Hello, AP Daily, welcome back.
We are starting today with a new skill,
something that you haven't looked at yet this year,
where we haven't looked at it together in AP Daily.
This is skill three C,
and this is the one where we start talking about the ways
in which authors, writers, speakers,
qualify their claims.
So in this video, what we're gonna think about
is we're gonna look at recognizing the complexity
in an author's argument.
So I'm Stephanie Hyatt.
I am back with you from Huntsville, Alabama,
Lee High School, happy to see you again.
What we're gonna learn today is we are looking
at recognizing complexity.
And the idea here from the CED from College Board
is this, a lack of understanding of the complexities
of the subject or an issue can lead over simplification
or generalizations.
And folks, this really sort of like comes back to this idea
that one thing you are trying to show in an AP class
is that you're already thinking like a college student, right?
You're already so far ahead of your peers
and your worldview and that you're trying to show colleges
that you know how to think with that sort of broadened worldview
and you don't want to oversimplify or generalize.
You want to be able to show when I'm reading something,
I get that there are layers to this
and those layers are what I'm trying to like help
to tease out and to see what's really working with this.
So let's talk about a couple of things.
What you want to do for with this particular standard
is you want to make sure that you are looking for complexity.
We'll talk about what that means in a minute.
What you don't want to do is simple,
you don't want to oversimplify it
and you don't want to generalize it.
So let's talk about where we're gonna see this first of all
and then we're gonna talk about some definitions.
So where you're gonna see this, y'all look at all that yellow.
Do you see all that yellow that I put on here?
We're gonna particularly and specifically together,
look at a rhetorical analysis prompt,
but you're gonna have to worry about this idea of complexity
and not generalizing and not oversimplifying
in literally every single part of this exam.
It's just that pervasive.
Everything you read, including your prompts,
everything you analyze, it's all about seeing
that level of complexity that makes this richer
and worthy of our contemplation.
So our definition, some key terms here.
First of all, it's complexity.
The dictionary says that complexity is this.
The state of being formed of many parts,
the state of being difficult to understand.
Now, I gave you that whole definition,
but I want to be very clear that for our purposes,
we want to look at the first part of that definition.
When the college board says to you,
you need to recognize the complexity.
They're not saying we want you to understand
we're intentionally making this difficult on you.
That's not what it means.
What it means is that you need to recognize this idea,
the state of being formed of many parts, those layers.
That idea that when we are reading these analysis papers
when we're reading these rhetorical analysis prompts,
there's not just one read to it.
Like there are multiple things to look at as you're going through.
That's the complexity we're talking about.
Wow, we're going to make this hard for you.
But wow, we're going to give you something to look at
that gives you so many opportunities
to see it in different ways,
to look at it through different lenses,
to peel back those various layers.
The second thing I want us to look at as a definition
is oversimplify.
And the definition here to oversimplify something
is to simplify it so much to such an extent
as to bring about distortion, misunderstanding or error.
And that's what's important here.
Like we're not saying, don't find an easy way
to explain this.
Now, obviously if there's complexity here,
it's going to be hard to explain it in simplistic terms, right?
What we're saying is don't simplify it to the point
where you distort the argument,
meaning you're only looking at bits and pieces of it
and you're not seeing that bigger picture.
Or, you're only seeing the bigger picture
and you're not recognizing those direct smaller pieces
to it.
I think that'll make more sense when we look at this example
here.
And then also generalizing what does it mean
to generalize since we don't want to do that?
When you generalize, you write or say
that something is true all of the time.
But it's only true some of the time, right?
This is like that moment where you get into an argument
with your boyfriend or girlfriend or best friend
and they're like, but you always do that.
Or we always go there or okay.
And there's not that idea we always do anything.
Well, when we're reading writing is the same thing.
You don't want to say this must always be true
because then you're creating a generalization
and you're always going to get yourself in trouble
with a generalization.
So let's look at an example and find out
how we can read and how we can analyze
without oversimplifying, without generalizing
and with looking at that level of complexity
on everything we look at.
So first of all, recognizing complexity.
I want you to look at this potential prompt.
Here it is.
In 1791, Benjamin Banacher wrote to Thomas Jefferson,
framer of the Declaration of Independence
and Secretary of State to President George Washington.
Read the following excerpt from the letter
and write an essay that analyzes
how Banacher uses rhetorical strategies
to argue against slavery.
Okay, well, at the surface, that looks like a fine prompt.
It gives you a year, tells you who wrote it,
even tells you who wrote the letter to.
You got all these pieces of it.
But if I were to look at just this prompt,
there are some parts of the complexity
of the situation here, the rhetorical situation
that I might not answer might not recognize.
So this isn't the actual prompt.
This is my version of like what I might think about
and put together that doesn't offer the complexity.
Here's the difference between a standard
kind of vanilla prompt and what college board gives you.
Here's what college board actually gave you for this prompt.
Benjamin Banacher, the son of former slaves,
was a farmer, astronomer, mathematician, surveyor and author.
In 1791, he wrote to Thomas Jefferson,
a framer of the Declaration of Independence
and Secretary of State to President George Washington,
read the following excerpt from the letter
and write an essay that analyzes how Banacher uses
rhetorical strategies to argue against slavery.
Whoa, big difference here.
There's a possibility that you didn't know
Benjamin Banacher was.
And if you didn't know who Benjamin Banacher was,
it's gonna make a huge difference to you
to know that number one, he is the son of former slaves.
He's arguing against slavery.
So it has to matter that he is the son of former slaves, right?
Also, farmer, astronomer, mathematician, surveyor, author.
Five things, right?
I don't think my resume has five things on it.
Here is a guy who's like known in all of these different fields.
So this is someone who is like,
he's a Renaissance man.
He is someone who has like accomplished all of these things.
So not only is he the son of former slaves,
but he's super accomplished in like all of these things.
He's pulled together and done.
So I put this together for you just for this reason.
I want you to recognize that in the prompts
that the College Board gives you,
there is a gift in showing you that complexity,
helping you see the complexity.
In this one, it is a lot more complex.
There are a lot more layers when you realize that one,
this is a son of former slaves
who's writing to Thomas Jefferson.
Then if you just were like,
oh, Benjamin Banacher wrote,
there's also a huge difference when you realize
this is someone who was his intellectual equal.
Yeah, Thomas Jefferson,
Framer of the Declaration of Independence,
but check out all the things that Banacher did.
Banacher's no slouch here.
So you've got two levels of complexity
that you wouldn't have known
without paying careful attention to the problem.
All right, so let's look at this example
for recognizing complexity.
You have seen this one before.
We did this one for skill one A in this unit
when we were talking about when we were analyzing introductions.
Introductions and conclusions, right?
So here's how he opens this essay.
Sir, this letter,
sir, suffer me to recall to your mind
that time in which the arms and tyranny
of the British crown were exerted
with every powerful effort
in order to reduce you to a state of servitude.
Look back, I entreech you on the variety of dangers
to which you were exposed.
Reflect on that time in which every human aid appeared
unavailable and in which even hope
in fortitude wore the aspect of inability to the conflict
and you cannot but be led to a serious
and grateful sense of your miraculous
and providential preservation.
You cannot but acknowledge that the present freedom
and tranquility, which you enjoy,
you have mercifully received
and that it is the peculiar blessing of heaven.
This, sir, was a time in which you clearly saw
into the injustice of a state of slavery
and in which you had just apprehensions
of the horrors of its condition.
It was now, sir, that your abhorrence thereof was so excited
that you publicly held forth this true
and valuable doctrine, which is worthy to be recorded
and remembered in all succeeding ages.
We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal
and that they are endowed by their creator
with certain unalienable rights
that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
So if we were to simplify this,
we could say in this passage,
what we see is that Bannaker is saying
that slavery is a really bad idea.
And he is, he is saying slavery is a terrible thing,
it's a terrible condition, we should get rid of it.
But that's actually a gross oversimplification
of what he's doing here
and we want to find those layers of complexity.
So let's look for the layers.
How about this one?
We get this direct claim from him.
All right, a direct claim,
this idea that you already know about this because,
so there's an argument in here, we found that.
Then we've got some parallels.
Look at the parallels here.
You yourself have dealt with tyranny,
which was a state of servitude,
which is similar to slavery,
and now look at the injustice of slavery,
which you have seen and recognize.
So in drawing that parallel,
we have one of those layers of complexity.
Let's look at another one
because this is the one that's sort of like,
oh, how are you going to respond?
He quotes Jefferson, okay?
So he doesn't just say, hey, look,
you've already recognized this yourself.
He's like, hey, remember that declaration
of independence you wrote?
Can I remind you that you said all men are created equal,
they're endowed by their creator?
He quotes Jefferson and reminds him of his own words.
Y'all, if that's not complexity,
I don't know what is, right?
Let me remind you of when you said this
because you can't argue against your own words
other than to be like, yeah, well, change my mind.
All right, so what should we take away this time?
What I want you to, what I want you to leave you with,
what I want you to remember are three things.
In recognizing complexity, first of all,
you want to mind that prompt for complexity.
Look at every word the college board is provided to you
in that prompt because you will see those layers
starting to emerge.
Second, you've got to read carefully and analytically.
This is where your skills for annotation come in.
This is where even though you're reading it fast
and writing these essays fast,
you're taking down just as many things as you can
and noticing what's going on.
And then finally, if it looks easy, remind yourself,
it isn't.
Find the complexity in the author's argument
because there's always more to it
than meets the eye when you first read it.
That's it for today, folks.
Thank you for taking some time
to think about complexity with me.