AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example with a Sample Answer
Question
Question 2: Rhetorical Analysis
Suggested writing time - 40 minutes
In 2018, Denise Holland, a technology executive, delivered the commencement address at a historically Black university. Read the passage carefully. Write an essay that analyzes the rhetorical choices Holland makes to build her argument.
In your response you should do the following:
- Respond to the prompt with a thesis that analyzes the writer's rhetorical choices.
- Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning.
- Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
- Demonstrate an understanding of the rhetorical situation.
- Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
The following is a transcript of Denise Holland's commencement address delivered at a historically Black university on May 12, 2018.
Thank you, President Williams, trustees, faculty, family, friends - and most importantly, graduates. You made it. I need you to sit with that for a moment before I say anything else. You made it.
I want to tell you a story. Twenty-two years ago, I walked into a conference room on the forty-third floor of a building in midtown Manhattan for my first day as a junior analyst. I was the only woman in the room. I was the only Black person in the room. And before I could introduce myself, a man in a gray suit handed me his coffee cup and asked if I could bring him a refill. I was the only person in that room with a graduate degree.
I tell you this not because it was the worst thing that happened to me in my career. I tell you because it was the most ordinary. It did not make the news. No one filed a report. It was Tuesday. And that is exactly the problem. The barriers you will face do not come with warning labels. They will not announce themselves. They will feel like Tuesdays.
Let me give you a number. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a Black woman with a bachelor's degree earns, on average, sixty-five cents for every dollar earned by a white man with the same degree. Same diploma. Same hours. Sixty-five cents. That is not an opinion. That is a measurement. And measurements do not care about your feelings or mine. They simply describe the world you are walking into this afternoon.
Now. I could stop here. I could tell you the system is broken and wish you luck. But that would be a waste of your time and mine, because this room is full of evidence that the measurement is not destiny.
Amara Jenkins - stand up, Amara - will begin medical school at Johns Hopkins in August. She will be the first person in her family to become a physician. David Chen, who is sitting right there trying not to be noticed, published original neuroscience research as a junior. A junior. And Keisha Okafor spent her weekends building a literacy program in Washington Terrace that has taught forty-three children to read. Forty-three.
And yet you will walk into rooms where someone will hand you a coffee cup. The measurement will still be sixty-five cents. The Tuesdays will still come.
But here is what I know that the measurement does not capture: every single one of you has already beaten odds that the spreadsheet says you should not have beaten. You are not the problem the system describes. You are the answer the system has not yet recognized. So when the Tuesday comes - and it will - I need you to remember this room. Remember that you sat here, today, as proof.
Congratulations, Class of 2018. Now go make them update the spreadsheet.
The Essay
Introduction + Thesis
In her 2018 commencement address at a historically Black university, the speaker confronts an audience about to enter a workforce that still undervalues them. Through personal anecdotes that establish credibility, pointed statistical evidence, and a deliberate shift from sober realism to defiant optimism, she argues that systemic barriers are real but not permanent - and that the graduates themselves are the proof.
Body 1
The speaker opens with a story most of her audience will recognize. She describes arriving at her first corporate job and being mistaken for "someone from catering" by a senior executive. She pauses, then adds: "I was the only person in that room with a graduate degree." The anecdote does double work. It establishes her ethos - she has lived the professional bias her audience will face - while simultaneously using pathos to activate a shared frustration. By choosing a specific, small humiliation rather than a dramatic injustice, she makes the experience feel ordinary, which is precisely her point: discrimination does not always announce itself. It whispers. The audience trusts her because she is not lecturing from theory. She is reporting from experience.
Body 2
Having earned emotional trust, the speaker pivots to logos. She cites Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that Black women with bachelor's degrees earn 65 cents for every dollar earned by white men with the same credential. She frames it bluntly: "Same diploma. Same hours. Sixty-five cents." The repetition of "same" followed by the sharp drop to "sixty-five cents" is syntactic contrast designed to make the gap feel irrational. She does not soften the number with qualifiers or context. The starkness is the strategy. By placing a hard statistic immediately after a personal story, she prevents the audience from dismissing either one - the story proves the number is not abstract, and the number proves the story is not an isolated case.
Body 3 (Tone Shift + Sophistication)
The final third of the speech reverses its emotional direction entirely. After spending five minutes on obstacles, the speaker shifts tone with a single sentence: "And yet - here you sit." She then lists three graduates by name: one heading to medical school, one who published original research as an undergraduate, one who built a literacy program in a local housing project. The conjunction "and yet" is the rhetorical hinge of the entire address. Everything before it was designed to make the audience feel the weight of the system. Everything after it is designed to make them feel capable of moving it. By naming specific graduates rather than speaking in generalities, she converts the abstract idea of "overcoming barriers" into three real people sitting in the audience. The tone shift from realism to defiance is what transforms the speech from a warning into a call to action. Without the bleak opening, the optimism would feel naive. Without the optimistic close, the realism would feel paralyzing. She needs both, and she sequences them deliberately.
Now try it on a real past exam passage.
GradGPT uses actual AP Lang Q2 passages from past exams. Write your rhetorical analysis and get scored on the real rubric.
Try a Past Exam Question →Why Each Paragraph Scores
Introduction + Thesis
Row A (1/1)The thesis names three specific rhetorical strategies (personal anecdotes, statistical evidence, tone shift) and connects them to the speaker's purpose (arguing barriers are real but not permanent). This is defensible and analytical, not a summary of the speech.
Body 1 - Ethos + Pathos
Row B (Evidence)Quotes a specific moment from the speech, then explains two effects: establishing credibility (ethos) and activating shared frustration (pathos). The commentary goes further by analyzing WHY a small humiliation was more effective than a dramatic one. This depth is what separates a 3 from a 4 on Row B.
Body 2 - Logos + Syntax
Row B (Evidence)Cites the statistic AND the speaker's phrasing of it. The analysis explains the syntactic contrast ('same... same... sixty-five cents') and why pairing a statistic with a personal story prevents the audience from dismissing either. This is multi-layered analysis.
Body 3 - Tone Shift
Row C (Sophistication)Analyzes the structural turn of the entire speech, not just one device. The commentary explains why the sequence matters: realism before optimism makes optimism credible. This kind of argument-level analysis - showing how parts of the speech interact - is what earns the sophistication point.
What to Steal From This Essay
Quote, then explain the effect
Every piece of evidence is a direct quote or specific detail from the passage, followed by 2-3 sentences analyzing what it does to the audience. Never cite without explaining.
Analyze HOW, not WHAT
The essay never summarizes what the speaker said. It explains how she said it and why that method persuades the audience. That is the difference between summary and analysis.
Show how strategies interact
Body 3 does not just analyze tone - it explains why the tone shift only works because of the realism that preceded it. Showing how parts of the speech depend on each other is what earns sophistication.
No device-listing
The essay never says "the author uses ethos, pathos, and logos." Each device is woven into the analysis with an explanation of its specific effect. Naming without explaining earns nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Name 2-3 specific strategies the author uses AND connect them to the author's purpose. Bad: 'The author uses ethos, pathos, and logos.' Good: 'Through personal anecdote and statistical contrast, the speaker argues that systemic barriers are real but not permanent.'
2-3 analyzed deeply beats 5 mentioned briefly. Each body paragraph should focus on one strategy or cluster of strategies with direct quotes and detailed explanation of their effect on the audience.
You can, but naming the device is not enough. The rubric rewards explaining the effect. 'The speaker uses pathos' earns nothing. 'The speaker's anecdote activates shared frustration, building trust before introducing data' earns points.
Summary tells WHAT the author said. Analysis tells HOW and WHY they said it that way. If your paragraph could serve as a book report for someone who has not read the passage, you are summarizing. If it only makes sense to someone analyzing craft, you are analyzing.
Not necessarily. Organize by strategy or analytical point, not by 'first the author says... then the author says...' This example organizes by rhetorical strategy (ethos/pathos, logos/syntax, tone shift) rather than walking through the speech paragraph by paragraph.
This example uses a realistic rhetorical analysis scenario with a fictional commencement address. The structure, analytical depth, and scoring approach match what College Board readers reward on the actual exam.