Question

ap seminar 2023 free - response questions
liv yousif
ap seminar
part a
suggested time — 30 minutes
directions: read the following passage and then respond to prompts a1, a2, and a3.
a1. identify the authors argument, main idea, or thesis. (3 points)
a2. explain the authors line of reasoning by identifying the claims used to build the argument and the connections between them. (6 points)
a3. evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence the author uses to support the claims made in the argument. (6 points)
from “why full - day kindergarten is failing our children.”
by charlie gillis (macleans, october 31, 2013)
when german educator friedrich fröebel opened the worlds first kindergartens in the mid - 1800s, he frequently found himself at odds with suspicious government officials. prussia, for example, banned his schools in 1851, characterizing them as hotbeds of socialist subversion and radicalism.
how things have changed. today, most governments want more kindergarten, not less. even the traditional half - day programs arent enough. five - year - olds in british columbia, quebec, new brunswick, nova scotia and prince edward island all attend full - day kindergarten. ontario is currently in the fourth year of a five - year rollout for full - day junior and senior kindergarten, meaning kids as young as three attend school all day, five days a week. in those provinces without full - day programs, demands are heard regularly.
yet despite the popularity of full - day kindergarten, particularly among working parents and teachers unions, the actual benefit it provides to the children themselves is still hotly debated.
this september, on the first day of the school year, the ontario government claimed conclusive evidence of full - day kindergartens advantages was finally at hand, thanks to a pair of academic studies it commissioned. “in every area, students improved their readiness for grade 1 and accelerated their development,” a provincial news release declared. education minister liz sandals called the results, which tracked students in both half - and full - day kindergarten over two years, “nothing short of incredible.”
this news was immediately hailed by supporters of the concept. charles pascal, the driving force behind ontarios full - day program, said “it shows the program is truly a life - changer.” in a front - page story, the globe and mail dubbed it a “landmark study.”
and yet there was no study to read, landmark or otherwise. the hype and excitement came from a few bullet points selectively released by the province. the actual reports were nowhere to be seen. the reason for this reticence is now apparent.
go on to the next page
© 2023 college board.
visit college board on the web: collegeboard.com

Explanation:

A1. The author's argument is that despite the popularity of full - day kindergarten, especially among working parents and teachers' unions, the actual benefit it provides to children is still hotly debated, and the Ontario government's claim of conclusive evidence for its advantages is not well - supported as the actual reports were not made available.
A2. The author first notes the historical opposition to kindergartens and then contrasts it with the current widespread demand for full - day kindergarten. The claim about the lack of actual evidence for Ontario's full - day kindergarten advantage is built on the fact that the so - called landmark study's reports were not released, only bullet points were selectively shared.
A3. The evidence is ineffective. The Ontario government's claim is based on a pair of academic studies that were not made public. Selective release of bullet points does not constitute strong evidence to support the claim of full - day kindergarten's advantages.

Answer:

A1. The actual benefit of full - day kindergarten to children is debated and Ontario's evidence claim is weak.
A2. Historical contrast and lack of access to full study reports build the argument.
A3. The evidence is ineffective due to non - disclosure of full studies.