2023 AP AP European History Practice Paper with Answers

Part (a): 1 point for accurately describing an argument from the excerpt (e.g., colonial trade fostered new public spaces for political debate, expanded the market economy, or challenged traditional aristocratic/mercantilist dominance).

Part (b): 1 point for explaining how specific historical evidence from 1650–1800 supports the author's claims (e.g., coffeehouses becoming centers for Enlightenment discussion; the rise of the reading public and salons; the growth of the Atlantic triangular trade and merchant wealth challenging traditional hierarchies).

Part (c): 1 point for explaining how a historical development from 1650–1800 limited or challenged these changes (e.g., state censorship and police suppression of subversive publications; mercantilist tariffs and trade restrictions; the retention of aristocratic privileges and peasant serfdom limiting the reach of consumer culture in central/eastern Europe).

Part a (1 point):
• To earn this point, the response must identify and describe a specific argument from the passage.
• Acceptable arguments include: colonial imports (sugar, coffee, tea) created new social spaces (coffeehouses, salons); these spaces fostered the public sphere and political/Enlightenment debate; consumer demand expanded market economies and challenged mercantilism/aristocratic privileges.
• Unacceptable: Simple quotes without explanation or restatements of trivial details.

Part b (1 point):
• To earn this point, the response must provide specific historical evidence from 1650 to 1800 and explain how it supports an argument in the passage.
• Acceptable evidence includes: the proliferation of London coffeehouses as hubs for merchants and political debate; the role of Enlightenment salons in France; Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations critiquing mercantilism; the rise of the 'consumer revolution' and middle-class consumption in Western Europe.
• Unacceptable: Evidence outside the chronological window (1650–1800) or vague references without explanatory connection.

Part c (1 point):
• To earn this point, the response must explain how a historical development between 1650 and 1800 limited or countered the social/economic trends described.
• Acceptable evidence includes: continued state enforcement of mercantilist laws (e.g., Navigation Acts, Colbertism); government censorship and crackdowns on seditious literature (e.g., French royal censors); the continuation of feudal agrarian structures and serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia, Prussia, Austria), which restricted consumer market access to narrow elites; slave trade dependency highlighting the coercive underpinnings of colonial goods.
• Unacceptable: Off-topic general criticisms or developments outside the specified timeframe.

Part (a): 1 point
A complete response must describe one distinct argument made by Bossuet in the excerpt. Acceptable arguments include:
- Royal power is derived directly from God (divine right), making rulers God's ministers on Earth.
- Monarchy is absolute, meaning the sovereign does not answer to earthly authorities, institutions, or subjects.
- The person of the monarch is sacred, and defying or harming the king constitutes a sacrilege or crime against God.

Part (b): 1 point
A complete response must explain how a specific domestic policy or action of Louis XIV put absolute divine-right theory into practice. Acceptable examples and explanations include:
- The revocation of the Edict of Nantes through the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685), which mandated Catholicism and suppressed Huguenot worship to enforce the principle of "one king, one law, one faith" under divine mandate.
- The construction and centralization of court life at the Palace of Versailles, where Louis XIV neutralized the political influence of the nobility (the Fronde legacy) by requiring their attendance and personal subservience to his absolute rule.
- The expansion of the intendant system, which bypassed local parlements and aristocratic bodies to collect taxes and administer royal decrees under direct crown authority.

Part (c): 1 point
A complete response must explain a specific 17th-century development that contested or rejected divine-right absolutism. Acceptable developments and explanations include:
- The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England and the enactment of the English Bill of Rights (1689), which established parliamentary supremacy and constitutional limitations on monarchical power.
- The English Civil War (1642–1651) and the execution of King Charles I (1649), which demonstrated that monarchs could be held legally and politically accountable by representative assemblies.
- The political philosophy of John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), which asserted that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed through a social contract protecting natural rights, rather than from divine appointment.

Point Allocation:
- Part (a): 1 point for accurately describing one argument made by Bossuet regarding royal power.
- Part (b): 1 point for explaining one specific domestic action or policy of Louis XIV that reflected Bossuet's absolutist/divine-right doctrine.
- Part (c): 1 point for explaining one specific seventeenth-century European development that challenged divine-right absolute rule.

Scoring Guidance:
- Responses must be written in complete sentences.
- For Part (a), do not award credit for simple direct quotations without description or explanation in the student's own words.
- For Part (b), general references to Louis XIV being powerful are insufficient; the student must connect a specific policy or institutional development (e.g., Versailles court ritual, revocation of the Edict of Nantes, intendant system) to royal absolutism/divine authority.
- For Part (c), references must fall chronologically in the seventeenth century (e.g., English Civil War, execution of Charles I, Dutch Republic's oligarchic/republican model, Glorious Revolution/English Bill of Rights, Locke's political treatises). Developments from the 18th century (e.g., the French Revolution) do not earn the point unless explicitly linked to seventeenth-century roots.

Part (a): 1 point
An acceptable description identifies a fundamental structural or ideological difference regarding the locus and limitation of sovereign power.
- Absolutist states (such as France under Louis XIV) concentrated sovereign authority solely in the monarch, often justified by divine right theory, with no institutional body capable of legally checking or vetoing royal decrees.
- In contrast, constitutional states (such as England after 1688 or the Dutch Republic) subjected executive authority to the rule of law, requiring the monarch or executive to share legislative and fiscal power with a representative assembly (e.g., Parliament).

Part (b): 1 point
An acceptable explanation identifies and explains a specific factor leading to constitutionalism in seventeenth-century England.
- Religious and political tensions between Stuart monarchs (James I, Charles I) and Parliament over royal prerogative, taxation without parliamentary consent (e.g., ship money), and religious policies (perceived Catholic sympathies/Laudian reforms) led to the English Civil War and the eventual overthrow of absolute claims.
- The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Bill of Rights (1689) permanently limited royal power, establishing parliamentary supremacy, regular elections, and parliamentary control over taxation and standing armies.

Part (c): 1 point
An acceptable explanation identifies and explains a specific factor enabling royal centralization in seventeenth-century France.
- Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin suppressed aristocratic rebellions and introduced the intendant system, utilizing appointed royal officials directly beholden to the Crown to collect taxes, administer justice, and curb regional noble influence.
- Louis XIV neutralized noble opposition by requiring aristocracy to reside at the Palace of Versailles, domesticating the nobility through court etiquette, pensions, and patronage while governing without summoning the Estates-General.

Scoring Guidelines (1 point per subpart; maximum 3 points total):

Part (a) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Accurately describes one political difference between absolutism and constitutionalism in seventeenth-century Europe.
- Responses that earn 1 point must go beyond a mere term and describe a conceptual difference (e.g., divine right/monopoly on rule vs. law/representative consent).
- Examples earning the point:
* "In an absolutist monarchy like France, the monarch held unchecked sovereignty and claimed rule by divine right, whereas in a constitutional state like England, the monarch was legally constrained by a representative body and the rule of law."
- Examples NOT earning the point:
* "Absolutism had kings and constitutionalism did not." (Inaccurate and vague).

Part (b) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Explains one factor that contributed to the rise of constitutional governance in England during the seventeenth century.
- Responses must explicitly explain how a specific historical development (e.g., English Civil War, Petition of Right, Glorious Revolution of 1688, Bill of Rights of 1689, conflict over unparliamentary taxation) established or reinforced constitutional limitations on the crown.
- Examples earning the point:
* "Parliament's insistence on controlling taxation forced the monarchy into conflict, culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the 1689 Bill of Rights, which legally mandated that the monarch could not levy taxes or suspend laws without Parliament's approval."
- Examples NOT earning the point:
* "The Magna Carta was signed by King John." (Outside the seventeenth-century chronological boundary).

Part (c) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Explains one factor that enabled the consolidation of monarchical power in seventeenth-century France.
- Responses must explain how a specific policy or institutional development (e.g., the intendant system, building and court culture of Versailles, religious uniformity via the Edict of Fontainebleau, reduction of regional parlements' veto powers) centralized power.
- Examples earning the point:
* "Louis XIV consolidated power by creating the intendant system, which replaced local aristocratic officials with royal bureaucrats loyal directly to the crown to administer justice and collect taxes."
* "Louis XIV centralized authority by requiring prominent nobles to reside at Versailles, distracting them with elaborate court rituals and patronage to prevent regional rebellions like the Fronde."
- Examples NOT earning the point:
* "Louis XIV was a very powerful and wealthy king." (Descriptive without explaining the mechanism/factor of consolidation).

Part (a): 1 point
An acceptable description identifies a fundamental structural or ideological difference regarding the locus and limitation of sovereign power.
- Absolutist states (such as France under Louis XIV) concentrated sovereign authority solely in the monarch, often justified by divine right theory, with no institutional body capable of legally checking or vetoing royal decrees.
- In contrast, constitutional states (such as England after 1688 or the Dutch Republic) subjected executive authority to the rule of law, requiring the monarch or executive to share legislative and fiscal power with a representative assembly (e.g., Parliament).

Part (b): 1 point
An acceptable explanation identifies and explains a specific factor leading to constitutionalism in seventeenth-century England.
- Religious and political tensions between Stuart monarchs (James I, Charles I) and Parliament over royal prerogative, taxation without parliamentary consent (e.g., ship money), and religious policies (perceived Catholic sympathies/Laudian reforms) led to the English Civil War and the eventual overthrow of absolute claims.
- The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Bill of Rights (1689) permanently limited royal power, establishing parliamentary supremacy, regular elections, and parliamentary control over taxation and standing armies.

Part (c): 1 point
An acceptable explanation identifies and explains a specific factor enabling royal centralization in seventeenth-century France.
- Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin suppressed aristocratic rebellions and introduced the intendant system, utilizing appointed royal officials directly beholden to the Crown to collect taxes, administer justice, and curb regional noble influence.
- Louis XIV neutralized noble opposition by requiring aristocracy to reside at the Palace of Versailles, domesticating the nobility through court etiquette, pensions, and patronage while governing without summoning the Estates-General.

Scoring Guidelines (1 point per subpart; maximum 3 points total):

Part (a) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Accurately describes one political difference between absolutism and constitutionalism in seventeenth-century Europe.
- Responses that earn 1 point must go beyond a mere term and describe a conceptual difference (e.g., divine right/monopoly on rule vs. law/representative consent).

Part (b) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Explains one factor that contributed to the rise of constitutional governance in England during the seventeenth century.
- Responses must explicitly explain how a specific historical development (e.g., English Civil War, Petition of Right, Glorious Revolution of 1688, Bill of Rights of 1689, conflict over unparliamentary taxation) established or reinforced constitutional limitations on the crown.

Part (c) [1 point]:
- Scoring Criterion: Explains one factor that enabled the consolidation of monarchical power in seventeenth-century France.
- Responses must explain how a specific policy or institutional development (e.g., the intendant system, building and court culture of Versailles, religious uniformity via the Edict of Fontainebleau, reduction of regional parlements' veto powers) centralized power.

A complete response will address all components of the 6-point LEQ rubric: (1) Thesis/Claim (0-1 pt): Articulates a defensible thesis/claim that establishes a clear line of reasoning regarding the most significant difference in political consolidation methods (e.g., French monarchs successfully bypassed representative bodies and subordinated the nobility through administrative centralization and divine-right ideology, whereas English monarchs faced institutional and financial resistance from Parliament, ultimately leading to a constitutional balance of power). (2) Contextualization (0-1 pt): Situates the prompt within the wider historical context of seventeenth-century Europe, such as the religious conflicts of the Reformation/Thirty Years' War, fiscal-military expansion, or changing socioeconomic dynamics among the nobility and merchant classes. (3) Evidence (0-2 pts): Provides specific historical examples from both France (e.g., Cardinal Richelieu's intendant system, the Fronde, Louis XIV's court at Versailles, the Edict of Fontainebleau) and England (e.g., James I's divine right claims, Charles I's personal rule and ship money, the English Civil War, the execution of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the 1689 Bill of Rights) to support an argument. (4) Historical Reasoning (0-1 pt): Uses comparison to explain the significance of the differences and similarities in political trajectories between the two nations. (5) Complexity (0-1 pt): Demonstrates a complex understanding by analyzing nuanced similarities alongside differences (e.g., both monarchs sought increased revenue for expanding militaries), explaining qualifying factors, or evaluating how differing institutional legacies led to distinct long-term outcomes.

Scoring Rubric (6 Points Total):

1. Thesis/Claim (0-1 pt):
- 1 pt: Responds to the prompt with a historically defensible thesis/claim that establishes a clear line of reasoning addressing the most significant difference.
- 0 pt: Restates the prompt, offers a vague assertion without a line of reasoning, or presents an ahistorical claim.

2. Contextualization (0-1 pt):
- 1 pt: Accurately describes a broader historical context relevant to the seventeenth-century state-building efforts (e.g., military revolution, aftermath of the European wars of religion, emerging mercantilist competition).
- 0 pt: Merely mentions a phrase or refers to context outside the relevant period without explaining its connection to the topic.

3. Evidence (0-2 pts):
- 1 pt: Provides specific historical examples relevant to the topic of state consolidation in France and/or England.
- 2 pts: Uses multiple specific pieces of evidence from both France and England to effectively support an argument responding to the prompt.

4. Historical Reasoning (0-1 pt):
- 1 pt: Employs historical reasoning (comparison) to explain the significance of the primary differences in the political trajectories of France and England.

5. Complexity (0-1 pt):
- 1 pt: Demonstrates a complex understanding of the historical development by qualifying an argument, corroborating multiple perspectives, or analyzing nuanced tensions between absolutist ambitions and constitutional constraints across both nations.