AP Lang Practice Test 1 Overview
AP Lang Practice Test 1 Overview
Practice Test 1
Three hours are allotted for this examination: 1 hour for Section I, which consists of multiple-choice questions, and
2 hours for Section II, which consists of essay questions. Section I is printed in this examination booklet. Section II is
printed in a separate booklet.
SECTION I
Time—1 hour
Number of questions—54
Section I of this examination contains 54 multiple-choice questions. Therefore, please be careful to fill in only the
ovals that are preceded by numbers 1 through 54 on your answer sheet.
General Instructions
INDICATE ALL YOUR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN SECTION I ON THE SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET. No credit
will be given for anything written in this examination booklet, but you may use the booklet for notes or scratchwork.
After you have decided which of the suggested answers is best, COMPLETELY fill in the corresponding oval on the
answer sheet.
Chicago is a A B C D E
(A) state
(B) city
(C) country
(D) continent
(E) village
Many candidates wonder whether or not to guess the answers to questions about which they are not certain. Multiple
choice scores are based on the number of questions answered correctly. Points are not deducted for incorrect answers,
and no points are awarded for unanswered questions. Because points are not deducted for incorrect answer, you are
encouraged to answer all multiple-choice questions. On any questions you do not know the answer to, you should
eliminate as many choices as you can, and then select the best answer among the remaining choices.
Use your time effectively, working as rapidly as you can without losing accuracy. Do not spend too much time on
questions that are too difficult. Go on to other questions and come back to the difficult ones later if you have time. It is
not expected that everyone will be able to answer all the multiple-choice questions.
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 177
178 1 7C8R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
SECTION I
Time—1 hour
Directions: This part consists of selections from prose works and questions on their content, form, and style. After
reading each passage, choose the best answer to each question and completely fill in the corresponding oval on the
answer sheet.
Note: Pay particular attention to the requirement of questions that contain the words NOT, LEAST, or EXCEPT.
Questions 1-10. Read the following passage carefully reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to
before you choose your answers. (40) be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black
cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children
In his 1729 essay “A Modest Proposal,” Jonathan Swift are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not
wrote the following: much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will
be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining
There only remains one hundred and twenty (45) hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in
thousand children of poor parents annually born. The the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through
question therefore is, how this number shall be reared the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them
Line and provided for, which, as I have already said, under suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them
(5) the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two
all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither (50) dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the
employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make
build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper
they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day,
(10) till they arrive at six years old, except where they are especially in winter.
of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the (55) I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just
rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if
however be properly looked upon only as probationers, tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.
as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and
(15) the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have
knew above one or two instances under the age of six, (60) already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the
even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the best title to the children.
quickest proficiency in that art.
I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a
(20) girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; 1. This text can best be described as
and even when they come to this age they will not (A) scientific
yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a- (B) satirical
crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to (C) forthright
account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of (D) humanitarian
(25) nutriment and rags having been at least four times that (E) sadistic
value.
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own 2. In the first, second, and fourth paragraphs the
thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least author relies on dubious
objection.
(30) I have been assured by a very knowing American (A) similes
of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy (B) ad hominem arguments
child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, (C) extended metaphors
nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, (D) arguments from authority
roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it (E) appeals to ignorance
(35) will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public
consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand
children already computed, twenty thousand may be GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 179
5. The word “fricassee” (line 35) is obviously a(n) 9. In context, “devoured” (line 60) is an effective word
choice because
(A) animal
(B) child (A) it fits both figuratively and literally
(C) dish (B) it is appropriate only literally
(D) place (C) it is indicative of the landlords’ plight
(E) master (D) it works as a sentimental appeal
(E) it reveals the author’s point of view
6. In lines 36-44 the author adopts the standard rhe-
torical pattern of 10. According to the author, the proposal
(A) process analysis (A) makes good economic sense and helps the poor
(B) example (B) provides food for the needy and the rich, alike
(C) cause and effect (C) makes good economic sense but does not
(D) deductive reasoning benefit the poor or rich
(E) analogy (D) benefits the rich in several ways
(E) benefits everyone in many ways
180 1 8C0R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 181
182 1 8C2R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 183
184 1 8C4R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 185
186 1 8C6R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 187
188 1 8C8R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 189
SECTION II
Time—2 hours
Number of questions—3
Section II of this examination requires answers in essay form. To help you use your time well, the coordinator will
announce the time at which each question should be completed. If you finish any question before time is announced,
you may go on to the following question. If you finish the examination in less than the time allotted, you may go back
and work on any essay question you want.
Each essay will be judged on its clarity and effectiveness in dealing with the requirements of the topic assigned and on
the quality of the writing. After completing each question, you should check your essay for accuracy of punctuation,
spelling, and diction; you are advised, however, not to attempt many longer corrections. Remember that quality is far
more important than quantity.
Write your essays with a pen, preferably in black or dark blue ink. Be sure to write CLEARLY and LEGIBLY. Cross out
any errors you make.
The questions for Section II are printed in the green insert. You are encouraged to use the green insert to make notes
and to plan your essays, but be sure to write your answers in the pink booklet. Number each answer as the question is
numbered in the examination. Do not skip lines. Begin each answer on a new page in the pink booklet.
190 1 9C0R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
SECTION II
Time—2 hours
Question 1
Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Then synthesize
information from at least three of the sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-written essay that develops a
position on the most important consideration in granting suffrage to women in America.
Make sure that your argument is central; use the sources to illustrate and support your reasoning. Avoid merely
summarizing the sources. Indicate clearly which sources you are drawing from, whether through direct quotation,
paraphrase, or summary. You may cite the sources as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the descriptions in
parentheses.
Assignment: Relying heavily on the sources that follow, write a well-organized essay addressing this prompt: In
democratic nations today, the ability to vote is presumed. Many consider this right a “natural right,” while others
consider it a privilege or even a civic duty.
You may refer to the sources by their titles (Source A, Source B, etc.) or by the descriptions in parentheses.
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 191
Friends and Fellow-citizens: I stand before you to-night, under indictment for the alleged
crime of having voted at the last Presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote.
It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed
Line no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen’s right, guaranteed to me and all United
(5) States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny.
Our democratic-republican government is based on the idea of the natural right of
every individual member thereof to a voice and a vote in making and executing the laws.
We assert the province of government to be to secure the people in the enjoyment of their
unalienable rights. We throw to the winds the old dogma that governments can give rights.
(10) Before governments were organized, no one denies that each individual possessed the right
to protect his own life, liberty and property. And when 100 or 1,000,000 people enter into a
free government, they do not barter away their natural rights; they simply pledge themselves
to protect each other in the enjoyment of them, through prescribed judicial and legislative
tribunals. They agree to abandon the methods of brute force in the adjustment of their
(15) differences, and adopt those of civilization.
Nor can you find a word in any of the grand documents left us by the fathers that assumes
for government the power to create or to confer rights. The Declaration of Independence, the
United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several states and the organic laws of the
territories, all alike propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not
(20) one of them pretends to bestow rights.
“All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Here is no shadow of government authority over rights, nor exclusion of any from their
(25) full and equal enjoyment. Here is pronounced the right of all men, and “consequently,” as the
Quaker preacher said, “of all women,” to a voice in the government. And here, in this very
first paragraph of the declaration, is the assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot; for,
how can “the consent of the governed” be given, if the right to vote be denied. Again:
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right
(30) of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations
on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.”
Surely, the right of the whole people to vote is here clearly implied. For however
destructive in their happiness this government might become, a disfranchised class could
(35) neither alter nor abolish it, nor institute a new one, except by the old brute force method of
insurrection and rebellion. One-half of the people of this nation to-day are utterly powerless
to blot from the statute books an unjust law, or to write there a new and a just one.
192 1 9C2R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 193
The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the
Constitution of the State, and not of the United States. The qualifications are different in the
different States. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different States,
Line or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled
(5) to it by the laws of the State where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of
the United States. If the State of New York should provide that no person should vote until
he had reached the age of 31 years, or after he had reached the age of 50, or that no person
having gray hair, or who had not the use of all his limbs, should be entitled to vote, I do not
see how it could be held to be a violation of any right derived or held under the Constitution
(10) of the United States. We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the
regulation of an intelligent State; but if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that
fundamental class derived from his position as a citizen of the State, and not those limited
rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States. (…)
If she believed she had a right to vote, and voted in reliance upon that belief, does that
(15) relieve her from the penalty? It is argued that the knowledge referred to in the act relates to
her knowledge of the illegality of the act, and not to the act of voting; for it is said that she
must know that she voted. Two principles apply here: First, ignorance of the law excuses
no one; second, every person is presumed to understand and to intend the necessary effects
of his own acts. Miss Anthony knew that she was a woman, and that the constitution of
(20) this State prohibits her from voting. She intended to violate that provision—intended to
test it, perhaps, but certainly intended to violate it. The necessary effect of her act was to
violate it, and this side is presumed to have intended. There was no ignorance of any fact,
but all the facts being known, she undertook to settle a principle in her own person. She
takes the risk, and she cannot escape the consequences. It is said, and authorities are cited
(25) to sustain the position, that there can be no crime unless there is a culpable intent; to render
one criminally responsible a vicious will must be present. A commits a trespass on the land
of B, and B, thinking and believing that he has a right to shoot an intruder on his premises,
kills A on the spot. Does B’s misapprehension of his rights justify his act? Would a Judge be
justified in charging the jury that if satisfied that B supposed he had a right to shoot A he was
(30) justified, and they should find a verdict of not guilty? No Judge would make such a charge.
To constitute a crime, it is true that there must be a criminal intent, but it is equally true that
knowledge of the facts of the case is always held to supply this intent. An intentional killing
bears with it evidence of malice in law. Whoever, without justifiable cause, intentionally kills
his neighbor is guilty of a crime. The principle is the same in the case before us, and in all
(35) criminal cases. (…)
Upon this evidence I suppose there is no question for the jury and that the jury should be
directed to find a verdict of guilty.
194 1 9C4R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 195
In October, 1874, the Supreme Court voted unanimously that the Constitution of the United
States does not confer on women the right to vote in federal elections.
When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode
Line Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under
(5) their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no
State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that
power. Thus, in New Hampshire, “every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town
privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twenty-one years of age and upwards,
excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request,” were its
(10) voters; in Massachusetts “every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards,
having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds,
or any estate of the value of sixty pounds”; in Rhode Island “such as are admitted free of
the company and society” of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had “maturity in
years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty
(15) pounds personal estate,” if so certified by the selectmen. (…)
Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety
years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship,
did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle
the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States
(20) confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is,
not to declare what it should be.
We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law
is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments
addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce
(25) those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to
influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before
us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her
rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an
end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.
(30) Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not
confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several
States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the
judgment.
196 1 9C6R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 197
(Suggested time—40 minutes. This question counts as one-third of the total essay section score.)
The passages that follow were published shortly after the appearance of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). At that
time, very few people knew the identity of the author. The first passage has been extracted from an anonymous piece
from The Quarterly Review. The second passage is part of (Sir) Walter Scott’s review of Frankenstein in Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine.
Read the passages carefully. Then write a carefully organized essay in which you compare and contrast the manner in
which each critic uses language to convey a point of view.
198 1 9C8R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
T H E P R I N C E TO N R E V I E W A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N P R A C T I C E T E S T 1 199
(Suggested time—40 minutes. This question counts as one-third of the total essay section score.)
Read carefully the passage below. Then write an essay in which you support, refute, or qualify the claim that a
“neutral” stand on race perpetuates racial imbalance.
END OF EXAMINATION
200 2 0C0R A C K I N G T H E A P E N G L I S H L A N G U A G E A N D C O M P O S I T I O N E X A M
Walter Scott's review acknowledges the author's "uncommon powers of poetic imagination" and appreciates the clear and forceful expression of ideas despite the wild narrative. He values the plain and mannered English, which contrasts with the hyperbolic style of other Gothic tales, unlike the anonymous review which disparages the style as 'horrible and disgusting'. Scott recognizes the tale's impact on emotions, stating that even his 'firm nerves' felt shaken, illustrating a more positive reception respecting the author's literary capabilities .
Judge Ward Hunt’s assertion that voting rights are state-determined underscores a significant tension between federal and state jurisdiction. This perspective implies flexibility and variance in voting eligibility across states, potentially leading to unequal access to voting on different criteria. This state-centric view challenges the notion of a uniform national standard for suffrage, raising questions about consistency in civil rights protections and reflecting the complexities of the American federal system where states can implement divergent legal frameworks under overarching constitutional principles .
The speaker described the status of racial equality at the adoption of the U.S. Constitution as one where a "subordinate and inferior class of beings" were subjugated by the dominant race, with no inherent rights. Recent amendments, however, were intended to eradicate these principles, suggesting a constitutional evolution aimed at guaranteeing civil equality. Nevertheless, the speaker indicates skepticism about the implementation of these amendments, especially given the existence of state laws like those in Louisiana that seemed inconsistent with the new constitutional spirit .
Thomas Wust’s political cartoon likely captures the contentious societal attitudes towards Susan B. Anthony’s suffrage activism, illustrating both support and opposition. Cartoons of the period often provided satirical or critical commentaries, potentially highlighting public resistance to changing gender norms and voting rights expansion. The visual representation could reflect societal divisions, skepticism, or ridicule of Anthony's bold challenge to the legal system, showcasing the broader cultural struggle over women's suffrage as seen in her trial dynamics .
The text asserts that societal neutrality can perpetuate racial imbalances, as neutrality assumes no historical inequalities exist. Neutrality may prevent active efforts to identify and address existing disparities, effectively maintaining the status quo. Since historical and social contexts affect all societal dynamics, active intervention is necessary for change. By ignoring these contexts, neutrality inadvertently supports existing inequalities, suggesting that neutrality is not a valid approach in societies with entrenched social issues .
The concept of 'consent of the governed' is central to the discussion on voting rights, positing that government legitimacy arises from the collective approval of the people, which is expressed through voting. The text argues that denying any group the vote undermines this fundamental principle by excluding them from active participation in government decisions. Thus, a robust interpretation of the 'consent of the governed' necessitates inclusivity in voting rights, empowering every citizen to partake in the democratic process, underlining the incongruence of disenfranchisement with democratic ideals .
The reviewer criticizes Frankenstein for its style of writing that, despite its powerful language and conception, fails to offer moral or educational value. The critique suggests that the narrative's sensationalism and reliance on horror do not align with the sober goals of literature to educate or entertain meaningfully. It points out that the book's focus on terror and its depiction of intellectual wanderings lacks a constructive lesson or clear purpose, questioning the mental state of both the narrative and the author .
The speaker argues that individual rights, including the right to vote, precede governmental authority and are not granted by governments. Rather, governments are instituted to secure these natural rights, which are inherent and inalienable, as emphasized in foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence. The government's role is protective, not creative, of rights, underscoring that rights such as voting are not conferred by the state but are natural and cannot be legitimately denied .
The speaker indicates that both Congress and the courts have crucial roles in addressing state laws that conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Congressional action is suggested as a means to enforce constitutional adherence across states, whereas the courts are seen as executing their duty to uphold the 'supreme law of the land'. This dual mechanism ensures that inconsistent state laws can be nullified, reinforcing the federal framework and protecting citizens' rights against state-level legislation that undermines constitutional guarantees .
Judge Ward Hunt interpreted voting rights as privileges conferred by state laws rather than federal entitlements, implying that states have significant discretion in determining voter qualifications including age and other criteria. In contrast, Susan B. Anthony argued that voting is a natural right protected by the U.S. Constitution and should not be restricted by state legislation. While Judge Hunt acknowledged the fundamental rights derived from state citizenship, Anthony emphasized federal constitutional protection of voting rights, highlighting a conflict between state and federal perspectives on suffrage .