Overview Class Calendar
AP Seminar Portfolio
Performance Task 1
IRR: Individual Research Report TMP: Team Multimedia Presentation
Performance Task 2
IWA: Individual Written Argument IMP: Individual Multimedia Presentation Oral Defense
End-of-Course Exam
EOC Part A EOC Part B
Resources
Rubrics Templates MLA & APA Citations Practice Year Timeline
04 Performance Task 2

IWA: Individual Written Argument

Overview

IWA

Individual Written Argument

A 2,000 word argument built from a College Board stimulus packet, worth 70% of PT2 and scored by College Board. You identify a theme across the stimulus sources, draft a researchable question, and argue your own evidence-based answer.

~2,000 words70% of PT2 = 24.5% of your AP score. College Board scored. The single biggest component of the portfolio.
The oral defense happens after your IMP presentation and can ask about your whole PT2 research process, including this IWA. Everything lives on the Oral Defense page.

Building the IWA

The Build Path

Step 1

Read the Stimulus Packet

Annotate every stimulus text for themes, perspectives, and the strongest evidence in each.

Step 2

Identify Themes & Connections

Build a connections map: what idea links stimulus sources to a real-world problem you care about? One stimulus connection is the College Board requirement; strong IWAs usually weave two.

Step 3

Draft a Research Question

Run it through the Research Question Guide. Refine until every test passes. Test your question against the Research Question Guide: open-ended, debatable, complex, clearly stated, researchable, one question, requires judgment.

Step 4

Research and Track Your Sources

Go beyond the packet. Log every source in the as you research: this is your Checkpoint 1 submission (12 to 15 sources, majority scholarly).

Step 5

Outline and Draft

The full IWA Outline Planner (foundation, intro, body, counterargument, conclusion, thesis templates, and final checklist) is in the Template Gallery, along with the Thesis Builder, They Say I Say sentence templates, and the Evidence Evaluation Organizer. Open any of them from the Templates gallery without leaving this site. A thesis is not just a topic or opinion: it is your main argument that you will prove with evidence. Build it, then check it against the five key qualities.

Step 6

Argue with Evidence, Then Revise

Research beyond the packet, build a line of reasoning, and put your sources in conversation. Before you submit, run the checklist at the bottom of this page.

The Skills That Score

LOR

Line of Reasoning

The purposeful arrangement of claims with supporting evidence that leads to a conclusion. Each claim should set up the next: if your paragraphs would still make sense in a different order, you are listing, not reasoning.

Line of Reasoning Map

Evidence Integration

Use the Four-Sentence Source Summary to digest each source, and They Say / I Say templates to put sources in conversation with your claim.

Complexity & Limitations

A strong IWA acknowledges the best version of the opposing view and names the limits of its own solution. Use the thesis frame: although (counterargument), (main argument) because (supporting reason 1 and supporting reason 2). Then address the counterargument honestly in the body, not as a strawman.

Counterargument Steelman

Sample Papers

High Scoring IWA Samples

A full high scoring IWA below, embedded on the page, plus the complete sample library. Read with the rubric open: stimulus woven into context, a debatable thesis with because, sources in conversation, an opposition section engaged honestly, and a resolution with limitations.

The Full Sample Library

Eight more high scoring IWAs, available with class Google access:

"Dementia Villages: An Innovative Solution to Aging Care"

Word count: 1997. Watch the structure: context, the village approach, the science (facilitated nostalgia), then a dedicated Opposition section answered by two rebuttal sections, then a conclusion that lands the recommendation with its limits. An annotated version is linked below.

High scoring IWA1,997 wordsFull documentAnnotated version

Before You Submit

IWA Checklist

0/5
My argument connects to a theme from at least one stimulus text, and the connection is organic, not forced.
My thesis takes a debatable position and previews my reasoning with "because."
My sources are in conversation with each other, not taking turns paragraph by paragraph.
I address a counterargument or limitation honestly.
I am at or under 2,000 words with full, accurate attribution for every source.

Common Mistakes

Forced stimulus connection

What it looks like

This paper connects to the stimulus text "False Nostalgia" by Johan Norberg, which is also about nostalgia. Dementia villages should be created and implemented to a greater extent because they provide increased freedom to patients and relieve the burden placed on unpaid caretakers.

What it should look like

According to Johan Norberg's article "False Nostalgia", evolutionary psychology reveals that nostalgia helps people establish a sense of stability and predictability. Norberg underscores the fact that, "for dementia sufferers, nostalgia can help establish some sense of personal continuity." [...] Dementia villages help residents utilize this mechanism, immersing them in a familiar yet safe environment.

The stimulus link should grow out of a genuine theme, not get bolted on in the intro and abandoned. If you cannot explain the connection in one natural sentence, pick a different theme.

Summary instead of argument

What it looks like

Some people say dementia villages present a fake reality, like The Truman Show. Advanced dementia patients can experience hallucinations, delusions, and time-shifting. These are the two views on village care.

What it should look like

While it may be true that dementia villages provide an altered reality for residents, this is no different than the perceived reality of dementia patients. [...] Dementia villages allow for the perceptions of residents to match the reality they live in, reducing the disconnect felt by many patients. [...] The way in which patients interact with the world around them is already distorted to such a level that a slight deception to comfort patients and minimize the burden of care is justified.

Reporting what your sources say is the IRR move. The IWA needs your perspective, defended through a line of reasoning. Your evidence is not your argument; your commentary is what makes it work.

Research question too broad

What it looks like

This leads to the question of what should be done about dementia care as the population both grows and ages.

What it should look like

This leads to the question of whether the creation of dementia villages is justified given both the neurological reliance on nostalgia and the social impacts of dementia on caretakers and patients. [...] Therefore, although many argue that dementia villages are deceptive and show few benefits for recovery, dementia villages should be created and implemented to a greater extent because they provide increased freedom to patients and relieve the burden placed on unpaid caretakers.

A question you cannot answer with a judgment in 2,000 words will produce a survey, not an argument. Run every draft question through the five tests and the tie-breaker question in Question Check.

Tier 3 sources doing Tier 1 jobs

What it looks like

This puts an immense burden on these caregivers; a blog post says that over 11 million Americans provide unpaid care for a friend or relative, which contributes nearly $350 billion to the nation.

What it should look like

This puts an immense burden on these caregivers; for example, the article "2024 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures" from the Alzheimer's Association explains that over 11 million Americans provide unpaid care for a friend or relative, which contributes nearly $350 billion to the nation when calculating using the wage of a paid health aide.

Run every key source through RAVEN in the , and replace or caveat anything rated Weak. The top score requires intentionally selected sources with variety, including scholarly or peer-reviewed work, and a majority of Tier 1 sources at Checkpoint 1.