6/6 AP English Language Argument Essay: Jemison's claim
This is a real argument essay written by an AP student (personal details removed) and scored 6/6 by our AI grader — one of many AP English Language essay examples in our library.
The Prompt
Mae Jemison's quote on re-evaluating the world for yourself: “Never be limited by other people's limited imaginations... You can hear other people's wisdom, but you've got to re-evaluate the world for yourself.” — Argue your position on the extent to which Jemison’s claim about considering others’ opinions is valid.
The Essay
When encompassed by complete solitude the mind fills the void of experience with invented thought that is inherently true to the thinker, and brilliant through its utter originality. Although the position of others can serve as a tool to verify individual ideas, considering the opinions of others is a genuinely flawed way of thinking because a unique perspective demonstrates inner faith and lays the groundwork for true genius. To trust in oneself is to demonstrate an inherent mistrust of the surrounding world. A perspective so disconnected it is only validated by the noise bouncing around the vast expanse of one's own brain. Perspective is fickle. It warps and evolves and changes. A person wakes up tomorrow a new person, equally flawed, equally new. The ideas of tomorrow cycle too and new ones wake up the next day and the next. Some thoughts pass inconsequentially through the cycle while others stick and stack developing into permanent thoughts which develop into beliefs and then into core memories. Society disrupts that flow, shoving values through the nose and the ears and the mouth. Core values fail to take hold drowned out by the rush of the ideals society shoves down one's throat. When I got into [school], a notoriously rigorous specialized [school] in nyc, my parents believed that I shouldn’t go. They said it would be too hard and I would crumble beneath the pressure. I drowned them out and took on the challenge anyway. The point was not if that decision was for better or for worse, the point is that it was my decision made with no external input or validation. I placed faith in myself and took the plunge. I do not suggest that living with the input of others is without merit, I simply try to prioritize my own thoughts and keep them separate in my head to keep my unique thinking unique and pure and using society as a way to validate not to invent. Anybody can be a genius. All it takes is an idea so revolutionary that it challenges the norm and pushes the boundaries. No two geniuses are alike, they express ideas in different ways and develop different concepts, artists and scientists and philosophers all completely unique and yet all linked through their absolute trust in their individuality. If an idea is revolutionary enough to have that large of an impact nobody can have thought of it before. It must emerge anew from a dream that was a little bit too visceral or a little piece of you that reached out as if asking to be tugged. Thomas Nast was a 18th century political cartoonist that took down the corrupt tammany hall through his innovative political cartoons that formed the perfect blend of satire and wit. All around him journalists printed text media exposing the corruption but it was rendered ineffective by a largely illiterate immigrant population. Nast's new visual approach was innate. It ignored the precedent of the time and he was able to cultivate real change. Nast demonstrated faith in himself and the style that emerged as himself was groundbreaking. If he copied the essays of his peers his would be another name of a writer for harpers weekly that lived and died insignificant. I do not suggest that nast’s ideas were not inspired by other artists at all, instead I am pointing out that no singular concept copypasted from the basin of society into your work can be effective. I certainly think that ideas taken from society and carefully constructed within one's brain can still be unique as long as the foundation and development are internal. Ultimately the influence of society limits free thought and individuality, which when transcended lays the groundwork for genius. The influence of society can be used as a tool to validate original ideas but not as a tool to generate the ideas themselves. When a community of free thinkers think separately and later combine such ideas it can create a more productive and efficient and innovative world for future generations.
Score Breakdown
Thesis (1/1)
Evidence & Commentary (4/4)
Sophistication (1/1)
Why This Essay Scored Well
The introduction ends with a qualified thesis. It grants that others' views "can serve as a tool to verify individual ideas" but argues that relying on them is flawed "because a unique perspective demonstrates inner faith and lays the groundwork for true genius." Each body paragraph develops one of those two reasons.
The evidence comes from two different places. The first body paragraph uses a personal story about choosing a demanding high school over the doubts of the writer's parents, and the commentary explains that what mattered was that it was "my decision made with no external input or validation." The second body paragraph turns to Thomas Nast and Tammany Hall. The writer explains that written exposés failed with "a largely illiterate immigrant population" and that Nast's cartoons reached them, which supports the claim that a new approach can create change.
The sophistication point comes from how the writer limits the argument. Both body paragraphs end by conceding that outside ideas have some value, and the conclusion turns those concessions into a sharper distinction between using society to check ideas and using it to generate them.
For the full point-by-point rubric behind this score, read our AP essay rubric breakdown.
What Could Be Improved
The essay never names Jemison or engages with her words. The prompt asks about her claim, and the thesis answers a broader question about others' opinions. Tying the argument back to "re-evaluate the world for yourself" would anchor it to the prompt.
The Nast paragraph contains a factual error. Nast was a 19th-century cartoonist whose attacks on Tammany Hall ran in the early 1870s, and the essay calls him "a 18th century political cartoonist." The same paragraph could also say more about how his cartoons reached readers that print could not.
Some commentary in the first body paragraph stays abstract. Lines like "Perspective is fickle" and the passage about values shoved "through the nose and the ears and the mouth" take several sentences before the personal example arrives.
Ready to improve your own essay? Grade your AP English Language essay free with AI.
