AP® Reader Reflection: 2026 FRQ 3 Argument

The 2026 argument FRQ focused on the following 2009 keynote address quotation by physician, engineer, and former astronaut Mae Jemison: “Never be limited by other people’s limited imaginations. If you adopt their attitudes, then the possibility won’t exist because you’ll have already shut it out.... You can hear other people’s wisdom, but you’ve got to re-evaluate the world for yourself.” Students were directed to develop an argument evaluating the extent to which her claim about considering the opinions of others is valid.

As with most AP® English Language argument prompts, this one asked students to take a position on an abstract concept (considering the opinions of others) and support it with a line of reasoning grounded in specific, often concrete, examples.

Continuing a recent trend, student performance was quite strong, as a higher percentage earned scores of 3 or 4 in row B than scores of 2 or 1. This indicates not only that the prompt was accessible, but also that teachers and students are increasing mastery in developing effective lines of reasoning in the classroom.

Identifying and Addressing the Question at Issue

The first rhetorical move students must make in responding to any FRQ is identifying the implied question presented in the prompt. Regardless of the topic, stasis theory tells us there are generally three possibilities:

• Question of fact (What is the issue? What is its cause?)
• Question of value (Is it hopeful? Exciting? Frightening? Urgent?)
• Question of policy (What should we do about it?)

Effective responses offered a main claim responding directly to the question at issue. Since Jemison’s quote offers three claims, students had options:

• "Never be limited by other people's limited imaginations." (claim of policy)
• "If you adopt their attitudes, then the possibility won't exist because you'll have already shut it out." (claim of fact)
• "You can hear other people's wisdom, but you've got to re-evaluate the world for yourself." (claim of policy)

The imperative to assess the extent to which Jemison's claim is valid invited a value claim as well, so all three stases were available on this year’s task.

Effectively Organizing a Line of Reasoning

We’ve seen an increasing percentage of responses demonstrate evolution beyond templates like the 5-paragraph model, which can be helpful for young writers in very early stages of personal development but eventually become restrictive. Professional writers organize their thinking by considering their claims and their evidence choices, mapping out a line of reasoning via claims, supporting those claims with examples, explaining the relevance of those examples, and only then deciding upon paragraph breaks. While it makes sense to present each supporting reason as a single lengthy paragraph, many op-ed columns offer two to three supporting reasons in 19 or 20 short paragraphs. Neither approach is inherently better than the other, but it’s important for students to understand that paragraph breaks are a rhetorical choice.

Organizing an effective line of reasoning, then, involves:

• responding to the question at issue with a main claim (part of the thesis)
• supporting the main claim with sub-claims (reasons, at least two of which will form a line)
• providing evidence to support each sub-claim along with the main claim
• explaining the relevance of all evidence
• concluding with another main claim (again, part of the thesis)

Concluding by simply restating the main claim has become a much less common misstep in recent years, indicating stronger mastery of rhetorical theory in AP classrooms. Many of the more sophisticated responses opened with a main claim of fact or value and concluded with a claim of policy. Effectively varying the stasis of claims throughout a response often earns the sophistication point for “making effective rhetorical choices which consistently strengthen the force and impact of the student’s argument.” This, in part, explains why approximately ten percent of the nation has earned the Row C point on FRQ 3 the last two years, a significant increase over the five to six percent typical of the first four years of the analytic rubrics.

Using Claims to Generate Evidence

While counterintuitive, stasis theory offers a helpful strategy for using claims to generate evidence in a testing environment that prohibits internet research. Popular mnemonics like REHUGO can sometimes only exacerbate the problem as students work their way through the acronym. Anxiety often grows with each category that doesn’t readily generate specific examples. Responding to the prompt from each of the three stases can be more helpful:

Claim of fact (cause): Considering the opinions of others often creates unfair expectations. 

• Examples this claim might reveal: times in my life I’ve experienced this, friends who’ve experienced it

Claim of value: When you trust the person offering them, considering the opinions of others can be highly beneficial. 

• Examples: Michael Jordan taking Coach Phil Jackson’s advice; personal experience

Claim of policy: We should consider the opinions of others only to an extent.

• Examples: social media serving as motivation in some contexts but an anxiety driver in others

This practice also helps students strengthen awareness of the many ways claims and evidence (big idea #2) work in service of each other in any rhetorical situation.

Effectively Employing Counterarguments

While many students included counterarguments in their responses, they were often contrived, as if included simply as a requirement. Students would do well to recognize that writers have specific audience-focused goals in mind when making this rhetorical choice. At least five different purposes can help a response explore complexity or tension, one of the Row C metrics:

• Building Trust and Credibility (Ethos)
  • Acknowledging that other perspectives have merit shows your audience you’ve done your homework. Readers are much more likely to trust an objective guide than a biased salesman.
• Neutralizing Your Opponent’s Best Weapons
  • Bringing up a counterargument yourself allows you to frame it on your own terms, effectively disarming the opposition.
• Strengthening Your Main Points
  • Introducing a counterargument and then successfully refuting it proves your thesis can survive a real-world stress test.
• Demonstrating Fairness and Intellectual Maturity
  • This signals to skeptical readers that you respect their perspective, making them much more open to hearing yours.
• Preventing Confirmation Bias
  • Sometimes, articulating the other side's best point helps you refine, sharpen, or even pivot your own stance for the better.

One highly accessible way to invite students to consider these purposes is to have them explain why the issue is not that simple. This implied question generates more nuanced responses to the question at issue.