Quick-reference guide to explanatory strategies, diction, the limits of objectivity, and how explanation serves argument.
Section 1
Five Explanatory Strategies
Definition
Solves: "What does this term mean?"
Establishes the meaning of a concept — especially when contested, technical, or used in a non-obvious way. Stipulative definitions control how the writer uses a term.
Signal: "By X I mean…" / "X can be defined as…"
Example
Solves: "Can you show me a case?"
Uses a specific instance to make an abstract claim concrete. The most common strategy. Example selection is always a rhetorical choice — different examples frame the concept differently.
Signal: "For instance…" / "Consider the case of…"
Analogy
Solves: "How does this relate to what I know?"
Explains an unfamiliar idea by comparing it to a familiar one. Works by mapping structural relationships. Can mislead when the two things differ in crucial, unacknowledged ways.
Signal: "Think of it as…" / "Just as X, so Y…"
Classification
Solves: "How do I organize this large topic?"
Divides a subject into categories or types to bring order to complexity. Shows how parts relate to each other and to the whole. The choice of categories is always a judgment call.
Signal: "There are three types of…" / "X falls into two categories…"
Process Analysis
Solves: "How does this work / how do I do this?"
Explains a mechanism, system, or procedure step by step. Answers "how" questions. Can be directive (how to do it) or descriptive (how it happens).
Signal: "First… then… finally…" / "The process begins when…"
Section 2
Informative vs. Argumentative Writing
Feature
Informative
Argumentative
Primary purpose
Increase understanding
Persuade to a position
Thesis
Central topic or question (not a claim)
Defensible claim requiring evidence
Stance
Appears neutral; presents multiple views
Takes a clear side
Evidence use
Explains and illustrates
Defends and proves
Audience relationship
Reader as learner
Reader as potential skeptic
Hidden reality
Selection of examples and framing always reflect a perspective — pure objectivity is impossible
Explicitly advocacy; no pretense of neutrality
Key insight: The line between informative and argumentative writing is blurry. Informative writing that defines a key term in a particular way, selects particular examples, or frames a process in a particular light is doing implicit argumentative work — even if it never makes an explicit claim.
Section 3
Diction and Word Choice
Denotation
The literal dictionary meaning of a word, stripped of emotional associations.
Example: "die" and "pass away" have the same denotation.
Connotation
The emotional or evaluative associations a word carries beyond its literal meaning.
Example: "slim" vs. "scrawny" — same denotation, very different connotation.
Loaded Language
Words with strong emotional charge designed to trigger a response without explicit argument.
Example: calling a policy "radical" or "common-sense" rather than describing it.
Euphemism
A mild word substituted for one considered too harsh — often obscures rather than clarifies.
Example: "enhanced interrogation" for torture; "collateral damage" for civilian deaths.
Dysphemism
A harsh word substituted for a neutral one — makes something sound worse than a neutral description would.
Example: "regime" instead of "government" to delegitimize.
Precision
Using words that accurately capture exactly what is meant — avoiding vagueness and ambiguity.
"Increased by 34%" is more precise than "significantly increased."
Section 4
Common Exam Traps
Treating all explanation as neutral. AP Lang MC and FRQ both reward recognizing when explanatory strategies are doing persuasive work. Defining a term in a particular way, selecting certain examples, and framing a process with loaded language are all implicit arguments — even in writing that presents itself as purely informative.
Confusing analogy with proof. An analogy can make an idea clear, but it cannot prove a claim. When asked whether an analogy is effective, evaluate whether the two things are similar in the ways that matter for the argument — and identify where the analogy breaks down.
Missing connotation in diction questions. MC questions often ask why a writer chose a specific word. The answer almost always involves connotation — the emotional association the word carries — not just its literal meaning. Always consider what the word implies, not just what it says.
Ignoring the limits of classification. Any classification system reflects the classifier's assumptions about what distinctions matter. When analyzing a classification in a passage, ask: what gets left out? What is grouped together that might be meaningfully different? What does the classification imply about the subject?