AP English Language Unit 2 Cheat Sheet: Perspectives and Counterargument

The Concession–Refutation Framework

What would a reasonable person who disagrees argue? State it fairly and specifically.

"Critics argue that standardized tests provide an objective measure of student ability."

→

Acknowledge what is genuinely true or reasonable in the opposing view. Signal words: admittedly, granted, it is true that, certainly…

"Admittedly, standardized tests do offer a consistent metric across diverse schools."

→

Signal the turn. Words: however, nevertheless, yet, even so, despite this…

"Nevertheless, consistency is not the same as accuracy or equity."

→

Explain why your position holds despite the conceded point. Use evidence and analysis.

"When scores correlate more strongly with family income than with school quality, the test measures socioeconomic advantage more than learning."

Move	What it means	Effect on the argument	Example
Steelmanning	Presenting the strongest, most charitable version of the opposing argument before responding	Builds ethos; shows intellectual seriousness; earns the sophistication point	"The most compelling case for standardized testing is not efficiency — it's equity: a single measure that prevents wealthy schools from inflating grades."
Strawmanning	Misrepresenting the opposing view in a weakened or distorted form that is easy to knock down	Destroys ethos; alienates readers who know the real argument; a logical fallacy	"Those who support standardized testing just want to reduce students to a number."

Limiting the scope of a claim to what evidence actually supports
Uses hedging language: may, often, tends to, in many cases, under certain conditions
Is intellectual honesty, not weakness
Strengthens credibility — readers trust qualified claims more

Over-broad: "Social media causes depression."
Qualified: "Heavy social media use is associated with increased depressive symptoms in adolescent girls, though the causal relationship remains contested."
The qualified version survives scrutiny; the unqualified one doesn't.

Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

"She can't speak credibly about poverty — she's never been poor."

Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a binary choice.

"Either you support this policy completely or you don't care about public safety."

Claiming one event leads inevitably to extreme consequences without evidence.

"If we ban assault rifles, next they'll come for all guns."

Misrepresenting the opposing argument to make it easier to attack.

"Environmentalists want to destroy the economy by eliminating all cars."

Dismissing an argument because the person making it is hypocritical or inconsistent.

"You say we should reduce emissions but you flew here on a plane."

Assuming truth always lies between two extremes — splitting the difference without reason.

"Some say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, others say 6,000. The answer is somewhere in between."

Ignoring the counterargument entirely
On the Argument FRQ, an essay that never addresses an opposing view scores lower on the sophistication row. The College Board expects writers to demonstrate awareness that reasonable people disagree.
Conceding without refuting
"While critics have a point" — and then moving on — is worse than not conceding at all. You've admitted the other side is right without explaining why your position still stands. Always follow a concession with a refutation.
Mistaking strawmanning for effective refutation
If you distort the opposing view before knocking it down, readers who know the real argument will lose trust in you entirely. Always represent the counterargument as its proponents would state it.
Treating perspective as bias to dismiss
Every perspective — including the writer's own — reflects a particular viewpoint. Calling an opposing view "biased" is not a refutation. You must engage with the argument's logic, not its origin.