Note: I have helped walk my students through an AP prompt (Rachel Carson, 2004 Form B, Question 1).
The following shows the activities and Directed Reading and Teaching Activity that I have done with my
students (in addition to giving them the official prompt from AP Central). I also have shown them my
response, trying to show that someone can write a well-reasoned response without having to use the
difficult AP terms (like zeugma and epizeuxis, for example).
AP Prompt, Carson (DRTA)
Frontloading/Anticipation Activity:
Journal. Look at the following list of words: “habit of killing,” “merits of killing,” “mission of death,”
“casualty list,” “doomed,” “escaped death,” “lethal film,” “needless war,” “chains of poisoning,” “everwidening wave of death,” “unselective bludgeon,” “sterile world,” “authoritarian temporarily entrusted
with power,” “a moment of inattention by millions”
Write ideas/images/stories that come to mind based on these words. Then brainstorm what a short article
that includes these words might be about.
Purpose:






Learn some of the “rules of notice” for reading AP prompts (and other materials).
Discuss/notice the importance of diction, and how word choice creates/affects an argument.
Think about the importance of “negative space” and bringing up things that are not counted or can’t be
seen.
Think about opposing views and how an author may exaggerate or mis-characterize her opposition.
Notice audience and purpose in this particular speech, and gain ideas on how to read for such in the future.
Feel well-prepared with ideas to respond to this AP prompt.
Activities:
Journal & discussion
Brief discussion of what “rules of notice” are
Directed (and individual) reading of Carson’s AP excerpt and my guides
Role-playing
Discussion of DRTA and role-playing & discussion of how changed students’ reading
Discussion of notes/outline for AP prompts
Students create notes/outlines
Write response (in class or as homework) to the prompt
2004 AP English Language and Composition FRQ
Suggested time—40 minutes.
In 1962, the noted biologist Rachel Carson published
Silent Spring, a book that helped to transform American
attitudes toward the environment. Carefully read the
following passage from Silent Spring. Then write an essay
in which you define the central argument of the passage
and analyze the rhetorical strategies that Carson uses to
construct her argument.
A.P.= “answer the prompt.” Often the prompt has
2 parts, as is the case here (“central argument” and
“rhetorical strategies”). Think carefully about the
prompt’s hints/words. “Argument” suggests
Carson is arguing/trying to convince someone of
something, likely trying to motivate someone to do
something. Whenever you see “Argument,” you
might also plan to look for ethos, pathos, and logos
(among other options). Word choice is often also
key. “Central” means key/main point and it also
suggests it’s a point that comes up several times.
“Rhetorical strategies” refer to techniques in
writing to move an audience, such as our vocab.
terms, aspects of SOAPSTONE, etc. (for example:
diction, organization, evidence, repetition, pathos,
ethos, etc.). “Analyze” is also part of the prompt,
and it suggests the AP readers want you to break
down Carson’s speech and point to particular
things she does and the patterns they create.
Notice the title of Carson’s book. Titles are “rules
of notice.”
As the habit of killing grows—the resort to
“eradicating” any creature that may annoy or
inconvenience us—birds are more and more finding
themselves a direct target of poisons rather than incidental
one. There is a growing trend toward aerial applications
of such deadly poisons as parathion to “control”
concentrations of birds distasteful to farmers. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has found it necessary to express
serious concern over this trend, pointing out that
“parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to
humans, domestic animals, and wildlife.” In southern
Indiana, for example, a group of farmers went together in
the summer of 1959 to engage a spray plane to treat an
area of river bottomland with parathion. The area was a
favored roosting site for thousands of blackbirds that were
feeding in nearby cornfields. The problem could have
been solved easily by a slight change in agricultural
practice—a shift to a variety of corn with deep-set ears
not accessible to the bird—but the farmers had been
persuaded of the merits of killing by poison and so they
sent in the planes on their mission of death.
The results probably gratified the farmers, for
the casualty list included some 65,000 red-winged
blackbirds and starlings. What other wildlife deaths may
have gone unnoticed and unrecorded is not known.
Starting sentences are usually important and are a
“rule of notice.” Note in particular Carson’s word
choice (I’ve added the italics). Would the farmers
who used the pesticide agree with her word
choice? How does her word choice influence your
response on this issue? What is she implying with
her word choice, or what arguments are
understood if you accept her word choice?
Notice the underlined words (I’ve added the
underlining). How do these words/phrases provide
ethos (credibility) to Carson?
Note the quote. Authors are very careful about
what they choose to quote, usually paraphrasing is
good enough. If they quote, it’s usually a strong
phrase or they think it will bolster their argument
by having their source give the actual words.
Notice the bolded words (I added.). What might
she not be telling us? How do you think the
farmers would respond to her characterization of
their choice/actions?
Why does she introduce something unknown/not
Parathion is not a specific for blackbirds: it is a universal
killer. But such rabbits or raccoons or opossums as may
have roamed those bottomlands and perhaps never visited
the farmers’ cornfields were doomed by a judge and jury
who neither knew of their existence nor cared.
And what of human beings? In California
orchards sprayed with this same parathion, workers
handling foliage that had been treated a month [italics are
Carson’s] earlier collapsed and went into shock, and
escaped death only through skilled medical attention.
Does Indiana still raise any boys who roam through woods
or fields and might even explore the margins of a river? If
so, who guarded the poisoned area to keep out any who
might wander in, in misguided search for unspoiled
nature? Who kept vigilant watch to tell the innocent
stroller that the fields he was about to enter were deadly—
all their vegetation coated with a lethal film? Yet at so
fearful a risk the farmers, with none to hinder them, waged
their needless war on blackbirds.
recorded? (The unexpected—such as telling us
something that didn’t occur—is a “rule of notice.”)
What does the “or” (polysyndeton) add? Why did
she choose these animals, as compared to snakes,
rats, skunks, crocodiles, etc.?
Continue to notice word choice, such as “casualty
list,” “roamed,” “doomed,” etc.
Why telling us what did not happen? What is
another way of telling what did occur? Or what
facts are here?
Why would she choose “roam” again after using it
also in the last paragraph? How does she
characterize these boys (who are likely
trespassing)? What words does she use to
characterize them and their search?
Why so many questions in a row? What emotion
does she want us to feel? And what might her aim
be? (When the syntax really changes—such as
with a list of questions—this is a “rule of notice.”)
Often, speeches are supposed to motivate, and the
end reveals the plan/goal. What seems to be
Carson’s point at the end of this paragraph? Who
do you think her primary audience is, and what is
it she wants them to do?
How would the farmers react to her word
choice/characterization (such as “needless war”)?
In each of these situations, one turns away to
ponder the question: Who has made the decision that sets
in motion these chains of poisoning, this ever-widening
wave of death that spreads out, like ripples when a pebble
is dropped into a still pond? Who has placed in one pan of
the scales the leaves that might have been eaten by the
beetles and in the other the pitiful heaps of many-hued
feathers, the lifeless remains of the birds that fell before
the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons? Who
has decided—who has the right [italics are Carson’s] to
decide—for the countless legions of people who were not
consulted that the supreme value is a world without
insects, even though it be also a sterile world ungraced by
the curving wing of a bird in flight? The decision is that of
the authoritarian temporarily entrusted with power; he has
made it during a moment of inattention by millions to
whom beauty and the ordered world of nature still have a
meaning that is deep and imperative.
Images are often important (and can be a “rule of
notice”). What does her image suggest? What
word choices are important here?
Notice how she characterizes/makes us imagine
the birds.
Notice the many words that deal with death, war,
terror that she uses. (If you notice a theme/pattern
with word choice, this is an important “rule of
notice.”)
Notice the repetition of “who” and “decide.”
Often repeated words are important (and are a
“rule of notice”).
She suggests the farmers want a world without
insects and a sterile world. Is that a fair
characterization? Notice also the poetic wording
for the bird imagery. How might the farmers
describe these birds that are likely eating their
crops?
The ending is a “rule of notice” and is often the
moment for the “call to action.” What seems to be
Carson’s main interest or call to action? Who is
her primary audience she hopes to reach? How
does she help characterize them/create them? (If
the ending helps you to figure out her audience,
you may want to skim over her excerpt again with
this audience/call in mind.)
After reading the passage, get into groups of 4. Have two people play farmers and two people play Rachel Carson.
What will the farmers take issue with? What wording and arguments from her excerpt will they want to point out?
What arguments will they have? Create a discussion, based on this excerpt and your own common sense and
imagination, as to how this conversation would likely play out.
Now, whoever acted as the farmers will act as Carson(s). This time, the earlier Carson characters will be apathetic
people and/or busy city people who are not necessarily pro-environment. Carson needs to try and convince them to
care about this issue, and the apathetic/busy people will respond in whatever way you feel is appropriate.
After going through the role plays, we will discuss as a class. Afterwards, return to the prompt and do some
notes/outlining to prepare to write for this AP passage. Also, think about what stood out to you through my hints or
through the role plays that you might have overlooked if you had read it on your own. I’ll give you time to share or
write thoughts on this question.
After students have had the chance to brainstorm, outline, and write their response, I have shared my response with
them, which follows.
Example response to Carson’s AP prompt. I wrote this in the allotted 40 minutes. A student asked me if it was
necessary to use all the fancy terms (such as polysyndeton, juxtaposition, and diction) to respond to the AP
questions. I tried to show that as long as one’s thought process was clear and evidence insightful and strong, one
could still write a strong analysis without using the fancy terms. —Shauna McPherson, Lone Peak HS AP
Language teacher
Rachel Carson’s world is black and white. The farmers’ actions cause them to be the enemy;
nature and all on her side are the good guys. The incident is not a grey one, not a complex one, from
Carson’s view. And it is imperative and urgent that laypersons—lovers of nature—right this wrong and
take on the enemy: the pesticide-utilizing farmer. Carson’s portrait of the incident, the farmers, and her
audience aids in her appeal. (Her diction and pathos, in particular, move her audience to agree with her.)
Carson’s passage, from her book Silent Springs, argues against farmers’ use of pesticides—
particularly aerial pesticides, such as parathion. She argues that such pesticides are unnecessary and
extremely dangerous. They not only eliminate the pest in question (reason alone for Carson to decry
them), but they can harm or kill other animal-life, wildlife, and humans. Carson utilizes a quote from The
Fish and Wildlife Service to back up her claim. In addition, her naming of the actual pesticide, her
information about an incident of its use in Indiana, and her use of statistics with the avian deaths all
contribute to her credibility. She appears knowledgeable about the situation, the animals, and their
habitats.
In explaining the problem, Rachel Carson appeals to her audience with strong word choice and
emotion. She characterizes the farmers who use pesticides as heartless killers. She refers to their actions
to eliminate the birds that attack their crops with emotionally-charged language: “the merits of killing,”
“mission of death,” “a universal killer,” “escaped death,” “lethal film,” “wave of death,” “doomed,” and
“bludgeon.” Obviously, she guides her audience to feel fear and distaste for those who would harm
“unspoiled nature,” the land where cute animals (“rabbits or raccoons or opossums”) frolic and “roam.”
Carson blames the farmers not just for the deaths that occurred, but those that might have occurred, and
those that nearly occurred. Additionally, Carson can see no reason why such killing could be warranted;
she offers no concessions to her opponents’ view and adds evidence that the issue “could have been
solved easily” (emphasis added) through a change in which variety of corn was grown. From the farmers’
views, perhaps there is a valid reason why such an agricultural change was not feasible or desired, but
Carson does not provide such information, or anything for that matter that might shift her portrayal from
the black-and-white to the grey. Indeed, she portrays the farmers as killing thousands of birds simply
because they were “annoy[ed]” and “inconvenience[d].” In fact, she says, they were likely “gratified”
with the results of the large “casualty list.” (If they were gratified, it was to have the crops free from
harm, but Carson’s phrasing makes the farmers sound gleeful with the death of the birds.) They likewise
likely did not care about any other animals killed as a side-effect of the pesticide, according to Carson.
(Most farmers are likely in the profession because they have a healthy respect—or even joy—in the
outdoors, in working with animals and nature. But, Carson wouldn’t mind if we forgot that. In her view,
the farmers are an unfeeling and inhumane group, united in their violence against nature, the defenseless,
and the common man.) The farmers and their desire for a “sterile,” lifeless world are contrasted with the
meaningful, joyous world of nature.
In Carson’s argument, nature and the audience are both the good guys. Nature is portrayed as a
place where cuddly critters “roam.” When she portrays animals that may have died (for which she can
offer no statistics), she does not choose snakes, skunks, and rats, but rabbits, raccoons, and opossums.
Her phrasing of the animals, additionally, focuses the audience on each one: they are not presented as a
group (such as “rabbits, raccoons, and opossums”) but as individuals: “rabbits or raccoons or opossums”
so that the emotional appeal and loss is felt with each “or.” Additionally, Carson connects these roaming,
collateral-damage animals with boys who might “roam through woods or fields” or “explore the margins
of a river.” If her word choice of “roam” and “explore” were not enough to paint an idyllic, Huck-Finn
like existence, she brings the point home by calling such wanderings a “search for unspoiled nature.”
Unspoiled nature can be the home of destruction, death, and terror (earthquakes, fire, tsunami, hurricanes,
deadly plants and insects, wild predators, etc.), but Carson wants no connotations with nature that might
taint it and cause her listeners to think of the need to tame it. Instead, her nature—and those who love
it—is a place where “the curving wing of a bird in flight” graces our existence.
Carson looks for—and creates—an audience who values nature. In addition, she appeals to the
common individual’s desire to fight the machine, the system (in Jack Black’s words: “the man”).
Basically, she appeals to her audience’s desire to make a difference in the world. She sets up her case as
urgent, and shows that—without our intervention—such death will continue and perhaps even spread like
ripples, in a “wave of death1.” She argues that the farmers create a “needless” hazard to all because they
have “none to hinder them” (emphasis added). They are authoritarians who have mistakenly been
entrusted with a power that they have abused due to “the inattention” of millions. Clearly, Carson wants
her audience to feel an urgent sense to act. Such action will show that they are indeed not “inattentive”
but instead the force that stops tyranny. And the force for whom “beauty and the ordered world of nature
still have a meaning that is deep and imperative.” Carson’s final word in this essay (“imperative”) not
only shows the power nature holds in her life—and the life of her imagined audience; it also subtly
underscores her audience’s imperative to act; to save our springs2 from turning silent.
Her “wave of death” idea suggests a slippery slope fallacy. She does not merely contend against the use
of parathion but argues that it can lead to much larger and greater events. And if we halt this problem, we
have stopped even greater, unimaginable forms of tyranny.
1
Carson’s title powerfully empowers nature. A spring of water is a force of life, a place for renewal. The
season of spring is symbolically a time of rebirth and life. With such connotations, how can one allow
such a spring to become silent?
2