LIZA KNIGHT: Hi, and welcome to AP Daily
practice session for AP Comparative Government
and Politics.
My name is Liza Knight, and I teach at J.H. Rose High School
in Greenville, North Carolina.
Today we're going to work through another practice
FRQ 3, the comparative analysis question.
If you see the link just above this video,
you can click on that and download a copy of the question
that I'm going to be working through today so you
can work it with me at home.
All right.
Let's get started.
For FRQ 3, the comparative analysis question,
you can expect to have to compare political concepts,
systems, institutions, or policies of different course
countries.
There will be three parts.
A part A, B, and C. Part A will be worth one point, part B
worth two points, and part C worth two points
for a total of five points of possible credit on FRQ 3.
In this type of FRQ, you are going
to have to use examples from two different AP6 countries.
And you are going to get to pick those countries.
And that's really the most important decision
you're going to make when you are writing this FRQ,
is what two countries are you going to write about?
And we'll talk more about the importance of that choice,
and when you need to make that choice,
and how you should make that choice as we work
through an example together.
Before we get into today's practice question,
let's review those task verbs.
These are frequently used in FRQ 3.
And when you see them, you need to make
sure you know what the task verb is asking you to do.
First, in part A, you are likely to see the task verb of define.
Define means to provide a specific meaning for a word
or concept.
I imagine you've had a lot of practice doing this
in your classes, and you want to make sure
that when you're defining a term,
you're very accurate and precise in defining the concept or term
that's been given to you.
The second task verb that you may see in FRQ 3 is describe.
Describe means to give the relevant characteristics.
You're not defining here, not giving a definition,
but you are describing relevant characteristics of the term
or concept that you've been given.
Also, you are very likely to see in part C an explain task verb.
And that means you're being asked to provide information
either about how or why a relationship, pattern,
situation, or outcome occurs using evidence and reasoning.
This is usually the most difficult task
for students to earn full credit on,
because it is hard to make those connections.
And we're going to see when we look at some samples for part C
how very challenging it was on the particular practice
question we're going to work through today.
But it's important to make sure you fully connect
the term or concepts and the country specific information
and do what we call closing the loop.
And then finally, this is a comparative analysis question.
So you want to make sure you are comparing, which
means to provide explanations of similarities
and differences between the two countries
that you've chosen to write about.
Using and honing in on these task verbs is key to success.
I encourage you when you first read FRQ 3, circle
or underline those task verbs and use it as a checklist
when you read back through your FRQ
to make sure you've really done all that the task verbs have
asked you to do in this FRQ.
Let's look at a sample now.
This question asks you to compare
the relationship between social cleavages
and political legitimacy in two different AP Comparative
Government and Politics course countries.
And in your response, you should do the following.
For part a, you are going to be asked
to define the concept of a social cleavage.
So let's mark up this question a little bit,
make sure we know what we're being asked to do.
We are going to be asked to compare that task for looking
at similarities and differences between the two countries
we choose to write about.
And in part a, we're being asked to define.
So to put words or meaning to a concept.
And then the concepts we're going
to be looking at in this FRQ are social cleavages
and political legitimacy.
But for part a, we're asked just to focus
on the social cleavage.
That legitimacy will come in later in this FRQ.
So what would be acceptable answers to part a?
Well, you could say that a social cleavage
is an internal division that structures society and may
be based on differences such as religion,
or ethnicity, or class, or territory.
And by territory, that could mean
a rural versus urban cleavage or a north versus south cleavage.
That would be an acceptable definition
that would get you full credit.
You also could say a social cleavage
is a division among identity-based groups
that is relevant to political participation.
That identity-based groups, which
again would be things such as religion,
or ethnicity, or territory.
That would work.
Both of those would be answers that would get you credit.
Putting words in meaning to define social cleavage.
But let's look at a few examples that would not get you credit.
If you said that a social cleavage is
a divide over a political issue, like the divide
over support for Brexit in the UK,
that would not get you credit.
And here's why.
Political issues, or different political parties,
or different stances on a political issue,
that is not a social cleavage.
When you think social cleavage, you
need to think of those important religious, ethnic,
or territory-based divisions.
Just to divide over a political issue,
like those that support Brexit versus those
that are against it, does not count as a social cleavage.
So that would not get credit.
You also would not get credit if you just
said a social cleavage is anything that
divides people in a country.
That is too vague, too general, and not accurate enough
to get you full credit.
So that also would not get credit.
You would need to be more specific.
It's not just anything that divides.
It's those identity-based divisions,
like based on race and religion.
So you want to make sure that you are specific enough,
and that you describe a social cleavage and not
a political issue or a political divide.
Let's move on now to part b.
Part b ask us to describe two different examples
of a politically relevant social cleavage, each one
within a different AP Comparative Government
and Politics course country.
So let's mark up again.
We're being asked to compare.
But in part b, we're describing, which
means to give relevant characteristics of two
different politically relevant social cleavages.
So again, our concepts are social cleavages,
and we'll get to legitimacy in part c.
But here, we're talking about politically relevant
social cleavages.
So let's talk through some examples that
would give you credit.
And there are a lot that we could use here
that would give us credit.
So you could talk about, in China, there
are cleavages between regional areas
that have developed at different rates.
For example, the urban versus rural cleavage in China.
That would give you credit for describing for one country.
You could talk about how in Iran, there
are religious cleavages between the Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.
That would work.
You could talk about how in Mexico, there
are regional cleavages between the industrialized North
and the agrarian South.
That's a good example of a cleavage from Mexico.
Same prompt here, but let's look at a couple of other examples.
What about in Nigeria?
You could say there are ethnic cleavages
between the Hausa-Fulani, the Yoruba, and the Igbo.
That would work.
You've described the three different largest
economic cleavages that exist in the country.
You could say in Russia, there are
cleavages between ethnic Russians, who
tend to be Russian Orthodox, and other ethno-religious
minorities, such as the Chechens.
Or in the UK, there are ethnic regional cleavages
between the Scottish, English, Welsh, and Irish.
Any of those six examples that I've just talked about
would give you credit, because first off, you're
describing as politically relevant social cleavage,
and you're being specific.
You're talking about specific groups that
would be part of that cleavage.
That's important for getting the point for part b.
Now, remind you that before you write
part b and before you decided which two of these six
countries you're going to talk about,
you should have also read part c.
You should do some preplanning before you ever
start writing part b and c, because whatever two countries
you write about in part b, you must write about those same two
countries in part c.
So it's not enough just to say, OK, I know Nigeria and Russia.
So I'm going to write about those for part b.
You need to make sure you can write about Nigeria and Russia
for part c as well.
And you should always choose the countries
that you feel like you have good things and accurate things
to say to answer both part b and part c.
But before we move on to part c, let's
look at a few examples that would not
earn credit for part b.
First off, if you said that one example of a social cleavage
is the multiple ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria,
that would not get you credit.
And here's why.
It's not specific.
It is not specific and descriptive enough.
You would need to describe the ethnic groups,
like, saying the Hausa-Fulani, the Yoruba, the Igbo,
or describe the religious groups in the North
which is predominantly Muslim versus the South
where there are more Christians.
Descriptions are key.
That first answer there would not be specific enough.
Same thing with this one.
Social cleavages in Mexico divide the rich and the poor.
Not specific enough.
You will need to mention that the North is
where there is more wealth and the South
where there's more poverty.
So connecting and describing those more
to get your full credit there.
And then another example that would not
get credit for part b.
A major cleavage in China is between the Han
and other ethnic minorities.
Now you've partially been specific here.
You've said Han.
But you would need to describe another ethnic minority, like,
for example, the Uighur's.
If this had said a major cleavage in China
is between the Han and the Uighur's, that
would have been an answer that would have got credit.
But the way it is written now, it would not.
So make sure you are specific and don't just
describe the category of the cleavage,
but what the actual specific cleavage is.
Now let's move on to part c.
Part c says, explain how the social cleavages either
strengthen or undermine political legitimacy
for each of the two AP Comparative Government
and Politics courses described in part b.
Remember, as I told you earlier, whatever
you wrote about in b, you now have
to stick to those same in c.
So you want to make sure that you chose for part b countries
that you also can write about for part c.
So again, we're comparing the two countries we've chosen.
And we have to explain, which means the how.
We've got to connect the social cleavages
to political legitimacy.
And those are our core terms there.
Let's look at some examples that would get credit.
We could say, in the UK, the regional cleavages
have motivated referendums to devolve government powers
to Scottish and Welsh regional assemblies.
And this responsiveness to local needs
has increased the legitimacy of states.
Notice here that it is a specific connection
between the cleavage government action and increasing
legitimacy that closes the loop.
It connects the cleavage to government action
that increases legitimacy.
Here's another example that would work.
In Nigeria, ethnic cleavages prompted government
institutions to create election rules that
encourage diverse representation, which
has strengthened political unity and legitimacy.
Again, that makes the connection.
The ethnic cleavages led to new election rules,
which increase legitimacy, closing the loop there.
Let's look at two more good examples
with the same prompt and the same topics and task verbs.
For China, you could say that ethnic cleavages
between the Uighur and Han prompt repressive measures
by the government on the Uighur people,
thus, undermining the legitimacy in China.
That works.
Again, you've connected the cleavage to government
action to a lowering of legitimacy.
And finally, you could say, in Mexico, the ethnic cleavages
between the indigenous minority groups
and the majority undermined legitimacy
because the state provided unequal public goods
and services to indigenous people, which stimulated
the Zapatista uprising.
Again, cleavage connected to government action
and a lack of legitimacy and very specific.
All of these would earn you that point of credit.
But let's look now at two responses
that would not earn credit.
If you said, in Russia, legitimacy
is undermined by the gender cleavage
because Russian women do not believe that the government
supports them.
This is missing a piece.
You haven't yet described fully what the cleavage
is as far as gender.
There need to be more clarification there.
And also what is the government policy regarding women that has
led to a lack of legitimacy?
This doesn't close the loop and would not
get that point of credit.
And here's another one that would not
get that point of credit.
Social cleavages between the English, Welsh, and Scottish
means greater representation in the UK, thus,
strengthening political legitimacy.
Again, it's missing that middle step
of what has the government done to respond
to those cleavages that's led to an increase in legitimacy?
Doesn't fully close the loop, does not
earn that point of credit.
So now that we've gone through another practice FRQ 3,
here's the key things to remember when you're
writing this on the AP exam.
Read the prompt carefully, the entire prompt.
Focus on those task verbs.
Choose your countries wisely, because whatever country
you pick for part b, you also have to use for part c.
Make sure you close the loop by clarifying those connections
between concepts and countries.
And always make sure you're comparing
similarities and differences.
Thank you so much for watching today's video.
I hope it was helpful to you in preparing you for the AP exam.
If you need more help, look for resources on AP Classroom
and be sure to click on the next video link
where my colleague Ms. Suzanne Bailey
will be giving you some advice on how to answer
FRQ 4, the argument essay.
Good luck on your exam.