Three defenses happen this year, and each is scored differently. Drill each one in the Defense Question Gauntlet: its three chips match the three question banks in the Practice section.
Each student answers one question. Mrs. Cohen will select one question to ask each student after their presentation.
Right after your team presentation, each member answers one question about how the team researched, decided, and argued together. You cannot script it, but you can prepare by grounding every answer in a specific team moment: a decision, a disagreement, or a source a teammate brought.
Right after your IMP, Mrs. Cohen asks you 2 questions about your research process, your decisions, and your conclusions. It is worth 10% of PT2 and it is teacher scored. You cannot script it, but you can absolutely prepare for it.
How your question evolved, what surprised you, what you would research next with more time, and your level of certainty about your conclusion.
How you selected research strategies, how you tested validity and reliability of sources, which sources did not work, and what evidence you gathered but chose not to use.
How you handled differing perspectives to reach a conclusion, how your conclusion responds to other research, and the real-world implications of your findings for your community.
"My question originally asked..., but after reading..., I narrowed it to...". "One source I chose not to use was..., because...". "The strongest counterargument I found was..., and I addressed it by...".
All 14 official prep questions are in the Practice section of this page. Practice every one out loud with one specific instance from your project.
Three question banks: Current Events (8 questions), TMP team defense (8), and IMP oral defense (14 official questions in two categories), a button that hands you one at random, and room to plan your answers.
Go to the Oral Defense Question BanksFree practice or exam mode. Pick Current Events, TMP, or IMP.
Open the Defense Question GauntletSentence templates and transitions for introducing sources, quoting, naming naysayers, conceding, disagreeing, and clinching why it matters.
How raw rubric scores convert to gradebook percentages for the IRR, TMP, IWA, IMP, Oral Defense, EOC A, EOC B, and current events.
The Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy, phase by phase: what is allowed, what is not, and what costs you the task.
What it looks like
"We worked well together and split things evenly," an answer that could describe any group project ever, which is the literal 0-point descriptor on Collaborate Reflect.
What it should look like
Specificity is the entire score.
Prep every question in the bank with one detailed instance from your project: a specific source you rejected, a disagreement you resolved, a pivot your question took.
No card sits on this row yet.
How it works: Each student answers one question. Mrs. Cohen will select one question to ask each student after their presentation.
How it is scored, on this row:
| Points | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 0 points | Does not meet the criteria for one point. |
| 2 points | The oral defense addresses the question in a way that is simplistic or unsubstantiated OR describes a process that does not answer the question. |
| 4 points | The oral defense responds to the question asked and provides some evidence that may be general rather than specific about the research process. |
| 6 points | The oral defense articulates a detailed response to the question posed supported by relevant and specific evidence. |
How it works: Right after your team presentation, each member answers one question about how the team researched, decided, and argued together. You cannot script it, but you can prepare by grounding every answer in a specific team moment: a decision, a disagreement, or a source a teammate brought.
How it is scored: Mrs. Cohen scores the team defense on one row of the TMP rubric, Row 5, Collaborate Reflect (0, 2, or 4 points). The whole TMP is teacher scored; College Board scores the IRR. The defense is scored after the presentation and does not change Rows 1 to 4.
Questions 1 and 2 are asked of each presenter, about a teammate.
How it works: Right after your IMP, Mrs. Cohen asks you 2 questions about your research process, your decisions, and your conclusions. It is worth 10% of PT2 and it is teacher scored. You cannot script it, but you can absolutely prepare for it.
How it is scored: two rows, out of 12, on specificity: one question from each category below.
You will be asked two questions: one from each category. Answer with specific details and specific instances from your project. Generic answers that could come from any project score lowest.
Pick the question you feel most prepared for and write your key points. Then pick the one you feel least prepared for and write how you will prepare. Practice both out loud. Saved automatically on this device.
Next in the year: EOC Part A: Argument Analysis.
| Row | Low score | Middle score | Top score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish Argument (/6) | (2) The presentation describes the existence of a problem or reports on a problem, but does not argue for a team solution or resolution. | (4) The presentation conveys the argument for the team's solution or resolution using evidence that is not well selected for the situation. | (6) The presentation conveys the convincing argument for the team's solution or resolution through strategic selection of supporting evidence. |
| 2. Understand and Analyze Context (Evaluate Solutions) (/4) | (0) The presentation does not identify or only minimally identifies solutions, either the team's or others'. | (2) The presentation describes pros and/or cons of potential options related to the topic, OR describes limitations or implications of the team's solution in an inconsistent, illogical, overly broad, or otherwise unconvincing manner. | (4) The presentation explains the pros and/or cons of potential options and situates the team's proposed solution in conversation with them, AND evaluates the solution proposed by the team by thoroughly explaining its limitations or implications. |
| 3. Engage Audience (Performance) (/6) | (2) All or all but one of the presenters make little or no use of techniques to engage the audience. | (4) At times, some presenters effectively engage the audience. As a team the presenters demonstrate uneven delivery or performance techniques. | (6) All presenters effectively engage the audience through strategic intentional use of performance techniques most of the time. |
| 4. Engage Audience (Design) (/4) | (0) The presentation demonstrates no design or minimal design with significant errors. | (2) The presentation's design demonstrates an understanding of media and design elements but does not enhance the team's message, or does so inconsistently. | (4) Overall, the design clearly guides viewers through the presentation and demonstrates strategic selection of media and design elements that help clarify the argument for the team's solution. |
| 5. Collaborate Reflect (/4) | (0) All or all but one member of the team offer generic responses that could apply to any collaborative project. Or the answers by all or all but one of the team may be unacceptably brief. | (2) Two or more of the responses in the oral defense support their answers with some relevant evidence specific to the team's project. | (4) All responses in the oral defense articulate detailed answers to the question asked and support those answers with relevant evidence specific to collaboration on this project. AND the answers in the oral defense taken together with the presentation demonstrate roughly equal participation from all team members. |
Engaging performance techniques per the rubric: eye contact, vocal variety to emphasize important information, a controlled rate of speech, support materials that do not compromise connection with the audience, energy, and gestures that emphasize key points. Total: 24 points.
| Row | What you actually need to do | Points |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish Argument | One clear, complex team argument for one team solution, built from strategically chosen evidence, fitting the time limit, with every speaker logically connected. Not four mini-reports stapled together. | /6 |
| 2. Evaluate Solutions (Understand and Analyze Context) | Show the other options people have proposed, weigh their pros and cons, put your team's solution in conversation with them, and honestly explain your solution's limits and implications. | /4 |
| 3. Performance (Engage Audience) | Every speaker, most of the time: eye contact, vocal variety, steady pace, energy, purposeful movement. Notes are fine; reading off them is not. | /6 |
| 4. Design (Engage Audience) | Slides that guide the audience: big headings, few words, visuals that advance the argument instead of decorating it, one consistent style across every speaker. The 3-second read test. | /4 |
| 5. Collaborate Reflect | When you get your oral defense question, give a detailed answer with evidence from this project, not something that could describe any group ever. The whole team needs to look like it carried roughly equal weight, in the presentation and the answers. | /4 |
| Row | What you actually need to do |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context | Specific, significant context (no "everyone knows that...") connected to at least two stimulus materials with in-text citations, plus your research question clearly presented. |
| 2. Establish Argument | State your argument early, organize clearly with heading slides, discuss your evidence instead of just presenting it, and address limitations and implications before the 8-minute mark. |
| 3. Select and Use Evidence | Relevant and credible evidence, 2 to 3 pieces per perspective, multiple perspectives in conversation: explain how ideas support or contradict each other. |
| 4. The Solution | A realistic solution that directly answers your research question. Test it: say your question, then your solution. Do they match? |
| 5. Design | Readable, uncrowded slides; images that add; simple clear graphs; consistent spelling and capitalization; nothing out of place. |
| 6. Performance | Row 6 scores how you select and execute delivery techniques; College Board's examples are eye contact, vocal variety, movement, and energy, and none of them is weighted above the others. The 6 goes to a careful selection of those techniques with a dynamic execution that strongly supports the argument. Add vocal variety, movement, and note cards you barely need. |
| Oral Defense | Two questions, scored on specificity: detailed answers with evidence from your project. Generic answers that could come from anyone score lowest. The full question bank is on the Oral Defense page. |
| Row | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context | /6 |
| 2. Establish Argument (linking evidence to claims) | /6 |
| 3. Select and Use Evidence | /6 |
| 4. Establish Argument (your conclusion or solution) | /6 |
| 5. Engage Audience (Design) | /6 |
| 6. Engage Audience (Performance) | /6 |
| Row | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Reflect | /6 |
| 2. Establish Argument | /6 |
Rows and points from College Board's 2026 AP Seminar Performance Task 2 Scoring Guidelines. College Board scores the presentation and the oral defense separately.
College Board's full wording for each row is in the official PT2 scoring guidelines.
IRR Purpose: Explore the complexity of an issue by examining it through different perspectives and connecting it to the larger context.
Thesis here means your framing statement: it names your lens, the issue, and the perspectives your body paragraphs cover. The IRR does not take a side.
Expert 1 (with credentials)
Expert 2 (with credentials)
Expert 3 (with credentials)
Expert 1 (with credentials)
Expert 2 (with credentials)
Expert 3 (with credentials)
Expert 1 (with credentials)
Expert 2 (with credentials)
Expert 3 (with credentials)
Save the PDF, then upload it to the Canvas assignment to turn it in to Mrs. Cohen.
Expert 1 (with credentials)
Expert 2 (with credentials)
Expert 3 (with credentials)
RAVEN is how this course evaluates whether a source deserves your trust. Run every key source through all five letters, then decide: Strong, OK, or Weak. The interactive Source Tracker (on the Tools page) applies this to your full source list.
What is the reputation of the author, source, and publication? Is the publication peer-reviewed? Do past actions or statements suggest unreliability? Is the author or publication in a position of authority on this topic?
Is the author in a position that allows access to reliable evidence? If the piece is about an event, did the author actually observe it firsthand?
Does the author have a personal stake in the topic? Would they gain anything by lying? Would they gain anything by telling the truth?
Does the author have specialized knowledge on the topic? Does the evidence itself come from a source with real expertise?
Is the author neutral, or is bias evident? If there is bias, is it evidence-based? Is the source of the evidence itself neutral?
On the exam and in your papers: never name RAVEN. Apply it. "M. Stacia Dearmin, a practicing physician at Akron Children's Hospital, writes from direct clinical experience" is Expertise and Ability to Observe in action, without the acronym.
If the tracker does not appear, reload the page.
Five tests. Mark each test Pass or Not yet. Nothing here blocks you; the notes are advice. Type your question, enter the class code, and press Check my question. You get three checks a day, with a short wait between them, so revise before you check again.
Cannot be answered with yes, no, or one word.
Not yet looks like: "Is fast fashion bad?" "How many teens use social media?"
The fix: a stem that forces a judgment. To what extent should or could... What role does [factor] play in... How might [stakeholder] address... What responsibility does [group] have to... How effective is [approach] at...
Names a particular group, place, time, or practice. College Board's own scoring example: “water pollution in India,” not “pollution.”
Not yet looks like: "What are the effects of pollution?" Air, water, and land is three papers.
The fix: the specific-noun move. Swap every general noun for the specific one you actually care about. “Teenagers” becomes “high school athletes.”
Reasonable people, with evidence, would answer it differently. A topic with no position cannot make an argument.
Not yet looks like: "How does X help Y?" It has already decided. "How does air pollution affect children?" Nobody argues the other side.
The fix: the tension move. Two real things pull against each other; somebody has to give something up. Name the stakeholder who loses if your answer wins.
At least half of the articles you found touch it, and you could finish by the due date on the calendar.
Not yet looks like: "How does social media affect teens, and what should schools do about it?"
The fix: split it and keep the one you can finish. Then check the published conversation: what are the writers in your articles already asking?
Someone besides you would want to read 1,200 words about it. Interesting is a skill, not luck.
Not yet looks like: a question a smart stranger answers with "sure, obviously."
The fix: the only-you detail (one thing you know from your life or your community that most adults would not think to ask) and the stranger test (a smart stranger says “huh, I never thought about that”).
The same checks as the five tests above, one question at a time.
The Thesis Builder is loading. If it does not appear, reload the page.
The Annotated Bibliography is loading. If it does not appear, reload the page.
Stuck on a sentence? is loading. If it does not appear, reload the page.
Check each box as your team finishes it. Keep this on top of your deck. Run time goal: 8 to 10 minutes.
The defense is scored on Row 5, Collaborate Reflect. Every answer needs specific evidence from your team's work. Practice in the Gauntlet.
Run this top to bottom before presentation day.
Row 6 scores how you select and execute delivery techniques; College Board's examples are eye contact, vocal variety, movement, and energy, and none of them is weighted above the others. The 6 goes to a careful selection of those techniques with a dynamic execution that strongly supports the argument. Also: vocal variety, movement, not over-relying on note cards, and cards that are easy to handle.
Since this is an argument paper, you must: present a debate with multiple perspectives, answer your research question, and propose a solution or resolution. 2,000 words max. Titles, subheadings, and in-text citations count; footnoted citations, the bibliography, and text in figures or tables do not. A theme from at least two stimulus texts, at least one of them used as real context or evidence, scholarly sources, and one citation style used accurately all the way through.
Write your research question, your working thesis (your answer to the question), and the stimulus source(s) you will use with a note on how each one enters your argument.
For each section: a main claim, the sources and key evidence you will use, and your analysis explaining how it supports your thesis. Put sources in conversation rather than summarizing each one separately, connect every source back to your question and thesis, address multiple perspectives, and add your analysis: you are the expert now.
Required for top scores. What would someone who disagrees say, and how do you respond? You do not always need to refute: you can confirm, concede, qualify, adjust, or redefine.
Your solution or resolution (required), its limitations (is it applicable everywhere, for all people?), and its implications (what are the consequences if it is adopted?).
Four more outline formats (Classic Argument Model, claim-and-evidence grids, the paragraph-by-paragraph I-E-E-C template, and the rubric-aligned planner) are in the IWA Outline doc if this structure does not fit your topic.
Five outline options. Pick the one that fits how your argument is shaped.
One source to analyze. Three questions, each scored independently. In class, you get three timed practice rounds, and they step down as your speed builds: 60 minutes for your first, then 50, then 45. On the real exam, budget about 30 minutes for Part A so you protect 90 for Part B.
Write Part B first. Then come back to Part A and answer in this order: Q2 (line of reasoning), then Q3 (evidence), then Q1 (argument). Q2 forces you through the whole article and maps every claim; Q3 evaluates the evidence you just mapped while it is fresh; Q1 is the fastest question on the exam once you know the argument cold.
"Source X has Expertise" earns a 4. "Source X's expertise in Y allows the author to support the claim that Z" earns the 6. Same rule on Q2: naming a connection earns a 4; showing how one claim makes the next one possible earns the 6.
A mini IWA: 4 sources connected by a theme, no more than 90 minutes. The College Board sources are the backbone of your evidence; two of the four sources is the floor, not the target; the 6 comes from putting three or four in conversation.
Although (counterargument), (main argument) because (supporting 1 and supporting 2).
The four sources are your evidence. Outside knowledge belongs in your hook or your conclusion, never in a body paragraph: readers score what you do with the sources, and a paragraph built on your own experience reads as anecdote.
Row 1 Establish Argument, Row 2 Line of Reasoning, Row 3 Select and Use Evidence, Row 4 Apply Conventions: each 0/2/4/6. A response can be a 6 on Row 1 and a 2 on Row 3.
Every term below shows up in the rubrics, the prompts, or Mrs. Cohen's feedback. The Big Six come straight from the classroom Key Definitions poster, with the same examples.
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Lens | A filter through which an issue or topic is considered or examined. | Looking at the political impacts of climate change compared to the scientific impacts versus the social impacts. |
| Perspective | A point of view conveyed through an argument. The test: can someone disagree with it? Scored in: IRR Row 4, the IWA, and EOC B, wherever you put arguments in conversation. | The most important step on climate change is holding major corporations responsible vs. implementing more climate-friendly legislation. |
| Stakeholder | An individual or group affected by the ideas and decisions around an issue. | Government officials, scientists, researchers, consumers, CEOs of major corporations. |
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Implication | A possible future effect or result. | Increased climate-friendly legislation may lead to more accountability for climate-friendly practices. |
| Argument | A claim or thesis that conveys a perspective, developed through a line of reasoning and supported by evidence. Scored in: EOC B Row 1 and IWA Row 1 (Establish Argument). IRR Row 2 is where you analyze the arguments inside your sources. | For consumers to hold companies responsible, they must make their stances clear through purchasing habits and collaborate with ethical companies to create real social change. |
| Line of Reasoning | The purposeful arrangement of claims with supporting evidence that leads to a conclusion. Scored in: EOC B Row 2 (Line of Reasoning), IRR Row 2, EOC A Question 2. | Each claim sets up the next; shuffle the paragraphs and the argument should break. |
The difference between a list and a line of reasoning is whether the order matters. Shuffle each set and watch what happens.
| Term | What it means in this course |
|---|---|
| Claim | A single debatable statement your evidence must prove. Topic sentences carry claims; your thesis is your biggest claim. Scored in: EOC B Rows 1 and 2; every topic sentence in the IWA and IRR. |
| Evidence | Facts, statistics, expert findings, examples, or testimony used to support a claim. Evidence never speaks for itself. Scored in: EOC B Row 3 (Select and Use Evidence), IRR Row 3, EOC A Question 3. |
| Commentary | Your explanation of what the evidence proves and how it supports the claim. This is where rubric points actually live. Scored in: EOC B Row 3 and IRR Row 2: the reasoning right after each citation. |
| Counterargument | The strongest opposing view, presented fairly, not a strawman version of it. Scored in: EOC B Row 1: a complex argument engages the strongest opposing view instead of dodging it. |
| Rebuttal / Refutation | Your response showing why your argument holds despite the counterargument. |
| Concession | Honestly granting the part of the counterargument that is true before explaining why your position still stands. |
| Qualification | Limiting a claim so it stays defensible: "in most urban districts" instead of "everywhere, always." |
| Call to action | What the author wants people to do, change, support, or stop. Finding it is the fastest route to an author's argument on EOC A Q1. |
| Term | What it means in this course |
|---|---|
| Credibility | Whether a source deserves trust, judged with RAVEN: Reputation, Ability to observe, Vested interest, Expertise, Neutrality. Scored in: EOC A Question 3, IRR Row 3, IWA Row 3. Apply RAVEN; never name it. |
| Relevance | Whether the evidence actually bears on the specific claim it sits next to. Credible evidence can still be irrelevant. |
| Validity | Whether reasoning or a study design actually measures or proves what it claims to. |
| Reliability | Whether a source or method produces consistent, repeatable results. |
| Bias | A leaning that shapes how information is selected or framed. Every source has some; your job is to name how it matters. |
| Vested interest | When a source stands to gain (money, power, reputation) from a particular conclusion. |
| Limitation | A specific weakness of evidence: small sample size, missing credentials, dated data, vested interest, or narrow scope. A limitation has to come from the text. Guessing that a source might be biased earns nothing. |
| Job word | A verb or phrase that names what a claim does for the argument (sets up, builds on this by, backs it with, widens the problem by, raises the stakes). The opposite of an order word. |
| Order word | then, next, after that, finally, first. Describes sequence, not reasoning. Harmless when a job follows it, a 4 when it stands alone. |
| Load-bearing background | A paragraph with no claim and no evidence that still does a job for the argument, usually defining a baseline so a key term makes sense. Read for the job, not only the content. |
| The borrow test | Could the author have written this sentence without doing any research? If yes, it is a claim. If no, it is evidence. |
| Subject, Topic, Issue | The ladder you climb down to find a research question. A subject is too big to research; an issue is a specific problem with stakeholders and a real tension. |
| Scholarly / peer-reviewed | Work checked by other experts before publication. The backbone of a Tier 1 source list. |
| Term | What it means in this course |
|---|---|
| Context | The who, what, where, when, and why-it-matters that situates your issue in a larger conversation. IRR Row 1 territory. |
| Complexity | Treating an issue as having multiple causes, stakeholders, and trade-offs rather than one obvious answer. |
| Synthesis | Putting sources in conversation until they say something together that none says alone. The most rewarded move in the course. |
| Stimulus material | The College Board packet of texts, released each January. Your IWA must connect to a theme from at least one of them, organically. |
| Resolution / Solution | The realistic answer your argument lands on, always presented with its limitations and implications. |
| Plagiarism / Attribution | Using ideas or words without credit vs. clearly naming where every idea came from. Missing attribution can zero out an entire task. |
Want these in flashcard form? Cover the right column, read the left, and define out loud. The terms repeat across every assessment, so this list works for the EOC too.
The sunglasses analogy. A lens works like a pair of tinted sunglasses: it filters what you see. Put on the economic lens and money questions jump out; put on the ethical lens and right-and-wrong questions jump out. A lens is a filter through which an issue or topic is considered or examined. A perspective is a point of view conveyed through an argument.
Ask: can a reasonable person argue against it? If no, you have a topic, a lens, or a stakeholder. If yes, you have a perspective. "Scientists" is not a perspective. "Scientists who argue geoengineering is too risky to deploy" carries a perspective.
The test: can a reasonable person argue against it? No: topic, lens, or stakeholder. Yes: perspective.
One lens, many perspectives Inside a single lens you should still find 2 to 3 differing perspectives. The economic lens on housing contains economists who blame zoning, economists who blame interest rates, and developers who blame construction costs. The lens is shared; the arguments clash.
| Level | What it is | Example | Can someone disagree? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | The issue itself | Climate change | No. It is just a subject. |
| Lens | A focus point for viewing the issue | The economic lens on climate change | No. It is just a viewing angle. |
| Stakeholder | A person or group affected by the issue | Fossil fuel workers; coastal homeowners | No. They are people, not claims. |
| Perspective | A point of view conveyed through an argument | "Carbon taxes are the most effective climate policy because they price the true cost of emissions" | Yes. This is the test. |
IRR Row 4 and IMP Row 3 both score perspectives, not lenses. A paper that says "the economic perspective and the political perspective" without naming what anyone is actually arguing reads as oversimplified, the 2-point descriptor. Name WHO argues WHAT and WHY, then connect those arguments to each other.
"While [Perspective A] assumes ___ in order to achieve ___, [Perspective B] counters that ___, which suggests ___."
"Economists like [name] argue ___, but public health researchers such as [name] complicate this by showing ___."
"These perspectives agree that ___ but split sharply over ___, and that disagreement matters because ___."
Your IRR takes one of these eleven lenses on your team's question, and your group needs a different lens for each member: two people on the same lens write two papers that see the same thing.
Choosing yours: your two articles hint at your lens. Read the guiding questions below and pick the lens whose questions you already want to answer. Then, under your name on the team slide, write one line: what your lens puts in focus that your teammates' lenses cannot.
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Questions it makes you ask
Remember: a perspective is a source's argument, not a lens and not a group of people. Inside one lens you should still find two or three perspectives that clash.
What synthesis is: putting two or more sources in conversation inside the same paragraph until they say something together that neither says alone. What it is not: summarizing Source A, then summarizing Source B, then moving on.
Three names, one move: the rubrics call it synthesizing, putting sources in conversation, and placing them in dialogue.
1. Clarify: use one source to sharpen or explain another. The employers' 7.7 out of 10 shows the pattern across the trials; the Irish employee's calendar shows what it looks like in one week.
2. Complicate: use one source to show what another misses. Where one source emphasizes a gain, another complicates it by documenting a cost the first never measures.
3. Push back: use one source to directly challenge another. In the IRR, explain why they disagree without picking a winner. In the TMP, IWA, IMP, and EOC B, your commentary referees: say who has the stronger case and why.
What it looks like
Dyrbye found that limiting work hours improves surgeon wellness. Shanafelt found that duty hour restrictions made burnout worse.
The same two sources, taking turns. They contradict each other, and nothing in the writing says so: a list, not a conversation.
What it should look like
Some scholars like Dyrbye... found significant improvements to surgeon wellness in limiting work hours... However, Dr. Shanafelt... discovered that duty hour restrictions exacerbated burnout symptoms by forcing surgeons to complete the same amount of work in less time... This may be because surgeons with high workload will often dedicate time at home to complete their administrative tasks... Therefore, a restriction in working hours may address some challenges that lead surgeons to burnout but not others.
Same question, same paragraph: what should hospitals do about work hours?
However: one source pushes back.
This may be because: the writer explains how both findings can be true. The work does not shrink; it moves home.
Therefore... but not others: it lands without picking a winner.
College Board's readers said these perspectives are put into conversation. That is the top score on IRR Row 4.
"However, Shanafelt disagrees" only names the disagreement. That is a middle score. The top score explains how: the exact point where they split, and why.
What it looks like
The UK trial of 73 companies and 3,300 employees found that almost half of respondents said productivity improved slightly or significantly (WEF). Commuting time per week fell from 3.5 hours to just under 2.6 hours, 27% lower (WEF). Economist Juliet Schor argues that a shorter working week is key to cutting global carbon emissions (WEF). These sources show different views on the four-day week.
What it should look like
The UK trial's productivity result seems to settle the question, but it comes from the workers reporting on themselves: almost half said productivity improved, and 86% wanted to keep the schedule, which measures how the week felt as much as what it produced. The commuting finding is the harder number, a drop from 3.5 hours a week to just under 2.6, and it is what lets Schor's argument about carbon emissions attach to this trial at all. Together, the three suggest the strongest case for the four-day week may not be the productivity claim the article leads with but the hours nobody spent commuting, a case the article never makes for itself, and one it never tests against anyone who lost out.
Notice what changed: the sources now react to each other (seems to settle, is the harder number, lets Schor's argument attach), the writer's commentary connects them, and the paragraph ends somewhere none of the sources went alone. Every number is the article's own.
Quick check: cover one source's sentence. If the rest still makes sense without it, your sources were taking turns.
In the TMP it is the same move one level up: your team's solution in conversation with the options other people have proposed.
For more frames, open For a model, open any top-scoring IRR sample and watch the "if A gets their way / if B gets their way" move in its conclusion.
The College Board AI rule on synthesis. Asking AI to compare, contrast, or synthesize across sources has no acceptable use. Synthesis is the skill the course assesses; checkpoints and the oral defense verify you did it yourself.
Curve formula: Curved % = square root of (raw / max) x 100, floored to the nearest whole number. The curve always rounds down, so what you see is exactly what you receive.
Gradebook categories: Argumentative Writing and Synthesis 35%, Analytical Reading and Questioning 25%, Speaking and Listening 30%, Formative 10%.
| Raw | Raw % | Curved % | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 100% | 100% | A |
| 14 | 93% | 96% | A |
| 13 | 86% | 93% | A |
| 12 | 80% | 89% | B |
| 11 | 73% | 85% | B |
| 10 | 66% | 81% | B |
| 9 | 60% | 77% | C |
| 8 | 53% | 73% | C |
| 7 | 46% | 68% | D |
| 6 | 40% | 63% | D |
| 5 | 33% | 57% | F |
| Raw | Raw % | Curved % | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 100% | 100% | A |
| 22 | 91% | 95% | A |
| 20 | 83% | 91% | A |
| 18 | 75% | 86% | B |
| 16 | 66% | 81% | B |
| 14 | 58% | 76% | C |
| 12 | 50% | 70% | C |
| 10 | 41% | 64% | D |
| 8 | 33% | 57% | F |
| Raw | Raw % | Curved % | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 100% | 100% | A |
| 28 | 93% | 96% | A |
| 26 | 86% | 93% | A |
| 24 | 80% | 89% | B |
| 22 | 73% | 85% | B |
| 20 | 66% | 81% | B |
| 18 | 60% | 77% | C |
| 16 | 53% | 73% | C |
| 14 | 46% | 68% | D |
| 12 | 40% | 63% | D |
| 10 | 33% | 57% | F |
Practice IRR. The real IRR is scored by College Board readers and does not receive a class grade.
| Raw | Raw % | Curved % | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | 100% | 100% | A |
| 16 | 88% | 94% | A |
| 14 | 77% | 88% | B |
| 12 | 66% | 81% | B |
| 10 | 55% | 74% | C |
| 8 | 44% | 66% | D |
| 6 | 33% | 57% | F |
One piece of evidence, five moves. Three pieces, fully done, is the 6.
Five moves, one worked example each, from Artushin on Mangen's Kindle study.
Is this source trustworthy on this claim, and why? (Reputation, ability to observe, vested interest, expertise, neutrality, applied, never named.)
“Mangen studies reading, and she compared paper and Kindle readers herself, so she saw the difference directly.”
What did the evidence actually find?
“Paperback readers put the plot events in order better than Kindle readers.”
Which of the author's claims does it support?
“Artushin's claim that paper improves comprehension.”
What limitation comes from the text?
“One story, a small group, and the article gives no numbers.”
Fully, partially, or weakly supports, with a because.
“Partially supports, because it shows better sequencing, not better understanding.”
One row per piece of evidence, five boxes per row. Saved on this device. Then see your evaluation as a paragraph before you write the real one.
Piece 1
Piece 2
Piece 3
A limitation has to point to a sentence in the passage. A guessed one scores nothing.
The Q3 row of “What each score looks like.”
Evidence named or sorted into types; generic doubt or generic praise; fewer than two pieces.
Two pieces assessed thinly; credibility or relevance asserted instead of explained; sources judged but their findings never evaluated; one pile with one verdict.
Three or more pieces, each with credibility reasoned, relevance explained against the claim it supports, a limitation that comes from the text, and a verdict.
Three pieces fully done is the standard. Two is College Board's floor. Ten one-liners is a 4.
Sources only, no findings evaluated, cannot score a 6.