An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the May 2023 AP AP United States Government and Politics paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from AP.
Section II: Free-Response Questions
Answer all four questions. Suggested timing: 20 minutes each on Questions 1, 2, and 3; 40 minutes on Question 4. Use substantive examples where appropriate.
4 Question · 17 marks
Question 1 · Concept Application
3 marks
In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a nationwide rule that would ban employers from imposing non-compete clauses on workers, arguing that these restrictions suppress wage growth and stifle innovation in violation of federal antitrust laws.
Following the announcement, business interest groups and industry associations claimed that the FTC exceeded the regulatory authority granted to it by Congress. In response, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce convened oversight hearings, questioning the FTC Commissioners about the legal scope of the agency's rulemaking and its economic impact. Meanwhile, several labor unions launched public awareness and grassroots letter-writing campaigns urging the agency to finalize and enforce the ban to protect workers' mobility.
After reading the scenario, please respond to A, B, and C below.
A. Describe the bureaucratic power used by the Federal Trade Commission in the scenario.
B. In the context of the scenario, explain how interest groups might use a method other than public awareness campaigns to influence the FTC's policymaking process.
C. In the context of the scenario, explain how Congress can check or limit the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission's proposed rule.
Show answer & marking schemeHide answer & marking scheme
Worked solution
A. The Federal Trade Commission utilized its rulemaking authority (or discretionary authority / administrative regulation). Rulemaking is an administrative power that permits federal agencies to write formal regulations that carry the force of law to implement legislation enacted by Congress.
B. Besides public awareness and grassroots mobilization, interest groups have several channels to influence administrative rulemaking: 1. Notice-and-Comment Process: Submitting detailed legal briefs, empirical studies, and formal feedback during the mandatory public comment period. 2. Litigation: Filing a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the FTC exceeded its delegated statutory power under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act. 3. Direct Lobbying: Meeting with agency officials or congressional committees that oversee agency budgets to encourage them to apply pressure on the regulators.
C. Congress possesses multiple constitutional and statutory checks on bureaucratic agencies: 1. Legislative Power / Congressional Review Act: Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval or enact new legislation that explicitly prohibits the FTC from enforcing the non-compete ban. 2. Power of the Purse (Appropriations): Congress can attach riders to the FTC's appropriations bill defunding or prohibiting funds from being spent on the enforcement of this specific rule. 3. Statutory Clarification: Congress can amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to expressly limit or define the agency's jurisdiction over employment contracts.
Marking scheme
Question 1: Concept Application (3 points total)
Part A (1 point): • 1 point for a correct description of the bureaucratic power used by the FTC (e.g., rulemaking authority, administrative rule creation, or discretionary authority to create binding regulations implementing federal law). - Reject: Merely naming the term without a description of what the power does.
Part B (1 point): • 1 point for an explanation of an alternative method an interest group can use to influence bureaucratic policymaking in the scenario. Acceptable explanations include: - Submitting formal public comments during the agency's notice-and-comment period with legal and economic data. - Engaging in litigation/filing a lawsuit in federal court claiming the FTC exceeded its statutory authority. - Lobbying members of the congressional oversight committee or the executive branch to pressure agency heads.
Part C (1 point): • 1 point for an explanation of how Congress can check or limit the implementation of the rule. Acceptable explanations include: - Passing legislation that overturns the rule or narrows the agency's statutory jurisdiction. - Using the Congressional Review Act to issue a resolution of disapproval to nullify the regulation. - Using the power of the purse to eliminate funding for the enforcement of the rule via budgetary appropriations or riders. - Refusing to confirm future presidential nominees to the Commission until policies are aligned with congressional intent.
Question 2 · Quantitative Analysis
4 marks
METHOD OF VOTING IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 2008–2020 (Percentage of Total Ballots Cast)
Source: Adapted from U.S. Election Assistance Commission Survey Reports
Use the data to answer the following questions.
A. Identify the voting method that accounted for the largest percentage of ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election, as shown in the table.
B. Describe the trend over time in the use of mail-in or absentee ballots from 2008 to 2020, as shown in the table.
C. Draw a conclusion about how political parties or campaigns might adjust their voter mobilization strategies in response to the shift shown in the 2020 data.
D. Explain how constitutional provisions regarding federalism influence the voting methods available to citizens across different states.
Show answer & marking schemeHide answer & marking scheme
Worked solution
A. According to the table, in 2016, 'In-Person on Election Day' accounted for the largest percentage of total ballots cast (60%).
B. Between 2008 and 2020, the proportion of ballots cast via mail-in or absentee voting increased continuously in each election cycle, rising from 16% in 2008, to 19% in 2012, 23% in 2016, and reaching a high of 43% in 2020.
C. As non-traditional voting methods (mail-in and early voting) expanded to encompass the majority of votes cast in 2020, campaigns can no longer rely solely on a late 'Election Day push.' Instead, campaigns must allocate advertising funds, ballot chase programs, and mobilization efforts much earlier in the election calendar to capture early and mail-in voters before their ballots are returned.
D. The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4 and the Tenth Amendment) establishes a federal system where state governments hold the primary authority to administer and regulate federal elections. Because states maintain discretionary authority over voting procedures, some states implement universal vote-by-mail systems and extensive early voting periods, while others maintain stricter requirements for requesting absentee ballots or require in-person voting on Election Day.
Part A (1 point): - 1 point for correctly identifying 'In-Person on Election Day' as the voting method with the largest share in 2016.
Part B (1 point): - 1 point for describing the trend over time in mail-in/absentee voting (e.g., stating that mail-in voting consistently increased from 2008 to 2020 or that it more than doubled over this time period). *Note: Merely listing isolated data points without stating a directional trend does not earn the point.
Part C (1 point): - 1 point for drawing a valid conclusion connecting the data to campaign mobilization strategy (e.g., campaigns shifting resources/advertisements earlier in the election season; implementing mail-in ballot tracking and assistance; educating voters earlier on state registration and absentee submission deadlines).
Part D (1 point): - 1 point for explaining how federalism (constitutional division of power/reserved powers/Article I, Section 4) gives states the authority to determine election mechanics and voting procedures, leading to differences in voter access and available voting methods from state to state.
Question 3 · SCOTUS Comparison
4 marks
In this task, compare a Supreme Court case you examined during your course of study with an unfamiliar case outlined below.
### Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)
In 2017, a high school freshman named Brandi Levy ("B.L.") failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania. Over the weekend, while at a local convenience store and off campus, she posted a photo on Snapchat showing herself and a friend raising their middle fingers, accompanied by text expressing frustration with vulgar language directed at school, cheer, softball, and everything related. The post was visible to roughly 250 individuals, including several classmates and teammates. A teammate took a screenshot and showed it to her mother, who was a cheer coach. Consequently, school administrators suspended Levy from the cheerleading squad for the upcoming school year on grounds that the post violated team rules and school policy regarding respect and good sportsmanship.
Levy’s parents filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the school district violated her constitutional rights. The federal district court ruled in Levy's favor, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the ruling. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court.
In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Levy, holding that the school violated her First Amendment rights. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that although schools retain some authority over student behavior, off-campus speech deserves robust protection, especially when it does not create a substantial disruption to the school environment or invade the rights of others.
---
Based on the information provided, respond to parts A, B, and C.
A. Identify the constitutional clause in the First Amendment that is common to both Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021).
B. Explain how the facts in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) led to similar holdings in both cases.
C. Explain how the decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. limits the regulatory authority of public school administrators.
Show answer & marking schemeHide answer & marking scheme
Worked solution
### Part A (1 point) Target: Identify the constitutional clause common to both cases. - Response: The free speech clause of the First Amendment (or freedom of speech).
### Part B (2 points) Target: Explain how the facts in both cases led to similar holdings. - 1 point: Describe relevant facts or the holding of the required case (Tinker v. Des Moines). - Example: In Tinker, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, and the Court ruled that peaceful symbolic student speech is protected unless it materially and substantially disrupts the operation of the school. - 2 points: Explain how the facts of both Tinker and Mahanoy led to similar holdings. - Example: In Tinker, students wore black armbands at school to express an anti-war message, whereas in Mahanoy, a student used crude language on social media outside of school hours. In both instances, school administrators failed to demonstrate that the student speech caused a substantial disruption to educational activities. Consequently, the Supreme Court held in both cases that the disciplinary actions taken by school officials violated the students' First Amendment rights to free speech.
### Part C (1 point) Target: Explain how the holding affects/limits educational administrators. - Response: The ruling clarifies and restricts the scope of administrative oversight, prohibiting public schools from policing or censoring student expression that occurs entirely off campus and outside school-sponsored activities unless there is a clear, substantial disruption to school discipline or an instance of severe harassment/threats.
Marking scheme
Part A (1 point total) - 1 point for correctly identifying the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment (or Freedom of Speech). - Do not accept: Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Due Process Clause, or general First Amendment without naming speech.
Part B (2 points total) - 1 point for describing the relevant facts or the holding in Tinker v. Des Moines. - Acceptable description: Students wore black armbands to peacefully protest the Vietnam War / The Court held that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school gate and speech is protected unless it causes substantial disruption. - OR 2 points for explaining how the facts in both cases led to similar holdings. - Criteria: Must reference facts from Tinker (peaceful political protest/armbands) AND Mahanoy (off-campus social media post/vulgar expression) and explain that in both cases, the lack of substantial disruption led the Court to protect the students' speech against school censorship/punishment.
Part C (1 point total) - 1 point for explaining how Mahanoy restricts school administrators' authority over off-campus student speech. - Acceptable explanation: Administrators cannot regulate or discipline students for off-campus speech simply because it is critical or offensive, unless it directly interferes with the school environment or poses a safety/bullying threat.
Question 4 · Argument Essay
6 marks
A fundamental question in American governance is the distribution of power during times of national crisis. Take a position on whether a unitary, energetic executive or a deliberative legislative body is better suited to safeguard the nation during emergencies.
Use at least one piece of evidence from one of the following foundational documents: • Federalist No. 70 • Article II of the United States Constitution • Federalist No. 51
In your response, you should: • Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that establishes a clear line of reasoning. • Support your claim with at least TWO distinct pieces of specific and relevant evidence. One piece must come from one of the foundational documents listed above; the second piece may come from another foundational document or course concepts. • Use reasoning to explain how and why your evidence supports the claim or thesis. • Respond to an opposing or alternate perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal.
Show answer & marking schemeHide answer & marking scheme
Worked solution
Sample Response Supporting the Unitary Executive:
A unitary, energetic executive is better suited to safeguard the nation during emergencies because decisive leadership requires speed, secrecy, and unity of purpose that a large legislative body cannot provide.
In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton argues that energy in the executive is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks and internal convulsions. Hamilton emphasizes that unity provides decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch—qualities vital for responding rapidly to urgent crises. When a nation faces imminent threats, delays caused by debate can result in catastrophic failure.
This principle is further reflected in Article II of the United States Constitution, which vests the executive power in a single President and designates the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy utilized swift executive action and specialized advisory councils to implement a naval quarantine, preventing nuclear escalation without the dangerous delays of open congressional debate.
This evidence demonstrates that national emergencies require rapid, coordinated implementation of policy. Because the presidency concentrates decision-making in a single official, the executive branch can act immediately when national survival is at stake, whereas a multicameral legislature requires lengthy committee reviews and partisan compromise.
Critics may argue that relying on a legislative body is superior because congressional deliberation prevents tyrannical overreach and ensures broader consensus, as highlighted in Federalist No. 51. However, while deliberation is crucial during peacetime policymaking, bicameral debate and factional division severely hinder quick emergency response. The institutional checks and balances of Congress remain active after the crisis to review executive actions, ensuring accountability without sacrificing emergency operational effectiveness.
Marking scheme
Scoring Guidelines (Total: 6 points):
Row A: Claim/Thesis (0–1 point) • 1 pt: Responds to the prompt with a defensible claim or thesis that establishes a clear line of reasoning (e.g., 'A unitary executive is better suited because emergencies require decisive action and dispatch that large assemblies cannot achieve.'). • 0 pts: Restates prompt without reasoning, takes no position, or fails to make a defensible claim.
Row B: Evidence (0–3 points) • 1 pt: Provides one piece of accurate evidence relevant to the topic of emergency powers or institutional design. • 2 pts: Uses one piece of specific and relevant evidence that supports the thesis/claim. • 3 pts: Uses two pieces of specific and relevant evidence that support the thesis/claim. At least ONE piece must come from the listed foundational documents (Federalist No. 70, Article II, or Federalist No. 51).
Row C: Reasoning (0–1 point) • 1 pt: Explains how/why the provided evidence supports the central thesis/claim (e.g., explaining why unity and dispatch enable the executive to address threats before they escalate). • 0 pts: Provides evidence without analytical reasoning connecting it to the thesis.
Row D: Alternate Perspective (0–1 point) • 1 pt: Identifies an opposing or alternative perspective AND effectively refutes, concedes, or rebuts that perspective. • 0 pts: Fails to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint, merely restates the opposite claim without explanation, or fails to refute/concede/rebut.
Ready to test yourself?
Turn these notes into exam-style practice. Get unlimited AI questions on this topic with instant marking and explanations.
thinka is an AI practice app for IGCSE & IB students: unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.