LIZA KNIGHT: Hi, and welcome to AP Daily
practice sessions for AP Comparative Government
and Politics.
My name is Liza Knight, and I teach at JH Rose High School
in Greenville, North Carolina.
Today, we're going to work through a practice FRQ 3
comparison analysis question together.
I encourage you to click on the link
just above this video where you can download
a PDF of the question we're going
to work through so you can work on it and practice it yourself.
Let's get started.
Now for the FRQ 3 comparative analysis question,
here's what you can expect.
First off, you're going to be asked
to compare political concepts, systems, institutions
or policies in different course countries.
There will be three parts to it, an A, a B, and a C. Part A
will be worth 1 point, Part B, 2 points, and part
C, 2 points for a total of 5 points of possible credit
for this FRQ.
Now in this FRQ, you are going to be
required to use examples from two different AP6 countries.
You're going to have to pick two of the six.
And you will get to choose which two countries you write about.
And to me, that's the most challenging part of this
FRQ is picking the right countries.
And we'll talk more about that as we
dive in to a practice question.
But before we do that, I want to review some of the key task
verbs you can expect to see in FRQ 3.
Remember the task verbs are those things
that we will be asked to do in the FRQ questions.
And it should guide us to the way in which we should answer
that part of the question.
The task verbs that you are most likely to see in FRQ 3
are define.
Part A is very often a define task verb.
And define and comparative government
means to provide a specific meaning for a word or concept.
You got to give meaning to whatever concept
you are asked to define.
You also sometimes will see the task verb describe.
Describe is when you're asked to give
the relevant characteristics, not
a definition but the relevant characteristics
of a word or concept.
And then this task verb explain often appears in part
C of FRQ 3.
When you are asked to explain, you're
being asked to give information about how or why
in relationship, pattern, situation, or outcome using
evidence and reasoning.
And explain is often one of the most challenging task
verbs for students.
A lot of students struggle with this
and aren't able to close the loop.
And I'll explain a little bit more what
I mean by that when we get to part C of our practice question
today.
And then, certainly, because this is a comparative analysis
question, we want to make sure we're comparing.
We're comparing the two countries
that we have chosen to write about in parts B and C.
And we're looking at the similarities and/or differences
between these countries.
So always hone in on those task verbs.
I recommend that my students circle or underline the task
verbs as soon as they read through the prompt and then use
that as sort of a checklist to go back through after they've
written their FRQ.
And make sure did I define here, did
I explain here just as sort of a double check
to make sure they're really doing all
that the FRQ is asking them to do.
Now here is the sample question that we're
going to work through today.
Compare political party systems in two different AP Comparative
Government and Politics course countries.
In your response, you should do the following.
Part A says define a political party system.
So what task verbs do we see here?
We see compare.
It's a comparative analysis question.
Of course, we're going to be asked to compare.
Look at similarities and differences.
And for part A, we see that task verb of define.
So we've got to put words and give meaning to the term
political party system.
We also see some key terms that we're going to be working with,
political party systems.
And that's going to be what we're
being asked to define in part A. So here
are some things that would work for part A. We could
say a political party system is defined
by the number of political parties
that are able to win elections and govern.
Another acceptable definition would be a political party
system is defined by the power, influence,
or strength of political parties and the degree of competition
between parties.
Now it is important that you are defining and not describing.
There were some students who did more of a description
for part A. And that did not get them the point of credit.
So let me show you what I'm talking about here.
Let's now look at some responses that
did not get credit for part A.
First off, if a student said a political party system is
a structure in which individuals with similar political
interests organize to run candidates
and governmental elections and establish party norms,
that does not get credit.
And here's why.
That's a definition of a political party
not a political party system.
So you have to be careful and make sure you're
defining the correct thing.
Defining political party would not get you credit here.
Here's another example of a response
that would not get credit.
A political party system is the way
in which political parties are organized and function
in a regime.
That also is not specific enough to give you credit.
You had to reference somewhere in there
about the number of parties that is actually
able to compete and win seats in government in order
to get the credit.
So that second response there is just too vague in general,
not precise enough to earn you that point of credit.
Now let's move on to part B. For part B,
It asks you to describe two different examples
of political party systems, each one
within a different AP Comparative Government
and Politics course country.
So, again, let's look at our task verbs.
We have that describe.
That's going to be to give relevant characteristics.
And, of course, we're still comparing.
And we've got to pick two different countries that we're
going to compare in part B.
And, again, we're focusing on party systems.
That's what our focus should be in describing party systems
for two different countries.
Here's where you have to make a tough decision.
You have to decide out of our six countries
we study in this course, which two
are you going to write about?
So I recommend my students do a little pre-planning before they
write and that they sort of see do I know the party
system for all six countries?
If there's a country they don't really
remember much about the party system,
and don't choose that country.
So you've got to choose wisely and jotting down a few notes
to make sure do I remember the party
system for the UK, and China, and Nigeria?
Check yourself.
And if you're not confident on one of them,
don't pick that country.
Pick other countries.
But it's not enough just to be confident about your answers
for part B. You've got to read ahead to part
C. Because for part C, you're going to have to write
about the same two countries you pick in B. This
is why pre-writing and pre-planning is so
important for this FRQ because you have to make sure
whatever two countries you pick for B you can also answer part
C for those same two countries.
If you don't pre-plan and you just start writing B,
you might get to part C and realize,
oh no, I used China for part B, and I don't know
how to talk about China for part C. So the smart thing to do
is pre-plan and pick the two countries that you feel
confident writing about for both part B and part
C. That's key to success.
Now let's look at what some acceptable answers would be
for part B. You could say China is a single/one-party system
where only the Chinese Communist Party is allowed to govern.
You describe the type of party system,
and you've given the description of what party is it?
The Chinese Communist Party.
For Mexico, you could say it's a multi-party system.
You describe the type of party system
where current rules allow multiple parties
to win elections and govern.
And you could have referenced the parties if you wanted to.
You could have said Russia is a dominant party system.
That's the type of party system where the rules allow
other parties to compete but only United Russia
controls the government.
That's what makes it a dominant party system.
Or you could have said Nigeria is a multi-party system where
the rules allow multiple parties to win election in government.
But there had to be a description
of what type of party system it is in that specific country.
You could have also talked about the UK or Iran.
I didn't include examples from that,
but any of the six countries would have worked here.
Now let's look at some examples that would not get credit.
If you had said for part B that the UK has two major parties,
the Labour and Conservative, that does not get credit
because you haven't described the type of party system.
You haven't said they're a two party system where the Labour
and Conservative parties dominate despite other parties
being allowed to compete as well.
You have to describe the type of party system
not just what parties exist.
You also would not get credit if you
said China is a one-party system that does not allow
any other parties to exist.
The first part of that is true.
China is a one-party system.
But there are other parties that are allowed
to exist at the very local level,
even if they have no real power in government.
So by adding that last part on to the answer,
you lose the point of credit because that's inaccurate.
So, again, that accuracy and precision
is so important in the FRQs.
And let's move on now to part C. Explain how the political party
system shapes political efficacy in each country described
in B. Again, our task verbs are compare and explain.
And we're looking at political party systems.
And now we've added a different term, political efficacy.
We've got to make the connection between the two.
That's closing the loop, making the connection between the two.
So let's look at two or three good examples here.
You could say in Mexico or Nigeria--
the same would be true as both-- multi-party systems increase
efficacy because they offer more than one viable option
for diverse interests to be represented.
You've connected that multi-party system
to improved efficacy.
Or in Russia, you could say Russia's dominant party system
means its citizens lack efficacy because it is clear which
party always will win.
So you've connected the dominant party system
to a lack of efficacy in Russia.
Or you could say in China their single-party system efficacy
is limited because there are no viable alternative options, so
the party system to reduced efficacy.
You got to link those two terms.
So you've got to explain how do the party
systems that the country have increase
or decrease efficacy to get that full point credit?
That's what we mean when we say close the loop.
Now that we've been through a practice question,
here are some key reminders as you
approach FRQ 3 on your AP exam.
First off, read the entire prompt carefully.
Second, focus on those task verbs.
That's how you get your points of credit
is by focusing on the task force.
Third, choose your two countries wisely.
Before you write part B, you need
to make sure that the countries you're about to write about you
can also use for part C. And then
make sure you close the loop by clarifying connections
between the concepts and countries.
And, finally, make comparisons.
Make sure you're talking about both countries
that you've selected in parts B and C.
It's important that you identify those similarities
and differences.
Thank you so much for watching today's video.
I hope you feel more confident about answering
FRQ 3, the comparative analysis question on the AP exam.
If you feel like you need more help,
I advise you to look at the resources on AP Classroom.
And click on the next video where
I'll do another comparative analysis FRQ with you.
Good luck on your exam.