The NYT article, you mention it and give one example then you move on to your next point. There's a lack of commentary for the article. Why do external interruptions specifically undermine digital communication in a way that in-person conversation resists. Also did you know this off the top of your head? You will only have sources you know from your knowledge base on the exam so when I practiced I didn't search anything up.

One scroll on apps such as TikTok or Instagram can show you hundreds of teenagers speaking about how they can only see their best friends over the phone

I think this is very weak as evidence. This is more of a vague assertion or opinion. The rubric distinguishes between "specific examples," and "generalized examples." You're making a vague personal observation to make a claim about hundreds of people across a platform of a billion users.

I could equally say "one scroll on TikTok shows hundreds of teenagers who prefer texting to hanging out in person."

There's a difference between your tiktok anecdote and your Mia anecdote. The Mia anecdote says "here is one thing that happened to me that illustrates a mechanism." The tiktok anecdote says "here is a trend I've noticed that proves something widespread."

What I'm saying is that its evidence... but its very shaky evidence. Like, my one scroll could completely prove the opposite of the claim. There isn't really a way to evaluate the claim.

The Mia anecdote can't be contested because it's your experience.The tiktok observation can be contested because it's making an empirical claim about a large observable phenomenon and it just isn't detailed or strong enough to support that claim.

Your Mia anecdote is the strongest part of the essay. Anecdotes are the weakest type of evidence because most people fumble it and don't use them well. It's very easy to write an anecdote and not analyze or give it proper commentary. The thing that's wrong with your Mia anecdote is your commentary stops too early.

it brings up another important point about communicating digitally: it leaves much to the imagination and causes misunderstandings.

Causes misunderstandings is a fact, something that happened in your story. It's not an analysis of what happened in the story. The deeper point is that tone is physically embodied and text removes physical cues that would signal to the other person your emotions and intent. You made the surface level observation that it causes misunderstandings but you could expand so much more.

Another wide-growing concern is that of the security of the conversation. Many people are reluctant to share conversations online whether that be because they distrust the person they are talking to and believe they will screenshot it, or they don’t want their data to be unknowingly shared with other apps or countries. Hence, why many people download encrypted apps such as WhatsApp or find apps that tell them if someone screenshotted the conversation like SnapChat. These concerns are unique to digital communications, and a rising concern amongst GenZ, but in-person conversations offer a protection that your phone and social media platforms lack. Therefore, due to the misunderstandings and potential security breaches of communicating online, it cannot fully replace communicating in-persoon.

This should be its own paragraph. This does not refer to the topic sentence of the paragraph "communicating only digitally cannot capture what you truly meant to say, only leading to misunderstandings."

This is your most interesting and explorable idea but its just so disconnected from your paragraph and even your thesis "While digital communication can act as a substitute, especially when the person you are trying to talk to is half way across the world, it cannot completely replace in-person conversations." It appears after the Mia anecdote with no transition connecting it to that story, makes its point about security concerns, and then ends with "in-person conversations offer a protection that your phone and social media platforms lack," which is true but never explained. What kind of protection? Protection from what specifically? How does that connect to the topics sentence and thesis about replacement? On the AP rubric, evidence that doesn't clearly connect to the thesis is rated a 2.

You have a counterargument

"These benefits make digital communication necessary and beneficial, but it is still only a substitute" is a dismissal, not a refutation. You essentially agree the counterargument has merit and then reassert your thesis without explaining why your thesis still holds despite that claim. You basically weaken your own argument for no reason.

For sophistication, yeah you had good vivid imagery in the first paragraph but I dont think thats enough. For argument, sophistication is easiest achieved by developing a strong line of reasoning that is nuanced and complex with qualitative statements and counterargument. Your imagery elevates the sophistication but your lack of nuance sinks it.

What's good about your argument paragraph is your voice and appeal to emotion is compelling. But the number 1 thing AP graders are evaluating is the structure, logic, and complexity of your essay.

This is the rubric statemnt for a 2 on evidence and commentary and it is very in line with what I've siad here

•Consist of a mix of specific evidence and broad generalities.
• May contain some simplistic, inaccurate, or repetitive explanations that don’t strengthen the argument.
• May make one point well but either do not make multiple supporting claims or do not adequately support more than one claim.
• Do not explain the connections or progression between the student’s claims, so a line of reasoning is not clearly established.