Frequently Asked Questions about the AP U.S. History Exam Rubrics
April 2016
The questions below were submitted by members of the AP U.S. History Teacher Community in
early March 2016. They cover many different aspects of the AP history rubrics for the
document-based question and the long essay question. Our thanks to everyone who asked us
questions — they really give us the opportunity to help prepare teachers and students for
success on the AP Exam.
The answers in this module were developed by AP U.S. History Development Committee
members and Reading leaders. They have been closely involved in scoring the student samples
that we’ve made available this year in our online exam scoring practice modules.
This document will go through the document-based question (DBQ) rubric first and then the
long essay question (LEQ) rubric, addressing each section of each rubric in turn. It will address
each question in the order in which the different points are laid out in the rubrics. Some of the
points, such as synthesis, are earned in the same or similar ways on both rubrics.
The first points are in section A of the DBQ rubric: thesis and argument development. This
section is worth two points. Students will earn one point for presenting a thesis that makes a
historically defensible claim and responds to all parts of the question. Students will earn
another point for developing and supporting a cohesive argument that recognizes and accounts
for historical complexity by explicitly illustrating relationships among historical evidence, such
as contradiction, corroboration, and/or qualification.
Question 1
My big question is the second point for argument development in the DBQ rubric where a
student is asked to "develop and support a cohesive argument that recognizes and accounts for
historical complexity by explicitly illustrating relationships among historical evidence such as
contradiction, corroboration, and/or qualification." Does this mean that students need to
directly compare documents one or more times in the DBQ?
Answer
The basic answer is yes, but let’s take the instructions for earning the Argument Development
point and break them down a bit.
First, the student must “develop and support a cohesive argument.” Cohesive refers to the
structure of the essay and the argument the response is making. Is it clearly organized? Or is it
muddled and hard to follow?
Second, the instructions ask students to “recognize and account for historical complexity.” A
point is not awarded to a response that simply arranges the documents into some kind of
organizational structure: the response must also make a complex argument. For example, in an
essay about the British North American colonies, the essay could not just argue “life was hard
for the colonists.” That is not a historically complex understanding of the material. Nor could a
student argue, “New England was very religious.” Any elementary school student should be
able to tell you that.
So, how do students make this historically complex argument? The next part of the instructions
suggests that students should “illustrate relationships among historical evidence such as
contradiction, corroboration, and/or qualification.” In the paragraphs in the body of the essay,
students should demonstrate an understanding of the relationships of the historical evidence.
Perhaps documents 2, 3, and 6 all help to support the same argument and then documents 1
and 4 can corroborate a secondary argument. But then, in the next paragraph, the student
recognizes that documents 5 and 7 suggest that something else entirely is going on, and will
qualify the arguments made earlier in the essay. In making the argument, the student can make
a cohesive, historically complex argument that demonstrates contradiction, corroboration,
and/or qualification with the evidence.
Question 2
Can the contradiction simply be a phrase or reference? Or like the others, must it be multiple
sentences or a full paragraph?
Answer
No, it can’t be a phrase or reference. As explained above, the essay needs to be cohesive —
meaning that it is well organized and that all parts of the essay make sense and are clear. So the
argument development point is not awarded for merely a sentence or a phrase or even a really
good paragraph but, rather, for an entire essay that explains the relationship of historical
evidence to a complex and cohesive argument.
Next is section B of the DBQ rubric: document analysis. Students can earn one point for utilizing
the content of at least six of the documents to support the stated thesis or a relevant
argument. Students can earn the other point by explaining the significance of the author’s point
of view, author’s purpose, historical context, and/or audience for at least four documents.
Question 3
[W]hat is expected from students when they analyze a document for one of the four categories
[author’s point of view, author’s purpose, historical context, audience]? Some argue that
"Explains the significance of" is too vague and could lead to students merely identifying the
particular category ("the intended audience is...") while others argue that "explain[ing] the
significance" points to the essay's argument/thesis itself. In other words, the analysis of the four
documents in one of these categories must by supportive of the essay's argument. Can we get
some clarity on "Explains the significance" please?
Answer
First, the requirement that the documents be used to support the stated argument is only for
the first document analysis point, not the second.
For the second point, the only requirement is that students explain the significance of an
element such as historical context, author’s point of view, purpose, or audience. The rubric
does not define how a student can do this. But the student DOES have to explain why knowing
this background information about the author or text helps inform their reading of a text.
What this means in practice will depend on the point being made about the document. For
example, a student analyzing James Madison’s Virginia Resolution of 1798, which seeks to
curtail the power of the federal government, might explain why it’s important to know that this
document was written by Madison, a critical author of the Constitution as well as Federalist No.
10. This could potentially provide the significance of historical context for an understanding of
this document.
Question 4
For the second document analysis point, “should students be giving the HAPP [author’s point of
view, author’s purpose, historical context, audience] and significance for 4 documents to receive
the point, or should they be giving the HAPP for 6-7 while also adding the significance for 4 of
those documents?”
Answer
Yes to the first part of the question; no to the second. The answer to this question requires that
we look closely again at the rubric for document analysis. For the first point, students use
the content from six of the documents in support of their thesis or argument. For example, if
there is a document providing a Ku Klux Klan member’s views on social issues, and in their essay
a student discusses the Klan member’s position on social issues, the student is just addressing
the content of that document. Doing so would count toward the first point document analysis
point but not the second.
For the second point, students need to explain the significance of the historical context,
intended audience, purpose, or point of view for four of the documents — or in other words,
why context, audience, purpose, or point of view is important to understanding the importance
or significance of the document. Historical context in the example just used could be provided
by explaining that the Klan member’s statements can be understood in light of the numerical
rise and power of the Klan in the 1920s, its position on issues such as immigration restriction,
and so on. Students need to add insight about the document, going beyond the information
that is provided in the document itself or its source line. This kind of analysis needs to be done
for only 4 of the documents to receive the second document analysis point.
Next, section C of the DBQ rubric focuses on using evidence beyond the documents. Student
can earn one point for contextualization if they situate the argument by explaining the broader
historical events, developments, or processes immediately relevant to the question. Students
can earn a second point by providing an example or additional piece of specific evidence
beyond those found in the documents to support or qualify the argument.
Question 5
If a student places contextualization in their introduction and it leads into their thesis, I've read
that they will only get a point for the thesis and not for the contextualization. This is apparently
known as the double-dipping rule. Is this accurate?
Answer
No, this is not quite accurate. First of all, we should mention that since contextualization can be
earned by explaining broader historical events, developments, or processes immediately
relevant to the question, there is no reason that it couldn’t be awarded if it appears in the
introductory paragraph. Contextualization can be successfully performed anywhere in the
response.
The deeper question is what the “double dipping” rule means, and how it would apply to
material that might appear in an introduction. This rule states that one element of an essay
cannot fulfill two separate dimensions of the rubric.
The “double-dipping rule” might come into play in the example you gave IF the information a
student gives in their introduction is so tightly integrated with the thesis or claim they’re
making about the question they were asked that it basically becomes the claim itself. For
example, a student who simply states in their thesis that the Civil War was a turning point
because of differences from the antebellum period would have to say more about the
antebellum period in its own right to earn a contextualization point. So a response might get
the point for contextualization by presenting a fuller accounting of the antebellum period in
one or more separate sentences that precede the thesis.
Question 6
I would like some clarification that my understanding of historic contextualization (as one of the
points on the DBQ) is on track. … After looking closely at the rubric, am I correct in
understanding that contextualization could be either a summary of relevant issues in the period
immediately before the topic OR a summary of relevant issues connected to that topic but
within that same period?
For example,
For a continuity/ change question on FDR and role of federal government, can students give an
overview of the causes of the Depression OR do they need to go back to the 1920's and point out
the economic trends that played a role in the Depression?
For a causes/ effects question on the Populist movement/ changes for farmers in the Gilded Age,
can students earn the point by simply explaining economic/ industrialism/ technological
changes that characterized the Gilded Age, or should they be going back to the Civil War
explaining some of the roots of industrialism?
For a question on continuity/change related to isolationism following WW1 (such as 2014 DBQ, I
believe), I would assume it would be best to simply give an overview of US involvement in WW1,
but could they go back to imperialism/ Spanish-American War? Is that too far back and thus not
immediately relevant? A discussion of Washington's Farewell Address would be synthesis, not
contextualization, correct?
Answer
Contextualization can be an explanation of relevant issues in the period immediately before the
time period of the question or of issues within that time period; however, student responses
must be sure to connect the explanation of the issues to the argument being made in the essay.
This question asks about a number of possible ways to earn this point, so we’ll look at them in
turn. For your question on continuity and change with the federal government during the
Depression, yes, students could discuss the causes of the Depression and then link those causes
to the government response. A student response could also use the approach that the
economics of the twenties set up the Depression, but again, that needs to be linked to the
argument being made. If they just discussed the cultural aspects of the twenties, such as the
flappers, the Scopes trial, prohibition, and so on, then that would not qualify for the
contextualization point. Those issues aren’t immediately relevant to the question at hand, as
required by the rubric for this point.
For a question on the Populists, yes, students could go back to the Civil War to explain the roots
of industrialism, although there is a risk that they will get lost in that period and not get to the
heart of a question about the Populists. Instead, explaining the economic/technological
changes in the Gilded Age could easily be linked to the causes of the Populist Movement.
Remember, it is important to link the context to the argument.
For the question on continuity/change related to isolationism following World War I, yes,
students could certainly go back to imperialism or the Spanish-American War because the
isolationist response after World War I was also in part due to the imperialistic push that
culminated in World War I.
On the other hand, a discussion of Washington’s Farewell Address in an answer to this question
would probably only work as synthesis, not contextualization, in an essay about World War I. It
occurs too far prior to World War I to be “immediately relevant” to the question, as required by
the rubric for contextualization.
Question 7
The rubric [for contextualization] says "situates the argument by explaining broader historical
events, processes or developments immediately relevant to the question"; much conversation
here has revolved around "immediately relevant to the question". I felt that "broader" and
"immediately relevant" were contradictory. "Immediately relevant" to me means evidence in
support of the thesis, hence the difficulty deciding what constitutes the difference between
evidence and context.
My impression of situating the argument by explaining broader events, etc. would be, for
example, discussion of the Populist Movement on a question about the reasons for the success
or lack of success of labor unions in the Gilded Age. The Populists are not "immediately relevant"
to labors' lack of success but a discussion of them would situate the argument in a larger
picture. On the other hand, government action and inaction are immediately relevant and seem
to be vital evidence.
Answer
For contextualization, the events, processes, or developments are simply “broader” by the
virtue of going beyond the topic asked about in the question itself. The phrase “immediately
relevant to the question” relates to the historical forces that were in play immediately before
and during the situation referenced in the question, and that relate to that situation. Students
need to explain how those forces are relevant.
Thus, in the example of a question regarding labor issues in the Gilded Age, it could be
appropriate for an essay to explain the interplay of the forces of industrialization, immigration,
or government support for the expansion of industries such as the railroads. The requirement
that these developments be “immediately relevant” would give students some flexibility to
perhaps show how changes that started during the Civil War period influenced labor issues in
the Gilded Age. It might be harder, however, to show how geographical factors were
“immediately relevant” to labor issues in this time period.
Since you ask specifically about Populism, that would depend a great deal on how a student
uses it. A discussion of Populism that explains the parallel issues faced by movements
challenging corporate power in this time period might succeed as contextualization; one that
simply mentioned the Populists would not.
Of course, as you rightly point out, it’s important to know that the rubric allows multiple ways
of earning this point, ensuring that stronger writers are not penalized for not following one
specific formula, and that good historical argumentation is rewarded in the scoring.
Question 8
Do the students earn the point for simply ONE additional piece of evidence?
Is it true that evidence used for contextualization or synthesis will not count for evidence? Will
they get credit for this point if they already showed analysis during the Document Analysis
portion of the rubric?
Or do they have to write an entirely different sentence to "explain how that evidence supports
or qualifies the argument."
Answer
To answer the first question, the rubric for evidence beyond the documents does say “an
example or additional piece of evidence,” so yes, one additional piece of evidence would suffice
to earn the point.
About your second and third questions, the rubric states that unique pieces of evidence must
be used to fulfill the requirements for each different point on the rubric. This means that
information counted toward providing historical context for a document, for example, cannot
be double-counted to also give credit for evidence beyond the documents, for
contextualization, or for synthesis.
And finally, yes, the point for evidence beyond the documents is only earned when the
response uses an additional piece of evidence to support or qualify the argument. This would
most likely be provided in a separate sentence from one that provides document analysis.
Question 9
Can a student earn "outside information" credit if they use six of the seven documents, and then
present information that would have been "historical context" directly related to (but not
explicitly stated in) the seventh document, which they had omitted from the essay?
Answer
This is a difficult situation to address in the abstract. The purpose of the “evidence beyond the
documents” rubric point is to recognize information that the student provides that is not
contained in any of the documents. If the response merely repeats or paraphrases material
contained in one of the documents, your example wouldn’t suffice to receive a point for
evidence beyond the documents. However, if it provides contextualizing information about a
seventh document, it could potentially earn this point. It would really depend on exactly how
the student used this example.
The final section of the DBQ rubric is synthesis, which is defined in the same way on both DBQ
and LEQ rubrics. For the AP U.S. History Exam, students can earn this point by extending the
argument to explain the connections between the argument and one of the following: a
development in a different historical period, situation, era or geographical area; or a course
theme and/or approach to history that is not the focus of the essay.
Question 10
In order to earn synthesis by applying the essay’s argument to a different category of historical
analysis, must the essay (in the prompt, or in the thesis) explicitly state the essay’s primary
categories of historical analysis? As in, must the prompt ask for “political and economic causes”
before the student could expand the discussion to social causes in an effort to earn synthesis?
Answer
No, the primary category doesn’t need to be explicitly present in the prompt for students to
receive a synthesis point for addressing a different category. However, students should be very
clear on what categories they are using for the bulk of their argument. The category they use
for synthesis should be different and discrete from the rest of the essay argument. Including it
in the thesis can be problematic and potentially viewed as part of the argument, thus off limits
for the synthesis point. If the essay prompt does not call out categories, students can still earn
the synthesis point approaching it this way, but they must be careful not to mix up the two
things.
Question 11
Please explain the second way of getting the synthesis point: "A course theme and/or approach
to history that is not the focus of the essay (such as political, economic, social, cultural, or
intellectual history)" as well as some possible strategies for students to use in forming their
response. My understanding of this part of the rubric is that an essay topic over the causes or
impacts of Industrialization would obviously imply a focus on the economy (or, more
consistently with the wording/focus of the redesign, the Theme of Work, Exchange, &
Technology, WXT). However, since the causes or impacts of industrialization could encompass
nearly all of the other APUSH themes, how should the student best identify where their thesis &
essay "ends" and where their synthesis "begins?
Answer
You are correct — industrialization does, in fact, encompass a wide variety of themes. The key
to earning the synthesis point would lie in the structure of the essay. You should encourage
your students to focus on one or two key areas of change, such as in the realm of politics with
the rise of business leaders’ influence over Congress and civil service reform. That would clearly
establish a focus for the essay, and would certainly provide enough opportunities to integrate
specific evidence to earn the argumentation points. But when it comes to the synthesis
element, it makes sense that in the concluding paragraphs, the students could then emphasize
a different approach, such as women’s history, cultural history, and so on.
Question 12
Do examples of synthesis on the AP U.S. History Exam only have to come from U.S. history to
count? Can they come from European history or world history?
Answer
Yes: students can earn the point by drawing on whatever evidence they may have at their
disposal, and drawing connections from European history or world history would certainly
demonstrate the student’s facility with creating synthetic arguments. So connections to other
parts of the world, if valid, will receive a point for synthesis. However, students taking a U.S.
History course may not have as strong a command of developments in other parts of the world,
depending on how much depth students have gone into them in this and other courses. So you
may want students to get into the habit of connecting to topics that they know about
particularly well and practicing making connections to other developments within your course.
One way of doing this might be to make connections to other geographic regions within the
United States or North America that are not mentioned in the question.
Question 13
Can a synthesis example come from an event not long after the one being discussed in the
prompt? E.g., the Seven Years’ War and the American Revolution?
Answer
As is the case for many of these questions, the short answer is: “It depends.” It depends almost
entirely on the strength of the argument made in the body of the essay and clarity of writing. If
the argument is well structured and specific, with solid evidence, then the response might earn
the synthesis point by extending its argument to address a historical example that is not far
separated from the period or event in question. However, the student should clearly distinguish
this extension of the argument from the main argument they’re making in the rest of the
response.
Since this can be tricky for students to grasp, I’d recommend that students practice extending
their argument by explaining an example that is clearly separated in time from the period or
event in the heart of the essay. This would make it clear that the student intends the example
to be used to demonstrate synthesis.
Question 14
Can a synthesis example come from a current event (e.g. the 2016 election)?
Answer
While students can be encouraged to use history in classroom discussions of current events,
they should be cautious about making glib comparisons about things that are still going on.
Even historians haven’t drawn firm conclusions about them yet. A connection to the present
might earn the synthesis point, but as mentioned earlier with the connection to other parts of
the world, students are probably better served by writing about topics that they know well —
which hopefully are the historical topics that they learned about in depth in your class, not
current events.
As mentioned above, many of the issues and answers for the DBQ rubric could also apply to the
LEQ rubric. The following are a few questions that are specifically about the LEQ.
Section A is the thesis component of the LEQ rubric. As with the DBQ rubric, students can earn
one point by presenting a thesis that makes a historically defensible claim and responds to all
parts of the question.
Question 15
I had a question from last year’s reading, Last year we were told that in order to earn the thesis
point for a Turning Point essay, the thesis must contain a modifying adverb addressing the
extent to which the event was a turning point. X was a slight turning point. X was a major
turning point, etc. It is my opinion that this can be accomplished without including a modifying
adverb, is that the belief of CB or do I need to be teaching my kids to include a modifying adverb
with their thesis?
Answer
This is an important question. When the prompt asks “to what extent” something was a turning
point, students must do more than simply say that the event under investigation was or was
not a turning point. One way that students can do this is by adding a modifying adverb to
qualify their thesis statement. However, just having a modifying adverb, without other
explanation, will not be sufficient to get the thesis point for addressing all parts of the question.
And in addition, there are other ways to address the issue of extent in the thesis. The student
can elaborate in what ways an event was a turning point for specific reasons, then elaborate on
how the event was not a turning point for different specific reasons.
Here’s a sample response that earned the thesis point on a turning point question — in this
case a question that asked to what extent the Declaration of Independence was a turning point:
“The Declaration of Independence did set America at war with Britain which greatly altered the
course of American history. However the Declaration did not automatically free America from
the British politically, and economically the colonists still relied on trade with the British.
Therefore the Declaration of Independence did not mark a major turning point in American
history.”
Notice how the statement provides reasons for why it was and was not a major turning point. It
does include an adverb, but that is not why it receives a point. It receives the point because it
directly answers the issue of “to what extent” that is in the prompt.
Section B of the LEQ rubric has two points for using the skill targeted in the question — such as
comparison, causation, continuity and change over time, or periodization. The details of how to
earn the points for each skill are laid out in detail in the rubric document.
Question 16
Please explain what "Describes" and "Explains the reasons" mean? They seem very similar,
which makes it difficult to make a major distinction from the two points.
What's the difference between Causation and Periodization? How are causes and effects of a
historical event not the same as different from and similar to developments that preceded
AND/OR followed a historical development?
Answer
The point for “describing” in the rubric is just that: description. For example, a description of
various forms of protest in the period leading up to the American Revolution would include
mentions of boycotting British products, purchasing smuggled tea as opposed to purchasing
official tea, and so on. An explanation, on the other hand, would explain the reasons for the
boycotts — that the colonists were upset about the lack of representation in the British
parliament, that they wanted an effective means of protest, and that a refusal to purchase
British products would damage the English economy.
In terms of the different historical thinking skills and how they are addressed in different types
of long essay questions, the differences go back to the definitions at the beginning of the
course and exam description. A response to a “Causation” question requires the student to
demonstrate an understanding of how things cause other things to happen. There is a major
difference between understanding how things are caused, and simply recognizing patterns. For
example, the Protestant Reformation came before the great migration to New England, but the
cause and effect relationship between the two events is complicated.
On the other hand, for a periodization question the requirement that students consider events
that “preceded and/or followed” other events is not a causation task. It’s simply asking
students to look at events that came before and after an event, and asking whether there was
enough change for the event under investigation to be a turning point.
Section C of the LEQ rubric addresses argument development. Students earn one point in this
section by addressing the topic of the question with specific examples of relevant evidence.
Students can also earn a point by utilizing specific examples of evidence to fully and effectively
substantiate the stated thesis or a relevant argument.
Question 17
How many examples of relevant evidence earn this point? When I read examples, I interpret it
as more than one, so is TWO examples enough to get the point? What does a broad range of
evidence mean? Does this mean THREE or more examples?
Answer
The answer is that there is no specific number of examples: for the first point there need to be
enough to meaningfully address the topic of the question, and enough to substantiate an
argument for the second point. You can quantify this in your courses, but it’s impossible to
quantify this in the abstract for all long essay questions and for all the arguments that students
will present. It’s more about quality and less about quantity.
Thanks again to everyone who submitted questions! We hope these answers are helpful to you
and your students.