The purpose of the IRR is to explore the complexity of an issue by examining it through different perspectives and connecting it to the larger context. Remember: this is a research report, not an argumentative essay.
So far you have analyzed other people's arguments one at a time. In the IRR you put several of them in conversation about a question you chose.
Not an opinion essay. Not a summary. You do not argue a thesis; you put other people's arguments in conversation and evaluate them. Your voice lives in the analysis and evaluation, not in a claim. (The optional recommendation at the end is the one place your position appears.)
Your team picks a shared problem, and each member investigates it through a different lens. Your IRR reports what the conversation around your lens looks like: the perspectives, the evidence, the stakeholders, and where they disagree. You synthesize; you do not argue your own position. It is worth 50% of PT1 and is scored by College Board.
If a resource is not here, it is not something you need for the IRR.
The ~1,200 word report with a complete, accurate Works Cited, uploaded to the AP Digital Portfolio. Along the way you also complete the Source Tracker, Outline Planner, and process checkpoints in class, which document that the work is yours.
Each teammate examines the team question through a different lens. Open the Lenses tab below for guiding questions for all eleven lenses.
Vet every source with the RAVEN method: Reputation, Ability to observe, Vested interest, Expertise, Neutrality. Track ratings in the Source Tracker.
Check a source's tierStakeholders rebut, complement, support, limit, or constrain one another. Put them in conversation rather than listing them.
Compare, contrast, and connect sources. Avoid paragraphs where a topic sentence leans on a single source.
Eight skills, in the order the class met them. Each card teaches in a few lines; the Practice button opens the work, and your work saves on this device. A done mark appears once a practice is finished.
Stop 1 Done
You can hear the difference before you write anything.
A closed question has a one-word answer or a fact you could look up. An open question needs a judgment. The IRR question is open, and it is one question.
Converting an open question to a closed one is not a downgrade: it tells you what facts to nail down before you can research the open one.
From the bomb photo: "Is this a bomb?" is closed. "What could this be?" is open.
Stop 2 Done
You can get from "the atomic bomb" to a question with people and a tension in it.
Your topics share a subject. A subject is too big to research. Climb down until you reach an issue: a specific problem with stakeholders (the people affected) and a real tension (somebody has to give something up).
Research questions live at the issue level.
Subject: the atomic bomb. Topic: the decision to warn, or not warn, civilians before the attack. Issue: To what extent should militaries be required to warn civilian populations before an attack?
Stop 3 Done
You can turn a topic into a single, open, debatable question.
Stems that force a judgment: To what extent should / could... What role does [factor] play in... How might [stakeholder] address... What responsibility does [group] have to... How effective is [approach] at...
Ask one question. One. Make it open. Name a place, a group, a time, or a practice. Ask what two informed people would answer differently.
Nest it, with an "and how" in the middle, and it is two papers. The Chief Reader lists this as a top mistake.
Stop 4 Done
You can spot nesting, yes-or-no, a subject, an assumed answer, or a look-up, and fix it.
Every broken question breaks one rule. Name the rule, then rewrite.
The seven Don'ts: nest it; ask yes or no; ask a subject; assume the answer; ask for a fact you could look up; ask what nobody would push back on; ask what you would hate for two months.
Five broken questions wait inside, the ones the class met, in the order it met them. One is College Board's real question from a paper that scored 10 of 30.
Stop 5 Done
You can tell a question that needs a paper from one that needs a paragraph.
Released by College Board with its scores, so nobody in this room wrote either one.
The 30, on orthopedic surgeon burnout: one focus. A place. A profession. Three named groups of perspectives.
The 10: "How can the government's role in shaping U.S. food safety standards help the food industry?" Two subjects. No group of people. An answer already assumed.
A subject-level question produces this no matter how hard you work on the paper.
Stop 6 Done
You can name what your lens puts in focus that your teammates' lenses cannot.
A lens is the angle you look through. Each of you takes a different one of the eleven: the IRR asks every member to investigate their own lens on the team question.
Two people on the same lens means two papers that see the same thing and a presentation with less to put in conversation.
Under your name on the slide, write one line: what your lens puts in focus that your teammates' lenses cannot.
Stop 7 Done
You can score your own question the way the judges will, and know which line needs work.
Five tests, and every one should be a yes: Open-Ended, Specific, Debatable, Researchable, Interesting.
Interesting is a skill, not luck. Four moves make a question yours: the specific noun, the only-you detail, the tension, the stranger test.
The judges score five lines, each 0, 1, or 2: one clear question; specific; debatable, with stakes; lenses that divide it; researchable, and yours.
Stop 8 Done
You can say who would do something differently with what you find, which is what makes it a research question.
Underneath all five tests sits the tie-breaker question: given this research, who would actually do something differently? If you cannot name that person, the question is still too vague.
It goes on the team slide as one line: who could act on this. Name the stakeholder and what they could do differently with what you find. It is also the judges' tie-breaker.
Then say it out loud in the 45-second pitch: who is affected, who could do something differently with your findings, and why it is researchable.
Downloads for the workshop
The practice IRR (individual, due Oct 7). Built on the team question your group wrote in September, through the lens you claimed. It counts in the gradebook. It does not go to College Board. It is where you learn the moves before they count.
The real IRR (College Board). After team formation in October, your real team writes a real question, and you take one lens on it. Checkpoint 1 (Source Tracker) is due Thursday Oct 29 / Friday Oct 30, turned in on Canvas. The real IRR is never graded by Mrs. Cohen; College Board scores it, and nothing touching the real task receives a grade. Only the practice cycle is graded.
The road to Oct 7 (Canvas wins on exact dates):
Start in the Research Question Workshop above: climb the ladder from Subject to Topic to Issue, write one question with a stem, and run the five tests (Open-Ended, Specific, Debatable, Researchable, Interesting). Then ask the tie-breaker question: given this research, who would actually do something differently?
Each team member takes a different one of the eleven and reads with that lens's guiding questions in hand. Your two articles hint at yours.
Log every source in the Source Tracker and score it with RAVEN. Aim for credible, diverse source types: academic, news, data. Log the finding, not just the source. In the 'How I'll Use This Source' column, name which part of your question the source answers.
Pick one of three structures: organize by perspective, weave perspectives throughout, or organize topically. See the Build the IRR tab.
Teammates score each other's drafts row by row against the rubric, citing text evidence and giving specific grows. Then revise and run the Self-Check before submission.
Part 1
You can name the four jobs your paper is scored on before you write a word.
Part 2
You can answer six questions and get the organization that fits your paper, then test it against your own sources.
Part 3
You can write a paragraph that moves through all six moves without leaning on one source.
Part 4
You can find the research question hiding inside a real opening paragraph.
Part 5
You can check your draft against the seven lines that hold for every option, from 1,200 words to no paragraph on one source.
Want the paragraph-by-paragraph version? Open the Simple IRR Outline in the Templates gallery.
Questions to ask while reading for a particular lens. Use these to focus annotation and source selection.
One lens per team member, no repeats. The IRR asks every member to investigate their own lens on the team question, and two people on the same lens produce two papers that see the same thing and a presentation with less to put in conversation.
Click a lens and watch the page change. That is what a lens does: same page, different things jump out.
Use this checklist to self-evaluate before submission. Each "yes" moves you closer to a high score. Click items to check them off.
What it looks like
South Africa wants to legalize the rhino horn trade. Vietnam has a growing market for rhino horns. The WWF opposes legalization. These are the perspectives on the issue.
What it should look like
Even though animal activism NGOs are against it, the governments of both producer and consumer nations involved in the trade such as South Africa and Vietnam are in favor of legalization; therefore, political consensus is to be expected on the matter among parties at the CITES CoP in 2016.
Put your sources in conversation. Compare them, contrast them, show where they agree and where they collide.
What it looks like
Buprenorphine is obviously the best treatment, and anyone who still prefers methadone is ignoring the evidence.
What it should look like
Buprenorphine has its pros and cons: Andrew J. Saxon of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and his colleagues herald both buprenorphine and methadone but identify methadone's superiority in regard to treatment retention and buprenorphine's superiority in regard to reduced illicit opioid use early in treatment (Saxon 69).
Present the perspectives fairly and let the research talk. Your opinion gets its moment in the optional recommendation, and it gets a whole essay later in the IWA.
What it looks like
According to Ratycz and her colleagues, drug overdose deaths in the United States more than tripled from 1999 to 2016, and heroin especially contributed to this increase (Ratycz, Madison C., et al. 1). That is the whole paragraph.
What it should look like
Ratycz and her colleagues assert that heroin especially contributed to this increase in overdose deaths (Ratycz, Madison C., et al. 1). Shane Darke of the National Drug Abuse and Research Center at the University of New South Wales clarifies that "overdose" is a catch-all term used to describe heroin-related deaths in general; most heroin-related deaths are caused by polydrug toxicity (Darke 2061).
Every body paragraph draws on more than one source. If a topic sentence is held up by a single source, the paragraph is not done.
What it looks like
Drug and Alcohol Review is a credible source because it is a real medical journal.
What it should look like
According to a study published in Drug and Alcohol Review, which is a peer-reviewed medical journal, prescribing heroin instead of methadone decreases the risk of illicit heroin use by a patient after treatment (Metrebian 115). The obvious risk posed by this is that patients can become addicted to the provided heroin, albeit in controlled doses and of high purity.
Evaluate. Name the author's expertise, check who funds or benefits, and admit one specific limitation. A judgment beats a label every time.
What it looks like
"Around 40 percent of severely mentally ill people have been arrested at least once in their lives" (Smith, 2012).
What it should look like
Often they resort to crime in order to purposefully go to jail where they can be fed and housed. In fact, in a survey conducted by Smith (2012), an editor of the Sociology Compass journal, it was found that "around 40 percent of severely mentally ill people have been arrested at least once in their lives." Additionally, patients' untreated mental illnesses can also influence them to commit severe crimes.
After every piece of evidence, explain how it supports your claim. The connection is the part that earns credit.
What it looks like
Legalizing the rhino horn trade raises economic questions, and also ethical ones about whether animals should be sold at all, and cultural ones about why people want the horns in the first place.
What it should look like
Although it is necessary that the economic, environmental, and social-cultural perspectives are considered as well, given the political factors involved, it is recommended that CITES be amended to legalize the rhino horn trade worldwide.
Every section ties back to your lens and your team's research question. If a paragraph does not serve both, it does not make the cut.
What it looks like
The strongest point, that the U.K.'s prescription of heroin is a policy the U.S. could adopt, arrives in the last paragraph, past the 1,200-word limit, where the reader never sees it.
What it should look like
Word count: 1130. The question the whole paper answers closes paragraph one: "What can the United States learn from the successes and failures of other countries in addressing their heroin epidemics and apply to its own heroin epidemic?"
Treat 1,200 as a cliff, not a suggestion. Cut the warm-up, keep the analysis, and lead with your best idea.
What it looks like
Rhino poaching is a big problem, and this paper will look at whether the trade should be legal.
What it should look like
Rhinos inhabit parts of Southern Asia and Africa; however, their populations have been dwindling due to a steep increase in rhino poaching. Last year, 1,215 rhinos were poached solely in South Africa, whereas only 13 rhinos were poached in the nation in 2007. This increase comes despite the conservation efforts of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, which placed all but two rhino species on Appendix I of the Convention.
Open with cited context. Establish the problem, show the stakes, and let a source help you prove this conversation is real before you join it.
What it looks like
Smith (2012) and the Treatment Advocacy Center take turns for the whole paragraph, and by its end they are repeating themselves.
What it should look like
In a survey conducted by Smith (2012), an editor of the Sociology Compass journal, it was found that "around 40 percent of severely mentally ill people have been arrested at least once in their lives." [...] Up to 50 percent of mass homicides have been associated with people suffering from serious mental illnesses (Treatment Advocacy Center). Providing more evidence of increased crime, Wallace, Mullen, and Burgess (2004) conducted a study where they examined the frequency of offenses among schizophrenic patients over a 25-year period [...]. Flory and Friedrich (1999) add that there happen to be more mental patients in jail than patients receiving proper treatment.
Build a real source base with scholarly voices in it. More perspectives means more conversation, and the conversation is where the points live.
What it looks like
In conclusion, deinstitutionalization has caused homelessness, crime, and isolation. Those are the three problems.
What it should look like
As a solution to the increased crime rates of mentally ill people and prison overpopulation, Smith (2012) offers the plan of diverting some of the funds used by the criminal justice system to handle the mentally ill people to the community mental services. [...] Thus, the responsibility is now in the hands of those who are aware of this crisis to find a solution for these patients to live with the greatest degree of life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
Your conclusion synthesizes. Return to the significance, show what your lens revealed, and land on why it matters to your team's bigger question.
What it looks like
How does social media affect teens, and what should schools do about it?
What it should look like
To what extent should California schools be responsible for reducing vaping among their students?
That “and what” is a second paper. The Chief Reader lists asking more than one question as a top mistake. Split it. Keep the one you can finish by October 7.
What it looks like
What are the effects of pollution?
What it should look like
To what extent can child labor on West African cocoa farms be reduced without pushing farming families deeper into poverty?
Air, water, and land is three papers, and a subject-level question produces a low-scoring paper no matter how hard you work on it. Climb the ladder to an issue with stakeholders and a tension.
What it looks like
Two teammates on the economic lens write two papers that see the same thing.
What it should look like
Member 2, Economic. What my lens puts in focus: The Wealth Paradox: land-rich farms use more child labor than poor ones, and a 4000% bean-to-bar markup that never reaches the farm.
Member 3, Cultural and Social. What my lens puts in focus: Why families see the work as duty and discipline rather than harm, and how community norms decide which children work and when.
One lens each, and under your name, one line on what your lens puts in focus that the others cannot.
What it looks like
College Board’s released 10 out of 30 cited two websites with zero in-text citations and leaned on “according to many food safety articles” and “in my opinion, I think.”
What it should look like
According to Kamil Alptekin of KTO Karatay University in Turkey and his colleagues, “research regarding the nationwide prevalence of substance use” and, by extension, heroin use “in Turkey has been limited” (Alptekin, et al. 578), but a study on the development of addiction syndrome in Turkey conducted by Turkish researchers Melike Nebioglu, Hacer Yalniz, Fatma M. Guven, and Omer Gecici revealed that an increase in heroin use has been seen among Turkish people in younger age groups (Nebioglu 37).
Twelve real sources, most of them Tier 1, every claim attributed in the text.
No card sits on this row yet.
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.
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 (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.
If the tracker does not appear, reload the page.
Twelve questions, one at a time. Call each one Open or Closed. Forty-five seconds. Your best streak is saved on this device.
Press Start.
Convert two closed questions into open ones, and one open question into a closed one. Saved on this device.
Table roles, if you are doing this with your group: the Scribe writes and does not decide; the Timekeeper calls two minutes left; the Challenger asks "could that be answered in one word?"; the Reader reads the final question out loud.
| Closed | Open |
|---|---|
| Is this a bomb? | What could this be? |
| Who did this? | Who was responsible for this? |
| How many people were hurt? | Describe the ways in which people were hurt. |
| Had people been given warning? | What kind of warning, if any, were people given? |
| Did the people dropping the bomb know what they were doing? | What did the people dropping the bomb understand about their actions? |
And two the other direction: "How did this affect people?" (open) becomes "Did this affect people in a significant way?" (closed). "What led to this event?" (open) becomes "Was there a specific cause that led to this event?" (closed).
Three boxes. Saved on this device and carried into the Question Builder.
Pick a stem, fill the two blanks, and the question assembles as you type. The three checks under it show a note, never a block. Saved on this device and carried into Stop 7 and Stop 8.
Your issue from the ladder:
The five the class met, in the order it met them. For each one: name the Don't it breaks, rewrite it, then Reveal.
Released by College Board with its scores, so nobody in this room wrote either one. Read the two questions before you read anything else about them.
"This paper analyzes the state of burnout among orthopedic surgeons in the US through the systematic lens to identify organizational, social, and individual perspectives to reducing institutional burnout."
The focus sentence that closes its introduction. One focus. A place. A profession. Three named groups of perspectives."How can the government's role in shaping U.S. food safety standards help the food industry?"
Its title. Two subjects. No group of people. An answer already assumed.| The 30 (orthopedic surgeon burnout) | The 10 (food safety) | |
|---|---|---|
| The question | Specific, single, at the issue level. | Its title, run through the five tests: open, yes, but not specific (which standards, which part of the industry, when), not really debatable because it assumes its own answer, not researchable, not interesting. |
| Stakeholders | Named, with what is at stake for each. | None named. |
| The detail you could not guess | 3% greater odds of burnout per extra hour worked; only 31% meet CDC exercise guidelines. | "According to many food safety articles." |
| Tension | Cut hours and surgeons do the same work in less time. | Assumes its own answer. |
| Sources | Twelve peer-reviewed plus a newspaper flagged for bias. | Two URLs, zero in-text citations. |
Every row on the 10 scored a 2, and the citation and grammar rows scored a 1. The readers' phrase for it: an overly broad area of investigation with little research. A subject-level question produces this no matter how hard you work on the paper.
The eleven lenses, with guiding questions for each, are in the Reading for Lenses tab on this page. Open them, pick one nobody else on your team has, and write your line here.
Five tests, and every one should be a yes. Any no shows the move that fixes it.
Five lines, each 0, 1, or 2, with one line of reasoning beside each. Two judges score every table this way; here you are the judge.
One judge's sheet for the chocolate paper's team slide. Five lines, 0 to 2 each. Read the rationale, not just the number.
| 1. One clear question | 2 | One question, open, a stranger could repeat it back. The original paper's "and how" is gone. |
| 2. Specific | 2 | A place (West African cocoa farms), a group (farming families), a practice (child labor). |
| 3. Debatable, with stakes | 1 | The tension is in the question, but the slide never names who pushes back. A 2 says it: farming families who need the income, and buyers who want cheap cocoa. |
| 4. Lenses that divide it | 2 | Ethical, economic, cultural, political. Each focus line finds something the other three cannot. |
| 5. Researchable, and yours | 2 | The Wealth Paradox and the 4000% markup are details only a group that did the reading would have. Sources exist; the paper proved it. |
Total 9 of 10. Tie-breaker: given this research, chocolate companies would change what they pay at the farm gate. To make it a 10, add one line naming who pushes back. That is the most common gap.
Given this research, who would actually do something differently? If you cannot name that person, the question is still too vague.
One slide in Google Slides, your own words and your own hands. College Board does not allow AI-made slides, so neither does Mrs. Cohen.
The model, built around the chocolate paper. Member names are placeholders on purpose.
One person reads the question. Say who is affected, who could do something differently with your findings, and why it is researchable. Then each member says their lens in one sentence. Then listen: one line it passes, one line it needs, from each judge.
SimpleOur question is ______. It matters to ______. My lens is ______.
SolidOur question is ______. The people most affected are ______, and ______ could act on what we find. Through the ______ lens I will focus on ______.
SophisticatedThe writers in our articles are asking ______, but ______ is missing, which is why our team asks ______. If we are right, ______ would ______ differently. Through the ______ lens I can find out ______ that the others cannot.
Six questions about your sources and your lens. Your answers pick the organization.
Question 1 of 6
Pick one, label your sources, and see whether the pick holds up. Five short steps.
Best if you have 2 to 3 stakeholders within your lens whose perspectives you want to compare and contrast. Two body paragraphs per stakeholder group.
View OutlinePerspectives are blended across the paper rather than sectioned off. Each body section centers a core viewpoint with multiple perspectives in conversation.
View OutlineBest if your sources address distinct problems or subtopics within your lens. Devote two body paragraphs to each problem, with solutions from multiple perspectives.
View OutlineThis tool needs its script to load. Reload the page and try again.
So far you analyzed other people's arguments one at a time. In the IRR you put several of them in conversation about a question you chose.
Every body paragraph makes these moves, in this order or close to it, and never rests on one source.
Where the rubric lives: Row 2 in moves 2 and 3 (how each source reasons). Row 3 in moves 2 and 4 (credibility set up, evidence explained, limitation named). Row 4 in moves 3 and 5 (perspectives in explicit conversation). Row 1 in your introduction and in the variety of your Works Cited.
The frames for every one of these moves are in : Group A for naming a perspective, B for credibility, C for putting sources in conversation, E for tying evidence to a claim, F for closing.
Keep the shared introduction and conclusion structure from the three outlines in Part 2. Then run this on a real one.
Help with the thesis and the conclusion is in the Framing Statement Builder.
Find the question hiding in it
Here is the opening of the deinstitutionalization sample on this page, with nothing marked.
News of the deinstitutionalization movement has passed by, unnoticed since its commencement in the 1960's. However, growing concerns over poverty, prison overcrowding, and civil rights of mentally disabled patients call for recognition and deep understanding of deinstitutionalization as a major contributor to these problems.
The sentence carrying the question is the second one: it names deinstitutionalization as a major contributor to poverty, prison overcrowding, and the civil rights of mentally disabled patients. The question underneath it is how, and how badly, deinstitutionalization contributed to those outcomes.
The lens is social, with a policy edge: the paper is about a public mental-health policy and what happened to people because of it.
Notice what the opening does not do. It never says “this paper will argue.” The question is carried by a claim about what needs recognition, and that is what makes the introduction read as research rather than as an essay.
Watch for
Worldwide Legalization of Rhino Horn Trade: The Political Considerations
Rhinos inhabit parts of Southern Asia and Africa; however, their populations have been dwindling due to a steep increase in rhino poaching. Last year, 1,215 rhinos were poached solely in South Africa, whereas only 13 rhinos were poached in the nation in 2007. This increase comes despite the conservation efforts of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, which placed all but two rhino species on Appendix I of the Convention. CITES does not allow the importation of Appendix I species for commercial purposes; import and export permits are required for their trade. The issue at hand must be addressed at a global level in light of the fact that multiple regions are enmeshed in the rhino horn industry. There is high demand for rhino horns in Chinese and Vietnamese markets as they are used for medicinal purposes. There is also demand in the Yemeni market because rhino horns are used to make the handles of daggers. Furthermore, the international airports located in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Addis Ababa, Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Beijing, Hong Kong, Bangkok, and Singapore have been found to be involved in the transportation of rhino horns across the world. Seeing as the rates of rhino poaching are rising despite a worldwide moratorium on rhino horn trade, the question of legalizing the trade must be considered as an alternative solution. Moreover, the rhino poaching crisis is especially pertinent at present because South Africa is likely to propose the legalization of rhino horn trade worldwide at the next CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2016.
South Africa is arguably the nation with the most vested interests in the matter at hand. As stated by TRAFFIC, the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network, South Africa alone was home to 83% of Africa's rhinos and almost 75% of the wild rhinos worldwide as of 2011. Thus, rhino conservation is a prevalent issue in the nation; the South African government recently took measures to legalize rhino trade within its borders. Before this legalization, South Africa enforced a strict ban on rhino poaching. However, it is evident that the ban was extremely ineffective in protecting the rhino population. In fact, as stated in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, three rhinos are being poached per day at present. The arrests that were made in South Africa in order to enforce the ban did not address the issue at its root cause. As described by Dr. Elizabeth Lunstrum of York University in the peer-reviewed Annals of the Association of American Geographers, the first level of the rhino horn trade criminal syndicate is comprised of the individuals and gangs who poach rhinos and are often motivated by poverty; 89% of arrests made in South Africa as a part of the anti-poaching campaign were made at this level. The fourth level of the syndicate is comprised of high level operatives responsible for the illegal transportation of horns out of Africa. They are linked to networks including corrupt officials in government and the private sector; only 4% of the arrests occurred at this level. The government's attempts to enforce a strict ban on rhino poaching were unsuccessful; due to the involvement of corrupt officials, few arrests were made in the higher echelons of the poaching industry. This weakened the enforcement of the ban, permitting poaching levels to rise at alarmingly high rates. Due to the evident failure of the ban, South Africa adopted a plan to legalize rhino horn trade as an alternative solution to conserve rhino populations; thus, the nation would also favor worldwide legalization of rhino horn trade.
Vietnam is another nation with vested interests in the rhino horn trade; however, unlike South Africa, Vietnam has a domestic market and growing demand for rhino horns. In fact, 56% of the Asian nationals arrested for violating the ban on rhino horn trade in South Africa were Vietnamese. Furthermore, between 2009 and 2012, Vietnamese hunters accounted for 48% of the foreigners who poached rhinos in South Africa. Moreover, the Vietnamese government has done little to enforce the worldwide CITES moratorium on rhino poaching. As found by the Environmental Investigation Agency, between 2003 and 2010, 657 rhino horns were illegally transferred from South Africa to Vietnam; however, only 170 rhino horns were legally imported as hunting trophies from South Africa to Vietnam during the same period. This leaves 487 rhino horns, 74% of the imported rhino horns, unaccounted for. As stated by Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Vietnamese government has neither seized any illegally imported rhino horns nor prosecuted any traders since 2008. As Vietnam is not enforcing the CITES moratorium, it can be inferred that the nation would be in support of the legalization of the rhino horn trade as well, as it would satisfy the nation's domestic demand for rhino horns.
On the other hand, animal activism NGOs are strongly opposed to the prospect of legalizing the rhino horn trade. A statement released by the World Wildlife Fund For Nature (WWF) in response to South Africa's legalization of rhino trade announced, "WWF regrets today's decision by South Africa's High Court to lift the ban on the domestic trade in rhino horn." Furthermore, other anti-poaching organizations are already taking action to reduce demand for rhino horns. The Rhino Rescue Project (RRP), a South African organization, drills holes into a sedated rhino's horn and puts a mix of chemicals into the fibres that causes migraines, nausea, and even permanent nerve damage when powder of the horn is consumed. The organization does this in order to curb the growing demand for rhino horns and in turn, reduce the rate of rhino poaching. Given the fact that these environmental organizations are so vehemently opposed to South Africa's lifting of the ban on rhino horn trade and the rhino horn trade itself, it is evident that these organizations will oppose the prospect of legalization on an international scale even more; they are likely to attempt to heighten political tensions when the question of legalization is brought forth at the CITES CoP.
When considering worldwide legalization, the limitations of enforcing international legislation must be taken into account. Although CITES is one of the most widely ratified treaties regarding the protection of wildlife with 181 Parties in total, the treaty has relatively weak enforcement. CITES legislation is not self-executing in that it "cannot be fully implemented until specific domestic measures have been adopted for that purpose." In short, its framework does not replace national laws as it must respect national sovereignty; countries must pass national legislation to fully implement the Convention. Nations such as South Africa and Vietnam have not been successful in enforcing the CITES moratorium on rhino poaching; however, this is simply because a moratorium does not serve their national interest. Therefore, nations like those are likely to be much more vigilant in regulating the rhino horn trade when it is legalized as they will reap far more benefits as well.
Although it is necessary that the economic, environmental, and social-cultural perspectives are considered as well, given the political factors involved, it is recommended that CITES be amended to legalize the rhino horn trade worldwide. Even though animal activism NGOs are against it, the governments of both producer and consumer nations involved in the trade such as South Africa and Vietnam are in favor of legalization; therefore, political consensus is to be expected on the matter among parties at the CITES CoP in 2016. In order to address the limitations of enforcing international legislation as well as the involvement of corrupt government officials in the higher echelons of rhino poaching syndicates, the aforementioned amendment must also establish a regulatory body comprised of neutral third party officials to oversee the trade, monitor the progress of the rhino populations, and ensure that every signatory is implementing the terms of the legalization appropriately.
Mental health and addiction appear as research topics in this sample. If you or someone you know is struggling, talk to Mrs. Cohen, a counselor, or another trusted adult.
Watch for
How to Address the Heroin Epidemic of the United States: Foreign Considerations
According to Madison C. Ratycz, Thomas J. Papadimos, and Allison A. Vanderbilt of the College of Medicine and Life Sciences at the University of Toledo, drug overdose deaths in the United States more than tripled from 1999 to 2016 (Ratycz, Madison C., et al. 1). Ratycz and her colleagues assert that heroin especially contributed to this increase in overdose deaths (Ratycz, Madison C., et al. 1). Shane Darke of the National Drug Abuse and Research Center at the University of New South Wales clarifies that "overdose" is a catch-all term used to describe heroin-related deaths in general; most heroin-related deaths are caused by polydrug toxicity (Darke 2061). As such, the issue discussed hereinafter is heroin-related mortality in general, not heroin-related mortality caused by dosage. As stated, heroin-related mortality has reached epidemic proportions in the U.S. However, the U.S. is not alone in its war on heroin; European countries, Asian countries, and other North American countries are battling the opioid as well. What can the United States learn from the successes and failures of other countries in addressing their heroin epidemics and apply to its own heroin epidemic?
According to Kamil Alptekin of KTO Karatay University in Turkey and his colleagues, "research regarding the nationwide prevalence of substance use" and, by extension, heroin use "in Turkey has been limited" (Alptekin, et al. 578), but a study on the development of addiction syndrome in Turkey conducted by Turkish researchers Melike Nebioglu, Hacer Yalniz, Fatma M. Guven, and Omer Gecici revealed that an increase in heroin use has been seen among Turkish people in younger age groups (Nebioglu 37). In a study that researched the transit flows of Afghan heroin through Turkey to southwest Asia and Europe, Behsat Ekici and Adem Coban of the Department of Anti-Smuggling and Organized Crime in Turkey recommended, among other policy implications, that the Turkish government deploy a larger number of counter-narcotics liaison officers (Ekici 360).
Turkey's heroin epidemic is similar to that of the U.S. in that most of the heroin seized was not produced domestically. Most of the heroin seized by Turkish officers from the 1990s on was produced in Afghanistan and transported through Turkey, which serves as a natural bridge to markets in southwest Asia and Europe (Ekici 342-344). Most of the heroin seized by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, and other law enforcement authorities in the past came from Colombia, but Mexico is now the principal supplier (Jakovljevic 357). Ekici and Coban argue for the Turkish government to deploy more counter-narcotics liaison officers. Mirroring this argument, the U.S. could send more liaison officers to Mexico to cooperate with Mexican law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, domestically, the U.S. could deploy more DEA officers at hotspots of heroin use and deploy more CBP officers at the border. This policy would require the allocation of additional funding to the DEA and CBP.
According to Eric Janssen of the Department of General Population Surveys of the French Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addictions in France, a better study on heroin use in France that is subject to less limitations is admittedly needed, but it does appear that heroin use in the country is on the rise (Janssen 686). However, according to Jean Vignau and Emmanuel Brunelle of the Hospital and University Center in Lille, France, the country has seen progress thanks to its effective health system. A French heroin addict seeking rehabilitation can go to a general practitioner, who is funded by France's la Secu social security system, or an addiction center, which is state-supported (Vignau 24). General practitioners and addiction centers in France approach rehabilitating heroin addicts differently, but, medicinally, both of them primarily use buprenorphine (Vignau 24), and both of them are equally effective at rehabilitation (Vignau 25).
Understandably but unfortunately, general practitioners in the U.S. are required to obtain a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, according to Alexander Walley of the Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts and his colleagues (Walley 1393). This hinders heroin addicts' accessibility to buprenorphine-prescribing general practitioners, as there is no guarantee that credentialed physicians are in their area. The U.S. could do away with the waiver. However, this policy change would not be perfect, as the waiver does decrease the likelihood of buprenorphine falling into incompetent hands. On a different but not completely unrelated note, France's socialized health system ensures that its populace has unobstructed access to healthcare, making rehabilitation more accessible. Considering this, it can be argued that the U.S. is in need of broad, large-scale reforms to its health system. This is under debate, though, as the costs could outweigh the benefits.
Whether buprenorphine should be the medication of choice is under debate, as there is a myriad of drugs that can treat addiction to heroin. Buprenorphine has its pros and cons: Andrew J. Saxon of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and his colleagues herald both buprenorphine and methadone but identify methadone's superiority in regard to treatment retention and buprenorphine's superiority in regard to reduced illicit opioid use early in treatment (Saxon 69). Neeraj Jain and his colleagues of the Department of Psychiatry of Government Medical College and Hospital in India advocate detoxification using a carefully dosed combination of buprenorphine and clonidine (Jain 293). They reason that buprenorphine and clonidine are equal in efficacy and that clonidine can reduce cravings for opioids (Jain 293). The con of this combination is that clonidine can cause negative health effects, "such as sedation and hypotension, rebound hypertension, atrioventricular block, and bradycardia" (Jain 293). Buprenorphine and methadone are reliable staples in rehabilitation from heroin addiction, and some general practitioners in the U.S. already prescribe sublingual buprenorphine and oral methadone, but clonidine and other partial agonists are worth considering.
In addition to methadone and clonidine, the effectiveness of prescribing heroin itself has been debated. The United Kingdom is internationally unique in that it prescribes diamorphine (among other drugs), or heroin, to treat heroin addiction (Metrebian 115). According to a study published in Drug and Alcohol Review, which is a peer-reviewed medical journal, prescribing heroin instead of methadone decreases the risk of illicit heroin use by a patient after treatment (Metrebian 115). The obvious risk posed by this is that patients can become addicted to the provided heroin, albeit in controlled doses and of high purity. However, heroin use in the U.K. is not as "epidemic" as that of the U.S. ("United Kingdom Country Drug Report 2018"). It is uncertain whether heroin use in the U.K. is as low as it is due to the country's prescription of heroin, but doing so is a policy that the U.S. could adopt.
Mental health and addiction appear as research topics in this sample. If you or someone you know is struggling, talk to Mrs. Cohen, a counselor, or another trusted adult.
Watch for
Deinstitutionalization: Leaving Patients Behind
News of the deinstitutionalization movement has passed by, unnoticed since its commencement in the 1960's. However, growing concerns over poverty, prison overcrowding, and civil rights of mentally disabled patients call for recognition and deep understanding of deinstitutionalization as a major contributor to these problems. According to Lamb, a professor at University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles and Bachrach, veteran author of 41 articles on the topic of deinstitutionalization, deinstitutionalization is defined as the replacement of state or federal run psychiatric hospitals with community-based alternatives (Lamb & Bachrach, 2001). The government implemented this policy of deinstitutionalization because of "the belief that mental hospitals were cruel and inhumane, hope that new medications [opposed to the ineffective treatment from the institutions] offered a cure, and the desire to save money" (Yohanna, 2013). Overall, the government expected deinstitutionalization to improve the lives of the mentally ill. Since the commencement, the program strived to develop independence among patients by increasing employment and interaction with others. Unfortunately, these positive outcomes occur only where mental community services are well-established and maintained (Kliewer, McNally, & Trippany, n.d.). In actuality, a majority of the released patients experience unintentional, negative consequences of deinstitutionalization such as homelessness, incarceration, and isolation due to the absence of the promised community care.
The absence and lack in quality of community-based mental programs contributes to the failure of the deinstitutionalization movement to improve the lives of mental patients. The major obstacle facing the success of deinstitutionalization is limited funding for mental centers which results in an unprofessional staff and ineffective services (Kliewer, McNally, & Trippany, n.d.). Flory and Friedrich, co-directors of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Long-term Care Network, provide examples of the effects caused by limited funding through the complaints of families who have directly experienced the unsuccessful community centers. Many described the lack of 24-hour supervision when needed. They also delineate their experience with the revolving door syndrome, the frequent transportation of patients caused by the lack of adequate housing. One woman explains how her schizophrenic son had been moved in the system 62 times; thus, her son remained ill for 20 years due to lack of treatment (Flory & Friedrich 1999). Revolving door syndrome causes patient instability and leads to forced homelessness because of the brief treatment duration and forced discharge from government institutions. Madianos, president of the World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation and professor of general and social psychiatry at the University of Athens, delineates the direct correlation between the economic level of a country and availability of mental health programs; only 51.7% of the impoverished countries had available services while 97.4% of the wealthy countries had available services (Madianos, 2010). Thus, his study supports the concept that community services assist countries in escaping poverty by housing and treating the mental patients who make up "a third to a half of all homeless adults" (Lamb & Bachrach, 2001). The failure of the deinstitutionalization movement caused by insufficient funding of community mental centers results in increased patient homelessness after they experience the revolving door and realize they have no place to stay.
Patient homelessness caused by deinstitutionalization leads to increased crime rates among the mental patients. Often they resort to crime in order to purposefully go to jail where they can be fed and housed. In fact, in a survey conducted by Smith (2012), an editor of the Sociology Compass journal, it was found that "around 40 percent of severely mentally ill people have been arrested at least once in their lives." Additionally, patients' untreated mental illnesses can also influence them to commit severe crimes. For example, up to 50 percent of mass homicides have been associated with people suffering from serious mental illnesses (Treatment Advocacy Center). Providing more evidence of increased crime, Wallace, Mullen, and Burgess (2004) conducted a study where they examined the frequency of offenses among schizophrenic patients over a 25-year period during the deinstitutionalization experience. They discovered that the patients' rate of offending rose from 7.4 percent in 1975 to 11.9 percent in 1995. Therefore, deinstitutionalization set an impetus for the increase crime rate of mental patients. As a result of the increased crime rate, deinstitutionalization also contributes to the overcrowding of prisons. For example, "[m]ore than 1.8 million people with SMI [severe mental illnesses] are booked into jails every year" (Treatment Advocacy Center, n.d.). Flory and Friedrich (1999) add that there happen to be more mental patients in jail than patients receiving proper treatment. In the prevention of prison overflow and crime, deinstitutionalization should be stopped or carried out a different way.
Patients who avoid homelessness or imprisonment often experience isolation from society which could eventually lead to suicide. Successful recovery and functioning of mental patients depend on the material assistance and emotional support provided by the community as stated by Bachrach (1976) in her book Deinstitutionalization: An analytical review and sociological perspective published by the National Institute of National Health. However, when mental patients are forced into community settings, they often experience isolation from others. Bachrach (1976) explains how there seems to be a "consensus that society has difficulty in dealing with the presence of mental patients in their midst." Although the book was published in the 1970's, Bachrach provides an accurate reaction of the community to the mental patients since the repercussions of the deinstitutionalization movement became prominent around this time period. Additionally, Kliewer, McNally, and Trippany support Bachrach's claim by suggesting that "the community at large is frequently afraid of people with mental illness, believing them to be dangerous. This belief often cause[s] rejection" of the patients through victimization and harassment (Kliewer, McNally, & Trippany, n.d.). Bachrach continues to give examples of the methods many use to isolate the patients such as city ordinances, zoning codes, and unnecessary police arrests (Bachrach, 1976). In a majority of the cases, isolation serves as an impetus for suicide. In fact, "[u]p to 50% of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder attempt suicide" (Treatment Advocacy Center, n.d.) and one in ten are successful in completing suicide (Flory & Friedrich, 1999). Suffering from societal rejection and abandonment, mental patients resort to suicide to "solve" their afflictions. As a solution, Richan and Eidelman (1975) propose that "[w]e must not, however, spend a lot of time in talking, writing, and holding conferences and seminars on deinstitutionalization.... We must concentrate our efforts in [the] direction" of becoming more active in improving and participating in community mental services. Richan and Eidelman, journalists for the National Association of Social Workers, call for action to improve the community services in order to prevent the suffering of mental patients because this journal emphasizes the importance of social work in all different types of dire situations.
Despite the positive intentions of the deinstitutionalization programs, the commencement has been followed by a majority of unintentional negative consequences. To prevent ostracization of patients, wider understanding of mental illnesses should be implemented through educational programs for a higher chance of the social acceptance of the mentally disabled patients. As a solution to the increased crime rates of mentally ill people and prison overpopulation, Smith (2012) offers the plan of diverting some of the funds used by the criminal justice system to handle the mentally ill people to the community mental services. With a majority of the crime and inmate sources diverted towards community centers for treatment, the criminal justice system would not need the full funds to manage its tasks. However, this plan must be executed gradually as immediate transportation of the money would result in the collapse of the criminal justice system. Thus, the responsibility is now in the hands of those who are aware of this crisis to find a solution for these patients to live with the greatest degree of life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
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.
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 on your table touch it, and you could finish by October 7.
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, grouped the way the class uses them.
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 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?
Sum up a source in four sentences so you understand it before you use it. (Teachers call this a rhetorical précis.)
[Author's name], [credentials], in [his/her/their] [genre], [title] ([publication info]), [rhetorical verb] that [main claim].
Rhetorical verbs. Tap one to drop it into your sentence.
[Author] supports this claim by [method/approach], revealing that [key findings] ([citation]).
Types of support to look for. Tap one to drop it in.
[Author]'s purpose is to [goal] in order to [intended outcome or effect on audience].
Purpose verbs. Tap one to drop it in.
Given [author]'s findings about [key point], this work supports my argument that [your claim].
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.
Given [author]'s findings about ______, this source [supports / complicates / rebuts] the perspective that ______.
The IRR has no "my argument," so this sentence places the source among the perspectives. Tap the move it makes.
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.
IRR Row 4, IMP Row 3
A perspective is a source's argument, not a lens and not a group of people. Name who argues what, and why.
[Name], a [credential], argues that ______.
[Name], a [credential] writing in [publication], argues that ______ because ______.
Writing from [position or stake], [Name] argues that ______, a claim that rests on ______ and that [another source] will [complicate / contest] below.
IRR Row 3, EOC A Q3
Say why this person or study can be trusted on this claim; never write the letters.
[Name], who [credential or firsthand position], reports that ______.
Because [Name] [observed / studied / measured] ______ directly, the finding that ______ carries weight on the question of ______.
Although [Name] has [a stake in / a distance from] the outcome, the [peer-reviewed / government / firsthand] basis of the finding that ______ makes it [strong / usable with care] evidence for ______.
IRR Row 4, IWA, EOC B Row 3
Sources rebut, complement, support, limit, or constrain one another. The test: remove one source and the paragraph should break.
To extend[Source B] agrees, adding that ______.
To extendTo further support [Source A]'s finding that ______, [Source B] states ______.
To extend[Source B]'s findings help explain why [Source A] observed ______: ______.
To disagreeHowever, [Source B] disagrees, claiming that ______.
To disagree[Source B] rejects [Source A]'s claim that ______ on the grounds that ______.
To disagree[Source A]'s claim that ______ rests on the assumption that ______, which [Source B]'s evidence of ______ undercuts.
To complicate[Source C] adds a complication: ______.
To complicateWhere [Source A] emphasizes ______, [Source C] complicates this by ______.
To complicateAlthough [Source A] is partially right about ______, [Source C]'s evidence that ______ suggests the picture is ______.
To name the splitThe two sources disagree about ______.
To name the splitThese perspectives agree that ______ but split over ______.
To name the splitThese perspectives agree that ______ but split sharply over ______, and that disagreement matters because ______.
IRR Row 2, EOC A Q2
Give every claim a job.
[Name] claims that ______. This claim sets up ______.
[Name] opens with the claim that ______, which [backs it with / widens the problem by / raises the stakes by] ______.
By [establishing / defining / conceding] ______, [Name] makes it possible to argue that ______, which the argument could not reach otherwise.
IRR Row 3, EOC A Q3 relevance
Say what the finding proves for the claim it sits next to, and what it does not.
This evidence shows ______, which supports the claim that ______.
The finding that ______ supports [Name]'s claim that ______ because ______; it does not prove ______.
While [this finding] [strength], it [specific limitation], which means it [partially / strongly] supports the claim that ______.
IRR Row 4 and the conclusion of everything
Together, these sources show that ______.
Taken together, these sources suggest ______, a conclusion none of them reaches alone.
If [Perspective A] gets their way, ______; if [Perspective B] gets their way, ______. Either path means ______, which is why ______.
IRR Row 1 and Row 3, the oral defense
One limit of this research is ______.
[Source] cannot account for ______, because its [sample / scope / date] ______.
What none of these sources measures is ______, which leaves the question of ______ open and is where further research would need to begin.
Structured Student Talk
Use these out loud before you write. Paraphrase first, then build.
No tiers for this one.
ParaphraseSo what [classmate] is saying is ______. / I heard [classmate] say ______. / Big ideas presented include ______. / Essentially, ______.
BuildI agree with the idea that ______ because ______. / I disagree with the idea that ______ because ______. / Adding on, ______. / This connects to ______. / Something I noticed is ______. / This makes me wonder ______. / That resonates because ______. / A question I had is ______.
IWA and EOC B only; in the IRR, only in the optional recommendation
The evidence ultimately supports ______.
While both sides make valid points, the evidence ultimately supports ______ because ______.
While [Source A] argues ______ and [Source B] emphasizes ______, I argue ______ because ______.
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.
Check each box as your team finishes it. Keep this on top of your deck. Run time goal: 8 to 10 minutes.
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.
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.
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. 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; 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? 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 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. 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 test: can a reasonable person argue against it? No: topic, lens, or stakeholder. Yes: perspective.
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.
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.
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 ___."
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. 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, then say who has the stronger case and why. Your commentary referees the disagreement.
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.
Each one opens in Stuck on a sentence? at the conversation frames, in all three tiers.
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.
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.
Exploring possible topics of inquiry; a first search for sources; confirming your understanding of a complex text; checking your writing for grammar and tone.
You read primary and secondary sources directly; you do your own analysis and synthesis of the evidence; you make your own choices about how to communicate, in writing and in presentations; you engage deeply with credible, valid sources and bring in diverse perspectives.
A team, or a single team member, that does not follow the College Board policy on generative AI for the Team Multimedia Presentation receives a group score of 0 for that component. One person's choice costs the whole team.
The same boundaries apply to the practice IRR, the team slide, and Current Events. College Board does not allow AI-made slides, so neither does this class.
using AI to get a sense of existing debates, sub-topics, or what is widely known.
taking AI output uncritically, like having AI generate your research question or thesis, or relying on AI as your source of information.
asking AI for authors, organizations, or publications to then locate and read directly, and asking for recommendations to fill gaps.
using an AI-generated source list without going to the original sources. AI invents sources; verify every one is real, credible, and relevant.
help with complex vocabulary, sentence structures, or a confusing passage.
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.
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.
general best practices for structuring a paper.
AI-produced outlines or drafts of your specific paper, or any AI-generated writing in the final draft.
spell and grammar checkers, and feedback on style and tone where you deliberately choose what to incorporate.
accepting AI revision suggestions uncritically or inserting new AI-suggested sections.
guidance on citation format, and drafting or checking the format of a bibliography for sources you actually studied.
AI citations for sources you have not read, or trusting AI formatting without checking it.
general guidance on effective presentations and initial ideas for key points, sequence, or visuals.
uncritically using AI to produce your key points, visuals, or structure, or memorizing an AI-generated script.
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 |
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.
