Every rubric lives here: the official College Board scoring guidelines, each rubric word for word, and a student language translation of each one so you know exactly what to do. Plus the skill categories that run through everything.
The exact rubrics College Board readers and Mrs. Cohen use to score the IRR and the TMP, row by row. Read these before you draft and again before you submit.
The official scoring guidelines for the End-of-Course exam: all three Part A questions and the four Part B rubric rows, with the score-point language for 0, 2, 4, and 6.
This phrase shows up on the IRR rubric, the IMP rubric, the IWA rubric, and the EOC Part B rubric, and it is the most common thing students ask about. Putting sources in conversation means showing how your sources respond to each other: how one supports, complicates, limits, extends, or contradicts another. It is the difference between sources taking turns and sources interacting.
"Source A says school start times affect sleep. Source B says sleep affects depression. Source C says depression affects grades."
Each source gets its own sentence, nothing connects them, and you could shuffle the order without changing anything. This is a list, not a conversation.
"While Wheaton's metastudy establishes that later start times increase sleep duration, Peltz and Buckhalt complicate this finding: the depression benefits appeared only in students from higher income families, which Caliandro's social jetlag research helps explain."
One source establishes, the next complicates, a third explains the gap. Remove any one and the paragraph breaks. That interdependence is the conversation.
IRR: Understand and Analyze Perspective requires explicit, relevant connections among perspectives. IMP Row 3: perspectives put in conversation, explaining how ideas support or contradict each other. IWA: sources in conversation, not summarized separately. EOC Part B: synthesis means using one source to clarify or push back on another, never stacking quotes. The full They Say I Say template bank is in the Templates section.
Each assessment, two ways: the College Board rubric word for word, and the same rubric translated into student language. Open both before you draft and again before you submit.
| Row | 2 points | 4 points | 6 points |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context (/6) | The report identifies an overly broad or simplistic area of investigation and/or shows little evidence of research. A simplistic connection or no connection is made to the overall problem or issue. | The report identifies an adequately focused area of investigation in the research and shows some variety in source selection. It makes some reference to the overall problem or issue. | The report situates the student's investigation of the complexities of a problem or issue in research that draws upon a wide variety of appropriate sources. It makes clear the significance to a larger context. |
| 2. Understand and Analyze Argument (/6) | The report restates or misstates information from sources. It doesn't address reasoning in the sources or it does so in a very simplistic way. | The report summarizes information and in places offers effective explanation of the reasoning within the sources' argument (but does so inconsistently). | The report demonstrates an understanding of the reasoning and validity of the sources' arguments. This can be evidenced by direct explanation or through purposeful use of the reasoning and conclusions. |
| 3. Evaluate Sources and Evidence (/6) | The report identifies evidence from chosen sources. It makes very simplistic, illogical, or no reference to the credibility of sources and evidence, and their relevance to the inquiry. | The report in places offers some effective explanation of the chosen sources and evidence in terms of their credibility and relevance to the inquiry (but does so inconsistently). | The report demonstrates evaluation of credibility of the sources and selection of relevant evidence from the sources. Both can be evidenced by direct explanation or through purposeful use. |
| 4. Understand and Analyze Perspective (/6) | The report identifies few and/or oversimplified perspectives from sources. | The report identifies multiple perspectives from sources, making some general connections among those perspectives. | The report discusses a range of perspectives and draws explicit and relevant connections among those perspectives. |
| 5. Apply Conventions: Citations (/3) | (1 pt) The report includes many errors in attribution and citation OR the bibliography is inconsistent in style and format and/or incomplete. | (2 pts) The report attributes or cites sources used but not always accurately. The bibliography references sources using a consistent style. | (3 pts) The report attributes and accurately cites the sources used. The bibliography accurately references sources using a consistent style. |
| 6. Apply Conventions: Grammar and Style (/3) | (1 pt) The report contains many flaws in grammar that often interfere with communication to the reader. The written style is not appropriate for an academic audience. | (2 pts) The report is generally clear but contains some flaws in grammar that occasionally interfere with communication to the reader. The written style is inconsistent and not always appropriate for an academic audience. | (3 pts) The report communicates clearly to the reader (although may not be free of errors in grammar and style). The written style is consistently appropriate for an academic audience. |
A row scores 0 when the response falls below the 2-point (or 1-point) level, and rows 1 to 4 score 0 if there is no evidence of any research. The student language version is two sections down in this same library.
Row 1, Context: Is the area of investigation focused and narrow in scope, with the who, what, where, and when clear? Does it answer why it matters using academic sources? Is there a wide variety of sources, including academic ones? Look at titles, first paragraphs, and the Works Cited.
Row 2, Argument: Does the report demonstrate an understanding of the reasoning and validity of arguments from the sources, through direct explanation or purposeful use? Look at the ends of paragraphs and the commentary immediately following citations.
Row 3, Sources and Evidence: Is the evidence well selected and well used, consistently relevant and credible? Look wherever evidence is presented; credibility may also be established by source selection in the References.
Row 4, Perspective: Are there at least 2 to 3 perspectives representing differing arguments? Are they clearly connected and in conversation? Look at how paragraphs are organized, since grouping perspectives is the most common structure. Remember: a perspective is a point of view conveyed through an argument.
Rows 5 and 6, Conventions: Check the Works Cited for consistent style, check internal citations for clarity and accuracy, and confirm every internal citation matches the bibliography. Then read for grammar and an academic style throughout.
Where each rubric row shows up in your actual paper, and what it is worth.
| Row | What It Measures | Often Found In | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Understand & Analyze Context | Your investigation of a complex problem draws on a wide variety of appropriate sources and makes the significance to a larger context clear. | The introduction, the type and amount of sources you use, and how your observation contributes to the importance of the issue overall. Can be shown in your reasoning throughout the report. | /6 |
| 2. Understand & Analyze Argument | You show you understand the reasoning and validity of your sources' arguments, through direct explanation or purposeful use of their reasoning and conclusions. | The way you explain and use the evidence you have included. | /6 |
| 3. Evaluate Sources & Evidence | You evaluate the credibility of sources and select relevant evidence from them, through direct explanation or purposeful use. | How you make the credentials and credibility of your sources clear. Often visible in your evidence setup, mentioning authors or publications. | /6 |
| 4. Understand & Analyze Perspective | You discuss a range of perspectives and draw explicit, relevant connections among them. | How you incorporate and name perspectives, and the transition words that show their relation to one another. | /6 |
| 5 & 6. Apply Conventions | You attribute and accurately cite sources with a consistent bibliography style, and you communicate clearly in a style appropriate for an academic audience. | How you follow grammar and mechanics rules and citation rules. | /3 + /3 |
| Row | Low score | Middle score | Top score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collaborate Reflect (/4) | (0) All or all but one member of the team offer generic responses that could apply to any collaborative project. Or the answers by all or all but one of the team may be unacceptably brief. | (2) Two or more of the responses in the oral defense support their answers with some relevant evidence specific to the team's project. | (4) All responses in the oral defense articulate detailed answers to the question asked and support those answers with relevant evidence specific to collaboration on this project. AND the answers in the oral defense taken together with the presentation demonstrate roughly equal participation from all team members. |
| Understand and Analyze Context (Evaluate Solutions) (/4) | (0) The presentation does not identify or only minimally identifies solutions, either the team's or others'. | (2) The presentation describes pros and/or cons of potential options related to the topic, OR describes limitations or implications of the team's solution in an inconsistent, illogical, overly broad, or otherwise unconvincing manner. | (4) The presentation explains the pros and/or cons of potential options and situates the team's proposed solution in conversation with them, AND evaluates the solution proposed by the team by thoroughly explaining its limitations or implications. |
| Engage Audience (Design) (/4) | (0) The presentation demonstrates no design or minimal design with significant errors. | (2) The presentation's design demonstrates an understanding of media and design elements but does not enhance the team's message, or does so inconsistently. | (4) Overall, the design clearly guides viewers through the presentation and demonstrates strategic selection of media and design elements that help clarify the argument for the team's solution. |
| Engage Audience (Performance) (/6) | (2) All or all but one of the presenters make little or no use of techniques to engage the audience. | (4) At times, some presenters effectively engage the audience. As a team the presenters demonstrate uneven delivery or performance techniques. | (6) All presenters effectively engage the audience through strategic intentional use of performance techniques most of the time. |
| Establish Argument (/6) | (2) The presentation describes the existence of a problem or reports on a problem, but does not argue for a team solution or resolution. | (4) The presentation conveys the argument for the team's solution or resolution using evidence that is not well selected for the situation. | (6) The presentation conveys the convincing argument for the team's solution or resolution through strategic selection of supporting evidence. |
Engaging performance techniques per the rubric: eye contact, vocal variety to emphasize important information, a controlled rate of speech, support materials that do not compromise connection with the audience, energy, and gestures that emphasize key points. Total: 24 points.
| Row | What you actually need to do | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Collaborate Reflect | When you get your oral defense question, give a detailed answer with evidence from this project, not something that could describe any group ever. The whole team needs to look like it carried roughly equal weight, in the presentation and the answers. | /4 |
| Evaluate Solutions | Show the other options people have proposed, weigh their pros and cons, put your team's solution in conversation with them, and honestly explain your solution's limits and implications. | /4 |
| Design | Slides that guide the audience: big headings, few words, visuals that advance the argument instead of decorating it, one consistent style across every speaker. The 3-second read test. | /4 |
| Performance | Every speaker, most of the time: eye contact, vocal variety, steady pace, energy, purposeful movement. Notes are fine; reading off them is not. | /6 |
| Establish Argument | One clear, complex team argument for one team solution, built from strategically chosen evidence, fitting the time limit, with every speaker logically connected. Not four mini-reports stapled together. | /6 |
| Question | What you actually need to do | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Q1: Identify the argument | Capture every part of the author's argument, and only what the author actually says: the WHAT (main claim), the WHY (the author's own because), and the SO WHAT (what the author says should happen). College Board counts the parts. Evidence is never a part. | /3 |
| Q2: Explain the line of reasoning | Explain how the author's claims connect, in order, Name each claim, say its job, and show what it makes possible, every time you move from one claim to the next. Job words (sets up, builds on this by, backs it with, widens the problem by, raises the stakes) earn the 6. Order words alone (then, next, after that, finally) cap at a 4. The 6 needs most of the claims and the connections explained. | /6 |
| Q3: Evaluate the evidence | Evaluate at least three pieces of evidence for credibility and relevance, applying RAVEN instead of naming it, tying each evaluation to the claim it supports, and naming at least one specific limitation. Evaluate the evidence, not just the people behind it: a response that only judges sources cannot score a 6. | /6 |
Each question is scored independently, 15 points total. The official word-for-word scoring guidelines are in the EOC PDF linked above.
| Row | What you actually need to do | Points |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish Argument | Stake a debatable perspective that is not already represented in the sources, stated early, with "because." A thesis that announces the topic or repeats what the sources already say caps this row. | /6 |
| 2. Line of Reasoning | Build the staircase: each claim sets up the next and everything leads to your conclusion. If your paragraphs could be shuffled without breaking anything, you are listing, not reasoning. | /6 |
| 3. Select and Use Evidence | Synthesize at least 2 of the 4 sources and put them in conversation: one source clarifies, complicates, or pushes back on another. Walking through sources one at a time caps this row. Your commentary is what makes the evidence work. | /6 |
| 4. Apply Conventions | Attribute every source clearly, write for an academic audience, and proofread. Clear, controlled writing that a reader never has to untangle. | /6 |
Each row is scored separately, never holistically: a response can earn a 6 on Row 1 and a 2 on Row 3. 24 points total. The official word-for-word language is in the EOC PDF linked above.
| Row | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context (stimulus source doing real work) | /5 |
| 2. Understand and Analyze Context (why this question is worth asking) | /5 |
| 3. Understand and Analyze Perspective | /9 |
| 4. Establish Argument | /12 |
| 5. Select and Use Evidence | /9 |
| 6. Apply Conventions (citations and bibliography) | /5 |
| 7. Apply Conventions (writing and conventions) | /3 |
Rows and points from College Board's 2025 AP Seminar Performance Task 2 Scoring Guidelines. Read each row's full description in the official guidelines, then click the score you think you earned.
| What the rubric rewards | What you actually need to do |
|---|---|
| Context and the stimulus connection | Connect your argument to a theme from the stimulus materials organically, and make clear why your question matters right now. |
| A debatable thesis | Answer your research question with a position a reasonable person could disagree with, previewed with "because." Present the debate and the perspectives in it. |
| Sources in conversation | Multiple perspectives, scholarly sources, and evidence that interacts: sources supporting, limiting, and complicating each other rather than taking turns. |
| Counterargument and resolution | Engage the strongest opposing view honestly (refute, concede, qualify, or redefine), then land a solution or resolution with its limitations and implications. |
| Conventions | 2,000 words max, complete and accurate citations in one consistent style, and clear academic writing. |
The official IWA rubric uses the same row families as the IRR (Context, Argument, Evidence, Perspective, Conventions) applied to argument instead of reporting. The full IWA Outline Planner in the Templates section walks every requirement.
| Row | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context | /6 |
| 2. Establish Argument (linking evidence to claims) | /6 |
| 3. Select and Use Evidence | /6 |
| 4. Establish Argument (your conclusion or solution) | /6 |
| 5. Engage Audience (Design) | /6 |
| 6. Engage Audience (Performance) | /6 |
| Row | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Reflect | /6 |
| 2. Establish Argument | /6 |
Rows and points from College Board's 2025 AP Seminar Performance Task 2 Scoring Guidelines. College Board scores the presentation and the oral defense separately. Read each row's full description in the official guidelines, then click the score you think you earned.
| Row | What you actually need to do |
|---|---|
| 1. Understand and Analyze Context | Specific, significant context (no "everyone knows that...") connected to at least two stimulus materials with in-text citations, plus your research question clearly presented. |
| 2. Establish Argument | State your argument early, organize clearly with heading slides, discuss your evidence instead of just presenting it, and address limitations and implications before the 8-minute mark. |
| 3. Select and Use Evidence | Relevant and credible evidence, 2 to 3 pieces per perspective, multiple perspectives in conversation: explain how ideas support or contradict each other. |
| 4. The Solution | A realistic solution that directly answers your research question. Test it: say your question, then your solution. Do they match? |
| 5. Design | Readable, uncrowded slides; images that add; simple clear graphs; consistent spelling and capitalization; nothing out of place. |
| 6. Performance | Eye contact and energy are the two most heavily scored components. Add vocal variety, movement, and note cards you barely need. |
| Oral Defense | Two questions, scored on specificity: detailed answers with evidence from your project. Generic answers that could come from anyone score lowest. The full question bank is in the Templates section. |
The five big ideas every rubric row maps back to.
Ask questions worth answering. Explore complex issues, push past your first idea, and narrow until the who, what, where, and when are clear.
Where this appears: IRR Row 1, IWA context, your research question on every task.
How to practice: Run every draft question through the five tests and the tie-breaker question in Question Check.
Take an argument apart: find the claims, follow the reasoning, and judge whether the logic holds before you ever use it.
Where this appears: IRR Row 2, EOC A Q1 and Q2, the commentary after every citation you write.
How to practice: Map an article's line of reasoning with connection verbs: establishes, builds on, complicates, concludes.
Find at least 2 to 3 differing points of view, treat the strongest version of each fairly, and evaluate the credibility of the sources carrying them.
Where this appears: IRR Rows 3 and 4, EOC A Q3, the IWA debate, IMP Row 3.
How to practice: Apply two RAVEN letters plus relevance to every source in your tracker.
Put sources in conversation until they say something together that none says alone. This is the single most rewarded move in the course.
Where this appears: IRR Row 4, IWA evidence, EOC B Row 3, the conclusion of everything.
How to practice: Use the They Say I Say frames and the In Conversation explainer above.
Collaborate, then communicate: turn research into a presentation tailored to a real audience, with design and delivery that serve the argument.
Where this appears: Every TMP row, IMP Rows 5 and 6, handoffs and slide design.
How to practice: Timed rehearsals with the team checklist, plus the 3-second read test on every slide.
Know your own process: how your question evolved, what evidence you rejected and why, and how certain you are of your conclusion.
Where this appears: Both oral defenses, the TMP Collaborate Reflect row, every checkpoint.
How to practice: Answer the Oral Defense Question Bank out loud, with specifics from your project.
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.
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.