A 6 to 8 minute individual presentation of your IWA argument, worth 20% of PT2 and scored by Mrs. Cohen. It is followed by the Oral Defense: 2 questions from the teacher worth another 10% of PT2.
The IMP is not a read-aloud of the IWA. It is the same argument, rebuilt for a listening audience. A 2,000 word paper takes about 15 minutes to read out loud; you have 6 to 8. That means roughly half of your IWA gets cut, and the half that stays gets translated from paragraphs into claims, visuals, and spoken reasoning.
Lay your IWA next to this table and convert section by section. The right column tells you what survives the cut. The "Becomes" column comes straight from the IMP rubric rows and mirrors the structure of the high scoring sample decks linked at the bottom of this section (research question, stimulus connections, claims and evidence by perspective, counterargument, alternative solution, proposed solution with limitations, conclusion).
| In your IWA | Becomes in your IMP | Slides | What gets cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction + context (with stimulus connection) | A hook (credited stat, image, or moment), then your research question and the context the audience needs, citing at least two stimulus materials. | 1 to 2 | Background the audience does not need to follow YOUR argument. |
| Thesis | Your argument stated EARLY and word-for-word on its own slide. The audience should be able to repeat it back. | 1 | Nothing. This is the one sentence that survives untouched. |
| Body paragraphs / line of reasoning | Claims-and-evidence slides organized by perspective: 2 to 3 pieces of credited evidence per perspective, with the perspectives in conversation (how the ideas support or contradict each other), plus YOUR commentary spoken aloud. This is IMP Row 3. | 2 to 3 | Your weaker evidence. If a paragraph existed mostly to hit word count, it goes. |
| Counterargument + rebuttal | The strongest opposing view presented fairly, then why your argument holds anyway. The high scoring samples below each give this its own labeled section. | 1 | Secondary counterarguments. Keep only the strongest one. |
| Resolution + alternatives | The move the sample decks model: weigh an alternative solution with its limitations FIRST, then land your proposed solution with its own limitations and implications, before the 8-minute mark. Test it: say your research question, then your solution. Do they match? (Row 4.) | 1 to 2 | Solutions you cannot defend in one breath. |
| Conclusion | The so-what: who is affected and what should happen next. Looks forward, not backward. | 1 | Restated evidence. |
| References | On-slide credits and verbal citations throughout. No references slide is read aloud. | 0 | The list format. Credit travels with the evidence instead. |
Open with a credited stat, image, or moment that earns attention, then state your research question and thesis.
Walk your line of reasoning claim by claim, crediting evidence on the slide or out loud as you go.
Present the strongest opposing view fairly, then explain why your argument holds anyway.
Restate your answer and tell the audience why it matters: who is affected and what should happen next.
The full IMP Pre-Submission Checklist (all six rubric rows) is embedded in the Templates section below, and the full Oral Defense Question Bank is on this page in the Oral Defense section. High scoring IMP videos and slide decks are linked right below this section.
Watch for the two most heavily scored delivery components: eye contact and energy. Then study how each presenter states the argument early and puts perspectives in conversation. Each card opens the video in a new tab and links its matching slide deck, so nothing gets blocked by embedded players.
Videos open in a new tab and require being signed in to a school Google account that the videos are shared with.
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.
Arrow keys to move, Space (or tap) to shoot. Five themed waves of point-killers are descending on your Works Cited: weak sources, thesis problems, evidence sins, reasoning gaps, and a final boss wave of academic integrity violations. Three lives, and the whole arcade stays open for exactly 3 minutes. When the break clock hits zero, it is back to the books.
IRR Purpose: Explore the complexity of an issue by examining it through different perspectives and connecting it to the larger context.
This is a research report, not an argumentative essay. You can have a thesis statement, and you may include a recommendation paragraph at the end identifying what your research suggests is the best solution to your group's question. Every option uses the same introduction and conclusion.
Best with 2 to 3 stakeholders whose perspectives you compare and contrast (for example: Democrats, Republicans, NRA). Stakeholders rebut, complement, support, limit, or constrain one another. Put them in conversation.
Sources represent a variety of perspectives woven through the paper rather than sectioned off.
Best when sources address distinct problems or subtopics within your lens (example: deinstitutionalization has resulted in homelessness, increased crime and prison overflow, and isolation).
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.
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.
Performance Task 2 · Checkpoint 1 · Required: 12-15 Sources. Everything you type saves automatically on this device. This is the same tracker as the official document, which you must also submit for Checkpoint 1.
| TIER 1: SCHOLARLY (Preferred) | TIER 2: CREDIBLE | TIER 3: USE SPARINGLY |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed journals, academic books, dissertations, published research studies | Major news (NYT, BBC), gov't sites (.gov), org reports (.org), expert interviews, TED Talks | Blogs, social media, Wikipedia, opinion pieces, sponsored content, unknown authors |
Source Types: Journal Article · Book/Chapter · News Article · Gov't Report · Organization Report · Interview · Documentary · Data/Statistics · Website · Stimulus Source · Other
| # | Source Title | Author(s) | Publication / Website | Date | Tier | Source Type | How I'll Use This Source | Stim? |
|---|
Evaluate your KEY sources (especially Tier 2 and 3) to ensure credibility.
| R = Reputation | A = Ability to Observe | V = Vested Interest | E = Expertise | N = Neutrality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is the author/publication trustworthy and respected? | Does the author have firsthand access to information? | Does the author have something to gain or lose? | Does the author have specialized knowledge? | Is the source free from bias? Multiple perspectives? |
| # | Source Title (abbreviated) | R | A | V | E | N | Overall | Notes / Concerns |
|---|
Check off each test you can answer "yes" to. If you cannot check the whole list, refine your research question.
A thesis is not just a topic or opinion. It is your main argument, the thing you will prove using evidence. Ask: What do I want to argue? What do I want my reader to believe by the end?
Pick which task you are writing for. The two are different on purpose: the IWA takes a side; the IRR frames a conversation without taking one. Your work saves automatically on this device.
Remember: the IRR reports the conversation. Your framing statement promises perspectives and analysis, never a side. Save your opinion for the optional recommendation at the very end.
Then run it through the Five Key Qualities above. If you cannot answer yes to all five, revise before you draft.
A highly structured four-sentence summary that captures who wrote a source, what they argue, how they support it, why they wrote it, and how it connects to your argument. It forces you to truly understand a source before using it in your IWA.
Rhetorical verbs: argues, asserts, claims, contends, suggests, demonstrates, explains, challenges, refutes, proposes.
Types of support to look for: statistical data, case studies, expert testimony, historical examples, logical reasoning, personal narrative, survey results, experimental findings, comparative analysis.
Purpose verbs: inform, persuade, call attention to, raise awareness, advocate for, challenge, critique, propose, urge, caution, encourage.
A source might provide evidence for one of your claims, establish context or significance, offer a perspective you build on, or represent a counterargument you will address.
Derived from Graff and Birkenstein's They Say, I Say. Think of these as moves in a sport: the better you get, the more you know when and how to use each one.
Adding: moreover, furthermore, in addition, indeed · Contrasting: however, nevertheless, conversely, on the other hand · Comparing: likewise, similarly, along the same lines · Examples: for instance, specifically, as an illustration · Results: consequently, as a result, therefore · Conceding: admittedly, granted, to be sure · Concluding: in short, all in all, thus
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.
When finished: submit on Canvas and email the review to your teammates so they can view their feedback.
Put your initials in each box as your team finishes it. Keep this on top of your deck. Run time goal: 8 to 10 minutes.
For each speaker, lock in: slide range, main point in one sentence, the evidence used (author/title or site), visuals, the handoff line, and a time target. Speaker 1 and 4 target 1:30 to 2:00; speakers 2 and 3 target 2:00 to 2:30. 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.
Opener/Context, Solution leads, Limits/Counter, Conclusion/Implications, Slide driver, Timekeeper, and Evidence verifier (checks on-slide credits).
Run this top to bottom before presentation day.
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.
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 class IWA Outline doc if this structure does not fit your topic.
One source to analyze. Three questions, each scored independently. No more than 40 minutes.
"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.
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.
Although (counterargument), (main argument) because (supporting 1 and supporting 2).
Okay, but it should not carry your argument: it tends to read as anecdotal. Its best home is your hook or conclusion.
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 focus point through which to view an issue. | Looking at the political impacts of climate change compared to the scientific impacts versus the social impacts. |
| Perspective | A specific argument or point of view about an issue. The test: can someone disagree with it? | 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. |
| 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. | 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. | Each claim sets up the next; shuffle the paragraphs and the argument should break. |
| 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. |
| Evidence | Facts, statistics, expert findings, examples, or testimony used to support a claim. Evidence never speaks for itself. |
| Commentary | YOUR explanation of what the evidence proves and how it supports the claim. This is where rubric points actually live. |
| Counterargument | The strongest opposing view, presented fairly, not a strawman version of 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 in 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. Attribution failures 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 way of LOOKING. A perspective is what someone ARGUES once they have looked.
| 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. |
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.
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 ___."
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. Where it scores: IRR Row 4, IWA evidence, EOC B Row 3, and the conclusion of everything.
1. Clarify: use one source to sharpen or explain another. "Chen's national data shows the trend; Rodriguez's case study shows what it looks like in one district."
2. Complicate: use one source to show what another misses. "Where Source A emphasizes cost savings, Source C complicates this by documenting the hidden labor costs A never measures."
3. Push back: use one source to directly challenge another, then say who has the stronger case and why. Your commentary referees the disagreement.
Notice what changed: the sources now react to each other (complicates, reads as a direct response, together suggest), the writer's commentary connects them, and the paragraph ends somewhere none of the sources went alone.
"Where [Source A] emphasizes ___, [Source C] complicates this by ___."
"[Source B]'s findings explain WHY the pattern [Source A] documents exists: ___."
"Taken together, these sources suggest ___, a conclusion none of them reaches individually."
"If [Perspective A] gets their way, ___; if [Perspective B] gets their way, ___. Either path means ___."
For more frames, open the They Say / I Say Templates in the Template Gallery. For a model, reread the conclusion of any high scoring IRR sample on this site and watch the "if A gets their way / if B gets their way" move.
The bottom line: AI can help you explore and understand. It can never do the thinking, the synthesizing, or the writing. Checkpoints and the oral defense exist to verify the work is yours, and misuse means a 0 on the task.
Allowed: using AI to get a sense of existing debates, sub-topics, or what is widely known. Not allowed: taking AI output uncritically, like having AI generate your research question or thesis, or relying on AI as your source of information.
Allowed: asking AI for authors, organizations, or publications to then locate and read directly, and asking for recommendations to fill gaps. Not allowed: using an AI-generated source list without going to the original sources. AI invents sources; verify every one is real, credible, and relevant.
Allowed: help with complex vocabulary, sentence structures, or a confusing passage. Not allowed: generating a summary instead of reading, requesting quotes or citations you did not find yourself, or pasting AI summaries into a draft. Always read the original text.
No acceptable use. Asking AI to compare or contrast sources, synthesize across sources, or develop statements that put sources in conversation is prohibited. This is the skill the course assesses; checkpoints will ask you questions to ensure you did this work yourself.
Allowed: general best practices for structuring a paper. Not allowed: AI-produced outlines or drafts of your specific paper, or any AI-generated writing in the final draft.
Allowed: spell and grammar checkers, and feedback on style and tone where you deliberately choose what to incorporate. Not allowed: accepting AI revision suggestions uncritically or inserting new AI-suggested sections.
Allowed: guidance on citation format, and drafting or checking the format of a bibliography for sources you actually studied. Not allowed: AI citations for sources you have not read, or trusting AI formatting without checking it.
Allowed: general guidance on effective presentations and initial ideas for key points, sequence, or visuals. Not allowed: uncritically using AI to produce your key points, visuals, or structure, or memorizing an AI-generated script.
No acceptable use. Do not use AI to generate possible answers to defense questions.
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.
| 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 |
| 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 |
Use this any time you evaluate evidence: EOC A Q3, the IRR, the IWA, or class discussion.
Start with a general evaluative statement about the credibility and relevance of the evidence as a whole, then get specific.
For each piece of evidence, pick the two most relevant letters (Reputation, Ability to observe, Vested interest, Expertise, Neutrality) and explain how they bear on this specific claim.
Weak: "Source X has Expertise." Strong: "Source X's expertise in Y allows the author to support the claim that Z." Always connect the credibility move to the claim it is being asked to prove.
Explain what the evidence actually proves and what it cannot prove. Credible evidence can still be irrelevant to the claim it sits next to.
The limitation menu: small sample size, missing credentials, dated data, vested interest, narrow scope. Pick the one that genuinely applies and explain why it matters for this argument.
Two pieces of evidence, fully evaluated (credibility with two RAVEN letters, plus relevance, plus a limitation), beats ten shallow one-liners. Depth is the rubric, not quantity.