AP Lang Q3可以难到什么样？

Lang Q3就像是独立口语，也许题目弹出后看起来很简单，但可以考前最令人焦虑

其实19年之后的北美Q3都挺友善，倒是2010s期间有几道难题

这道17年题就来者不善。首先认不认得artifice这个词就是问题，估计大多数国内教lang的老师自己也不认识，然后如何理解political theater and personal narrative也不简单，最后就是怎么举例的问题

如果像托福写作那样编个故事假装成论据，那等着被考官拍死吧

我认为lang很值得学——强于学lit——在于lang想要学生熟悉和掌握的论据，是对人文素养的补充。过去15年，lang Q3有约30%题干要求围绕contemporary (American) society做讨论，所以BLM这

种事就得会看会讲

看我随手写的示范段⬇️ 有人能帮我改改嘛）

On the politics of Black Lives Matter, narratives have indeed trumped facts. The death of George Floyd, who was unarmed, black, and effectively killed under the knees of a white police officer, sparked major protests in American cities and across the Atlantic for much of 2020. The reality of police brutality and the need for reform notwithstanding, using the Floyd incident to generalize about “systemic racism” in American society has become a popular trope in mainstream media and academia. For the left, what matters is not the reality that police shootings of white people are more numerous than of blacks (even adjusting for population), or that major corporate and academic institutions have been bending over backward to hire minority candidates. None of these provable “facts”, given they are politically incorrect, could be discussed out loud, not without casual but reliable accusations of racism. Apparently, affirming the BLM rhetoric of “systemic racism” and “white privilege” has run roughshod over the need to consider empirical data, let alone question such BLM excesses as looting, rioting, larceny, arson, or destruction of property. Today, peddling to voters this distorted image of the country that is “at odds with reality,” politicians on the left have proved Hedges’ point: it is the emotional potency of the Floyd experience, not the crime statistics by race, that gives meaning to discourse.

看得一头雾水也没关系，这就是上课要讲要解释要练习的知识。如果只满于写艾迪森/哥白尼/居里夫人/扎克伯格，在国内读完初中就够了关于托福写作的 bonus question: 能借用这张infamous CNN报道截图，论述为何传统电视越来越没人看了吗？