as a rhetorical choice on AP Lang FRQ 2?
How many rhetorical choices do I need to analyze to earn Row B 4?
How is FRQ 2 scored differently from FRQ 1 and FRQ 3?
Can a rhetorical analysis essay earn 6 if it has grammar errors?
Is this rubric the official version from College Board?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the AP English Language Rhetorical Analysis rubric and start scoring student FRQs, with consistent per-row feedback, in a single class period.