The Regents ELA Exam: Tips For Part 3 of the Regents ELA Exam - Text-Analysis Response

Text-Analysis Response

What does This Part of the Exam Require?
The Part 3 question is designed to assess reading, writing, and language standards. You will be required to do a close reading of a text (approximately 1,000 words). You will then write a two to three paragraph response that identifies a central idea in the text and analyzes how the author’s use of one writing strategy (literary element, literary technique, or rhetorical device) develops this central idea.
There are no multiple-choice questions in this part of the exam.

What does This Part of the Exam Look Like?
Your Task: Closely read the text provided and write a well-developed, text-based response of two to three paragraphs. In your response, identify a central idea in the text and analyze how the author’s use of one writing strategy (literary element, literary technique, or rhetorical device) develops this central idea.

Use strong and thorough evidence from the text to support your analysis. Do not simply summarize the text. You may use the margins and scrap paper to take notes as you read and plan your response.

Example: Looking at the Text
The following excerpt is from a speech delivered by suffragette Anna Howard Shaw in 1915.

- …Now one of two things is true: either a Republic is a desirable form of government, or else it is not. If it is, then we should have it, if it is not then we ought not to pretend that we have it. We ought at least be true to our ideals, and the men of New York have for the first time in their lives, the rare opportunity on the second day of next November, of making the state truly a part of the Republic. It is the greatest opportunity which has ever come to the men of the state. They have never had so serious a problem to solve before, they will never have a more serious problem to solve in any future of our nation’s life, and the thing that disturbs me more than anything else in connection with it is that so few people realize what a profound problem they have to solve on November 2. It is not merely a trifling matter; it is not a little thing that does not concern the state, it is the most vital problem we could have, and any man who goes to the polls on the second day of next November without thoroughly informing himself in regard to this subject is unworthy to be a citizen of this state, and unfit to cast a ballot.

If woman’s suffrage1 is wrong, it is a great wrong; if it is right, it is a profound and fundamental principle, and we all know, if we know what a Republic is, that it is the fundamental principle upon which a Republic must rise. Let us see where we are as a people; how we act here and what we think we are. The difficulty with the men of this country is that they are so consistent in their inconsistency that they are not aware of having been inconsistent; because their consistency has been so continuous and their inconsistency so consecutive that it has never been broken, from the beginning of our Nation’s life to the present time. If we trace our history back we will find that from the very dawn of our existence as a people, men have been imbued2 with a spirit and a vision more lofty than they have been able to live; they have been led by visions of the sublimest3 truth, both in regard to religion and in regard to government that ever inspired the souls of men from the time the Puritans left the old world to come to this country, led by the Divine ideal which is the sublimest and the supremest ideal in religious freedom which men have ever known, the theory that a man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without the intervention4 of any other man or any other group of men. And it was this theory, this vision of the right of the human soul which led men first to the shores of this country. …

Now what is a Republic? Take your dictionary, encyclopedia lexicon or anything else you like and look up the definition and you will find that a Republic is a form of government in which the laws are enacted by representatives elected by the people. Now when did the people of New York ever elect their own representatives? Never in the world. The men of New York have, and I grant you that men are people, admirable people, as far as they go, but they only go half way. There is still another half of the people who have not elected representatives, and you never read a definition of a Republic in which half of the people elect representatives to govern the whole of the people. That is an aristocracy and that is just what we are. We have been many kinds of aristocracies. We have been a hierarchy5 of church members, than an oligarchy6 of sex. …

Now I want to make this proposition, and I believe every man will accept it. Of course he will if he is intelligent. Whenever a Republic prescribes the qualifications as applying equally to all the citizens of the Republic, when the Republic says in order to vote, a citizen must be twenty-one years of age, it applies to all alike, there is no discrimination against any race or sex. When the government says that a citizen must be a native-born citizen or a naturalized citizen that applies to all; we are either born or naturalized, somehow or other we are here. Whenever the government says that a citizen, in order to vote, must be a resident of a community a certain length of time, and of the state a certain length of time and of the nation a certain length of time, that applies to all equally. There is no discrimination. We might go further and we might say that in order to vote the citizen must be able to read his ballot. We have not gone that far yet. We have been very careful of male ignorance in these United States. I was much interested, as perhaps many of you, in reading the Congressional Record this last winter over the debate over the immigration bill, and when that illiteracy clause was introduced into the immigration bill, what fear there was in the souls of men for fear we would do injustice to some of the people who might want to come to our shores, and I was much interested in the language in which the President vetoed the bill, when he declared that by inserting the clause we would keep out of our shores a large body of very excellent people. I could not help wondering then how it happens that male ignorance is so much less ignorant than female ignorance. When I hear people say that if women were permitted to vote a large body of ignorant people would vote, and therefore because an ignorant woman would vote, no intelligent women should be allowed to vote, I wonder why we have made it so easy for male ignorance and so hard for female ignorance. …
—Anna Howard Shaw
excerpted from “The Fundamental Principle of a Republic”, delivered at Ogdensburg, New York, June 21, 1915

In this excerpted speech, suffragette Anna Howard Shaw uses several techniques to argue for the case of women’s right to vote. She employs repetition and rhetorical questioning while discussing the definition of a Republic throughout her speech and a sarcastic [ironic] tone when referring to the consistent inconsistencies of men (paragraph 2) and the various requirements to vote in the U.S. (paragraph 3). Shaw’s speech is also an excellent example of the use of logical structure, leading to her thinking “how it happens that male ignorance is so much less ignorant than female ignorance” (lines 69 and 70).
—Analysis from “Questions with Annotations,” NYSED, June 2014

Know The Rubric
Scoring Rubric for Part 3
Content and Analysis: The extent to which the response conveys complex ideas and information clearly and accurately in order to respond to the task and support an analysis of the text.

- 4 Essays introduce a well-reasoned central idea and a writing strategy that clearly establish the criteria for analysis and demonstrate a thoughtful analysis of the author’s use of the writing strategy to develop the central idea.
- 3 Essays introduce a clear central idea and a writing strategy that establish the criteria for analysis and demonstrate an appropriate analysis of the author’s use of the writing strategy to develop the central idea.
- 2 Essays introduce a central idea and/or a writing strategy and demonstrate a superficial analysis of the author’s use of the writing strategy to develop the central idea.
- 1 Essays introduce a confused or incomplete central idea or writing strategy and/or demonstrate a minimal analysis of the author’s use of the writing strategy to develop the central idea.

Command of Evidence: The extent to which the response presents evidence from the provided text to support analysis.
- 4 Essays present ideas clearly and consistently, making effective use of specific and relevant evidence to support analysis.
- 3 Essays present ideas sufficiently, making adequate use of relevant evidence to support analysis.
- 2 Essays present ideas inconsistently, inadequately, and/or inaccurately in an attempt to support analysis, making use of some evidence that may be irrelevant.
- 1 Essays present little or no evidence from the text.

Coherence, Organization, and Style: The extent to which the response logically organizes complex ideas, concepts, and information using formal style and precise language.

- 4 Essays exhibit logical organization of ideas and information to create a cohesive and coherent response and establish and maintain a formal style, using precise language and sound structure.
- 3 Essays exhibit acceptable organization of ideas and information to create a coherent response and establish and maintain a formal style, using appropriate language and structure.
- 2 Essays exhibit inconsistent organization of ideas and information, failing to create a coherent response; lack a formal style, using language that is basic, inappropriate, or imprecise.
- 1 Essays exhibit little organization of ideas and information; use language that is predominantly incoherent, inappropriate, or copied directly from the task or text; or are minimal, making assessment unreliable.

Control of Conventions: The extent to which the response demonstrates command of conventions of standard English grammar, usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.

- 4 Essays demonstrate control of the conventions with infrequent errors.
- 3 Essays demonstrate partial control of conventions with occasional errors that do not hinder comprehension.
- 2 Essays demonstrate emerging control of conventions with some errors that hinder comprehension.
- 1 Essays demonstrate a lack of control of conventions with frequent errors that make comprehension difficult; are minimal, making assessment of conventions unreliable.

Note:
- A response that is a personal response and makes little or no reference to the task or text can be scored no higher than a 1.
- A response that is totally copied from the text with no original writing must be given a 0.
- A response that is totally unrelated to the task, illegible, incoherent, blank, or unrecognizable as English must be scored as a 0.

Strategies and Review
- Plan your response. This need not be a formal outline, but be sure to articulate clearly which literary element or rhetorical device you choose. List on the blank page provided, and underline in the text itself, three or four passages that convincingly support your topic.Decide on the most effective order for the examples.
- Recognize that the texts for this part are primary sources, often narratives or speeches. They will have distinctive voices and may be of a particular historical context.
- There is no “right answer.” The texts will be rich in information and are likely to employ several rhetorical strategies for effect. Choose the one you can discuss most confidently.
- Review the guides on literary elements and the Glossaries to help you recognize and write about writing strategies.
- Do some exercises.