You found it. Ten questions about this course, all answerable from this website. There are three versions of the gauntlet and you get a random one each time. A perfect 10 for 10 unlocks a 3-minute BRAIN BREAK that is definitely not schoolwork. When the 3 minutes are up, the arcade closes and you have to beat a fresh version to reopen it.

IRR Purpose: Explore the complexity of an issue by examining it through different perspectives and connecting it to the larger context.

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 (in Templates) applies this to your full source list.

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.

Five tests, and one tie-breaker question underneath. 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.

Sum up a source in four sentences so you understand it before you use it. (Teachers call this a rhetorical précis.)

Sentence frames for AP Seminar, grouped by the move they make and the rubric row that move earns. Pick a move, then a tier. Start at Simple, and move up when the simple version stops saying everything you mean.

Directions: Peer review each teammate's IRR using the AP Seminar rubric. Complete a review table for each person in your group (you do not review yourself).

Why: This helps you understand the rubric on a deeper level so you can produce the best possible IRR, you help your teammates, and afterward you have read every teammate's IRR, a necessary step for the TMP.

For Each Rubric Row, Record:

• Score for the row.
• Justification: literally list the rubric descriptors that align with the score.
• Text evidence from the IRR that supports the justification.
• Grows for improvement: specific feedback on how the teammate can improve the category, even if they received a high score.

The Six Rows

1. Understand & Analyze Context
2. Understand & Analyze Argument
3. Evaluate Sources & Evidence
4. Understand & Analyze Perspective
5. Apply Conventions (Citations)
6. Apply Conventions (Grammar)

When finished: submit on Canvas and email the review to your teammates so they can view their feedback.

Check each box as your team finishes it. Keep this on top of your deck. Run time goal: 8 to 10 minutes.

Flow Chart: Speaker Order and Handoffs

Lock in the speaker order: who opens, who closes, and every handoff line. For each part, lock in: main point in one sentence, the evidence used (author/title or site), and visuals. Check before rehearsal: every slide shows short text plus credit, no repeated points across speakers, and total time adds up to 8 to 10 minutes.

Roles to Assign

Speaker order, from who opens to who closes: Opener/Context, Solution leads, Limits/Counter, Conclusion/Implications. Support roles: Slide driver, Timekeeper, and Evidence verifier (checks on-slide credits).

Run this top to bottom before presentation day.

General Requirements

• Title slides consistently capitalized; proper nouns capitalized; no name or school anywhere.
• Citations: author names capitalized, dates included, Works Cited slide at the end, Image Credits slide for graphics.
• Practiced within the 6 to 8 minute limit at least three times to different people; note cards prepared; plan for laptop and timekeeping.

Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context

• Context explains why the topic is significant and is specific (no "everyone knows that...").
• Connects to at least two stimulus materials with in-text citations, and each connection is clear and specific.
• Research question clearly presented in a legible font, properly capitalized.

Row 2: Establish Argument

• Clearly organized with heading slides for each component; argument stated early.
• Evidence is discussed, not just presented; source credibility established for each piece.
• Limitations and implications of solutions addressed; argument never vague.

Row 3: Select and Use Evidence

• Every piece of evidence is relevant and credible; 2 to 3 pieces per perspective.
• Multiple perspectives represented, clearly, with nothing glaringly missing.
• Perspectives and evidence put in conversation: explain how ideas support or contradict each other.

Row 4: The Solution

• Solution is realistic and directly answers the research question. Test: state the RQ immediately followed by the solution; do they match?
• Solution clearly spelled out; limitations and implications addressed before the 8-minute mark.

Row 5: Design

• Visually pleasing and not crowded; every word readable; consistent spelling and capitalization.
• Images add to the presentation; graphs are simple and clear; no slide feels out of place.

Row 6: Performance

Eye contact and energy are the two most heavily scored components. 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 (excluding citations), at least one stimulus source, scholarly sources, and MLA or APA citations with a Works Cited.

Part 1: Foundation

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.

Part 2: Introduction

• Hook: a creative opening, relevant anecdote, or striking statistic.
• Context: why this topic is relevant today and how it connects to the stimulus materials.
• The debate: what perspectives and lenses are in conversation about this topic.
• Research question, then thesis. Avoid "I think" and "I believe."

Part 3: Body Sections

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.

Part 4: Counterargument and Rebuttal

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.

Part 5: Conclusion

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?).

Thesis Templates

• Going against popular opinion: "Although [issue] is considered to be [general opinion], [your position] is important to consider given the ongoing debate about [points of contention]."
• Offering a new perspective: "Both [side A] and [side B] have merits and drawbacks; however, perhaps we need to consider [your take] when trying to reach a resolution for [issue]."

Source Language

• Introducing: "[Source], who has been researching..., concludes that..."
• Connecting: "To further support [Source A's] idea, [Source B] states..." / "However, [Source B] disagrees, claiming that..."
• Adding nuance: "To a lesser extent..." / "An additional consideration..."

Final Checklist

• Research question is clear and debatable; thesis answers it and takes a position.
• At least one stimulus source used as evidence; sources are in conversation.
• Multiple perspectives addressed; counterargument and rebuttal included.
• Solution proposed with limitations and implications; all sources cited.

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 class IWA Outline doc if this structure does not fit your topic.

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.

Question 1: Identify the Argument, 3 points

• Run the recipe: the WHAT (the author's main claim), the WHY (the author's own because, the reason or mechanism the author gives), and the SO WHAT (what the author says should happen). Frame: The author argues that [WHAT] because [WHY], and therefore [SO WHAT].
• College Board counts the parts. Three present and accurate earns the 3. One missing, inaccurate, or swapped for evidence drops you to a 2.
• Evidence is never a part. A study, a statistic, or a finding in the WHY slot means the WHY is missing.
• Run the disagree test: if no reasonable person could disagree with your sentence, you wrote the topic, not the argument.

Question 2: Explain the Line of Reasoning, 6 points

• Explain how, not just that. Walk the claims in order, and give every claim a job: name the claim, say what it does for the argument, show what it makes possible.
• Job words earn the 6: sets up, builds on this by, backs it with, widens the problem by, raises the stakes, answers the objection that, lets her end with. Order words alone (then, next, after that, finally) cap you at a 4.
• The 4 against the 6: listing the claims in order earns a 4. Explaining how each claim sets up the next, and how they all serve the main argument, earns the 6.
• Reach the destination. Stopping before the author's last claim holds at a 4 even when the connections you did write are strong, and so does skipping the setup.
• The shuffle test: if your sentences would still make sense in a different order, you are labeling, not explaining.

Question 3: Evaluate the Evidence

• Evaluate, never just name. Naming tells the reader what a source is. Evaluating tells the reader what it can and cannot do for this specific claim.
• Use RAVEN, but apply it, and never write the letters in your answer.
• Evaluate at least three pieces of evidence. Run both tests (credibility and relevance) on every piece, and name at least one real limitation that comes from the text.
• Evaluate the evidence, not just the people behind it: a response that only judges sources cannot score a 6. Name the finding, then name the claim it supports.
• Per piece: WHO (the source, and your credibility judgment with a reason), WHAT (the finding, in your words), FOR (which claim it supports), BUT (one limitation from the text), VERDICT (fully, partially, or weakly supports, with a because).

Exam-day game plan

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.

The 4 vs the 6

"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; you only need to incorporate and synthesize 2.

Setup

• Read all four sources. Note the major arguments already represented on scrap paper.
• Jot an argument that is not already represented in the sources but relates to the theme.
• Skip sources you do not want to use or fully understand.
• Pen an outline before you draft. Watch your time.

The Argument

• Can you argue from a stakeholder group not represented in the texts, or through a different lens?
• Is your argument something people can disagree with? It needs to be.
• If a solution-based argument comes to you, use it. If not, do not worry.

Thesis Frame

Although (counterargument), (main argument) because (supporting 1 and supporting 2).

The Structure (One Format, Every Time)

• Intro: establish the theme that connects the sources, then state your perspective with "because."
• Body 1, Define: what do the sources show about the issue?
• Body 2, Complicate: what do they miss, oversimplify, or overlook?
• Body 3, Implication: why does your perspective matter? What are the consequences?
• Conclusion: reinforce why your argument matters. Add a call to action, solution, or limitation if you can.

The 6/6 Move

• Put sources in conversation, not in a line: "Where Source A emphasizes ___, Source C complicates this by ___."
• Use one source to clarify or push back on another. Do not just stack quotes.
• Your evidence is not your argument. Your commentary is what makes the synthesis work. Proofread.

Outside Evidence

Okay, but it should not carry your argument: it tends to read as anecdotal. Its best home is your hook or conclusion.

Score Yourself by Row, Never Holistically

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.

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.

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.

One piece of evidence, five moves. Three pieces, fully done, is the 6.