Deciding What to Cite in a Short-Answer Analysis
On the free-response section, a student must write a short analysis arguing that a passage's word order creates emphasis. The prompt asks for 'specific textual support.' The passage is 9 lines. The student has identified a hyperbaton (an adjective separated from its noun by several words) in line 3 and a chiasmus in line 6. She has written a thesis but her draft cites only line numbers, not the Latin words, and her analysis says the word order is 'dramatic' without explaining the effect. She has budgeted 12 minutes for this response.
1. How should she revise her citations and analysis to earn full credit, and how should she allocate the 12 minutes?
Read the worked answer
Citations: quote the actual Latin (the separated adjective and noun, e.g., 'the adjective X in line 3 is held back until Y four words later'), not just 'line 3.' The exam rewards evidence tied to specific words.
Analysis: replace 'dramatic' with a mechanism → effect statement: 'The delay of the noun keeps the reader in suspense about what is being described, so the noun lands with emphasis when it arrives.' Name the device (hyperbaton) and then explain why the separation matters in this sentence.
Time allocation (12 min): ~2 min planning/selecting the two strongest devices, ~7 min drafting (one tight paragraph per device: quote → name device → explain effect), ~3 min checking that each claim is tied to a quoted word and that the thesis is actually supported. Do not add a third device; depth on two beats a shallow list of three.
2. Her chiasmus in line 6 is arguable - a grader might not accept it. What should she do?
Read the worked answer
She should lead with her strongest, least-arguable device (the hyperbaton) and treat the chiasmus as secondary - or drop it. Defensive writing: if a device is contestable, either (a) explain the pattern explicitly (ABBA order, naming which words occupy A and B) so the grader can verify it, or (b) replace it with a device she can defend cleanly.
A contestable claim stated confidently and supported with the actual word order is still creditable; a contestable claim asserted without showing the pattern is a liability. Given limited time, one airtight device plus one well-defended secondary device is the safer play than betting the response on a shaky reading.