AP U.S. History · Free-response skill

Test an interpretation against the evidence

The move. Restate a historical interpretation in your own words, then test it with one specific event that fits it and one that cuts against it, tying each to the claim.

How to do it

  1. Find the claim first. Ask what the interpretation says caused what, or what it says mattered most, and restate that in one plain sentence of your own.
  2. Pick evidence you can date and name: a law, a court case, a protest, a vote, a person's action. "People were upset" is not evidence; "the Lowell mill workers walked out in 1834" is.
  3. For each piece of evidence, write one because sentence that ties it to the claim: because it shows the claim at work, or because it shows a group, place or result the claim leaves out.
  4. Stay inside the dates the question sets. An event from the wrong decade earns nothing, however well you explain it.
  5. Keep each answer as short as the question asks, and answer exactly what each part asks.

Practice prompt Try it

Our own summary of one historical interpretation, written for this lesson (not a quotation): In the 1830s, Andrew Jackson used the powers of the presidency more forcefully than any president before him. He vetoed more bills than all six earlier presidents combined, and he claimed that the president, elected by the whole nation, spoke for the people more directly than Congress did. In this view, Jackson turned the presidency into the strongest branch of the national government.

Read the passage. Then answer part a in one sentence and parts b and c in two or three sentences each.

  1. In your own words, say what this interpretation claims Jackson did to the presidency.
  2. Give one action Jackson took as president, from 1829 to 1837, that fits this interpretation, and explain why it fits.
  3. Give one event from 1829 to 1848 that shows a limit on presidential power or a pushback against Jackson's use of it, and explain why it shows that.

Write each part, then check yourself against the checklist. Nothing you type here is saved or graded.

Check yourself and see a model answer

Checklist

Our own checklist of what a full answer does, one line per point. Tick each one your response earns.

0 of 5 points

Model answer, annotated

(a) This interpretation claims that Jackson made the presidency stronger, turning it into the most powerful branch of the national government.

  • Point 1 States the claim, a stronger presidency, in one sentence of the student's own.

(b) In 1832 Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. The veto fits the interpretation because Jackson blocked a major law Congress had passed and rejected it on grounds of policy as well as the Constitution, which earlier presidents had rarely done.

  • Point 2 An accurate, dated action of Jackson's presidency: the 1832 Bank veto.
  • Point 3 The because clause says how it shows forceful power: blocking Congress on policy grounds.

(c) In 1834 the Senate formally censured Jackson for removing federal deposits from the Bank. The censure shows pushback, because senators officially condemned the president for going beyond his authority, and his opponents went on to form the Whig Party to resist "King Andrew."

  • Point 4 An accurate event inside the dates: the Senate's 1834 censure.
  • Point 5 The because clause says how it shows pushback: the Senate condemning the president's use of power.