Two Sources, One Thesis in the Argumentative Essay
For the AP Argumentative Essay, the prompt asks whether universities should require community service for graduation. Students are given three sources: (Fuente 1) a university newsletter praising a successful service program, (Fuente 2) a student op-ed arguing that mandatory service exploits unpaid student labor, and (Fuente 3) a statistical summary showing that voluntary service participation is low but rising. Paula writes a fluent, well-organized essay that summarizes all three sources accurately and concludes: "En conclusión, el servicio comunitario tiene aspectos positivos y negativos." She cites each source once, uses good transitions, and finishes in time. She believes she has done well because her Spanish is strong and she covered everything.
1. Paula's essay is accurate and fluent. Why might it still score low on the argumentative task?
Read the worked answer
Because the task requires a defended position, and Paula never takes one. Her conclusion - 'tiene aspectos positivos y negativos' - is a summary, not a thesis. The rubric rewards a clear stance sustained throughout, with sources used as evidence for that stance, not as a list to be neutrally reported. Accurate summarizing is necessary but insufficient: an essay that catalogs sources without arguing is descriptive, not argumentative. Paula has mistaken coverage for argument. Her strong Spanish raises her language score but cannot compensate for the missing central claim, which is the organizing requirement of the task.
2. How should Paula use Fuente 2 (the critical op-ed) if she decides to argue IN FAVOR of mandatory service?
Read the worked answer
She should engage and rebut it, not ignore it. Example move: "Si bien la Fuente 2 advierte que el servicio obligatorio podría explotar el trabajo no remunerado, este riesgo se mitiga si el programa ofrece créditos académicos y horarios limitados, como sugiere el éxito descrito en la Fuente 1." This does three things: acknowledges the counterargument (shows she read it), concedes a limited point (builds credibility), and reframes it with evidence from another source. Strong argumentative writing treats the opposing source as a foil. Summarizing Fuente 2 neutrally, as she did, wastes its rhetorical value.
3. Rewrite Paula's conclusion so it satisfies the argumentative requirement, and explain the change.
Read the worked answer
Revised: "En conclusión, aunque el servicio comunitario obligatorio presenta riesgos reales -como señala la Fuente 2-, los beneficios documentados en la Fuente 1 y la baja participación voluntaria de la Fuente 3 justifican exigirlo, siempre que se diseñe con salvaguardas claras."
The change: it states and defends a position ('justifican exigirlo'), uses sources as evidence (naming them in support), concedes the counterpoint without collapsing into neutrality, and adds a condition ('siempre que...') that shows nuance. This converts a summary into an argument. The concession clause is what distinguishes a sophisticated thesis from a one-sided one.