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

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

I. Introduction

• Context: Why is this topic relevant today? Why is it important? How does it connect to the world or a larger community? What necessary information does your audience need about the issue?
• Introduce the range of perspectives: Address multiple perspectives or stakeholders for each lens. Ensure each stakeholder conveys a point of view through a specific argument.
• Acknowledge the limitations: Recognize any limits or gaps in the research.
• Thesis statement: Present the complexity of the problem, explain its significance in a larger context, and preview the patterns you found, which become the body paragraphs.

II. Body Paragraphs (repeat ~3 times, once per perspective)

• Topic sentence: Identify the main issue or conversation. What question are experts or stakeholders trying to answer?
• Expert 1, 2, and 3 (with credentials): For each: the expert's perspective and argument, specific evidence supporting it, and commentary explaining how the evidence supports their point of view.
• Synthesis: Where do the perspectives differ? What are the key points of contention? Connect the stakeholders and explain why their views differ.
• Closing / transition: Summarize how the sources work together to support your topic sentence and thesis, then transition to the next issue.

III. Conclusion

• Restate thesis without repeating it word for word, and summarize the main points.
• Discuss implications, solutions, or consequences of the issue.
• Connect to the team question: How does your IRR help address the overall team research question?

This is a research report, not an argumentative essay. You can have a thesis statement, and you may include a recommendation paragraph at the end identifying what your research suggests is the best solution to your group's question. Every option uses the same introduction and conclusion.

Shared Introduction (all options)

• Hook: use a statistic or fact to draw the reader into your issue.
• Reference your group's research question by building the appropriate content and defining the problem in the intro.
• Context (historical, scientific, economic, political), specific to your lens.
• Significance: why this is worthy of investigation.
• Include at least 2 to 3 pieces of evidence that require citation.

Option 1: Organize by Perspective

Best with 2 to 3 stakeholders whose perspectives you compare and contrast (for example: Democrats, Republicans, NRA). Stakeholders rebut, complement, support, limit, or constrain one another. Put them in conversation.

• For each perspective, write two body paragraphs.
• Paragraph 1: define who the group is, their vested interest, and their point of view, supported by at least 3 pieces of evidence from multiple sources.
• Paragraph 2: limitations or counterarguments to this perspective, and how it supports, rebuts, or limits other perspectives, with additional evidence.

Option 2: Weave Perspectives Throughout

Sources represent a variety of perspectives woven through the paper rather than sectioned off.

• Body Section 1: background and overview of the issue, weaving in initial perspectives to set the stage.
• Body Sections 2 to 4: one core viewpoint each. Blend multiple perspectives on that viewpoint, showing where they support or conflict, with 3+ pieces of evidence from varied sources per section.

Option 3: Organize Topically

Best when sources address distinct problems or subtopics within your lens (example: deinstitutionalization has resulted in homelessness, increased crime and prison overflow, and isolation).

• Identify 3 problems or subtopics; devote two body paragraphs to each.
• Paragraph 1: define the problem and the factors contributing to it, with at least 3 pieces of evidence from varied sources.
• Paragraph 2: solutions proposed by different perspectives, their viability, and limitations, supported by multiple sources.

Shared Conclusion (all options)

• Synthesize perspectives. A recommendation is allowed but not required.
• If A gets their way, this happens; if B gets their way, this happens.
• Where do we go from here? What happens if we act, react, or do nothing?

RAVEN is how this course evaluates whether a source deserves your trust. Run every key source through all five letters, then decide: Strong, OK, or Weak. The interactive Source Tracker (in Templates) applies this to your full source list.

On the exam and in your papers: never name RAVEN. Apply it. "M. Stacia Dearmin, a practicing physician at Akron Children's Hospital, writes from direct clinical experience" is Expertise and Ability to Observe in action, without the acronym.

Performance Task 2 · Checkpoint 1 · Required: 12-15 Sources. Everything you type saves automatically on this device. This is the same tracker as the official document, which you must also submit for Checkpoint 1.

The Three Tiers

Source Log (15 rows)

Source Types: Journal Article · Book/Chapter · News Article · Gov't Report · Organization Report · Interview · Documentary · Data/Statistics · Website · Stimulus Source · Other

Source Evaluation: RAVEN Method

Evaluate your KEY sources (especially Tier 2 and 3) to ensure credibility.

Checkpoint 1 Requirements

Check off each test you can answer "yes" to. If you cannot check the whole list, refine your research question.

Step 1: Understand the Purpose

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?

Step 2: Build a Working Thesis

Step 3: Check the Five Key Qualities

1. Does it answer the research question or prompt? (Re-read the assignment.)
2. Is it arguable? Could someone disagree? (Avoid obvious or agreed-upon facts.)
3. Is it specific and clear, not vague? (Avoid words like "good," "bad," "important.")
4. Is it logical and reasonable? (Avoid extreme or offensive claims.)
5. Can it be proven with evidence? (Avoid value-only judgments like "wrong" or "moral.")

Step 4: Avoid Common Mistakes

• Do not write it as a question.
• Do not quote someone else in your thesis.
• Make sure it is your opinion, clearly stated.

Step 5: Finalize with a Template

Build Yours Live

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.

Then run it through the Five Key Qualities above. If you cannot answer yes to all five, revise before you draft.

Less Developed vs. More Developed

• "War is bad." Too obvious, not arguable. → "U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War led to lasting distrust in government due to misleading information and unjustified casualties."
• "There are many types of dogs." A fact, not an opinion. → "Breed-specific legislation unfairly targets certain dog breeds and should be abolished."
• "Euthanasia is wrong." A moral judgment that is hard to prove. → "Current laws on physician-assisted suicide fail to provide enough legal protection for doctors acting in good faith."

A highly structured four-sentence summary that captures who wrote a source, what they argue, how they support it, why they wrote it, and how it connects to your argument. It forces you to truly understand a source before using it in your IWA.

Sentence 1: Who + What (The Claim)

Rhetorical verbs: argues, asserts, claims, contends, suggests, demonstrates, explains, challenges, refutes, proposes.

Sentence 2: How (The Evidence)

Types of support to look for: statistical data, case studies, expert testimony, historical examples, logical reasoning, personal narrative, survey results, experimental findings, comparative analysis.

Sentence 3: Why (The Purpose)

Purpose verbs: inform, persuade, call attention to, raise awareness, advocate for, challenge, critique, propose, urge, caution, encourage.

Sentence 4: So What? (Connection to YOUR Argument)

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.

Self-Check Before Submitting

• Sentence 1 includes author credentials AND their main claim.
• Sentence 2 explains HOW they support their claim (method + evidence).
• Sentence 3 includes "in order to," explaining the intended outcome.
• Sentence 4 explicitly connects to MY argument, not just a summary of the source.

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.

Introducing What an Author Says

Introducing Standard Views

Introducing an Ongoing Debate

Using a Quotation

Explaining a Quotation

Naming Your Naysayers

Making a Concession

Disagreeing, with Reasons

Establishing Why Your Claims Matter (great clincher material)

Transitions

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.

For Each Rubric Row, Record:

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

The Six Rows

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

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

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

Role Chart: Speaker-by-Speaker Plan

For each speaker, lock in: slide range, main point in one sentence, the evidence used (author/title or site), visuals, the handoff line, and a time target. Speaker 1 and 4 target 1:30 to 2:00; speakers 2 and 3 target 2:00 to 2:30. Check before rehearsal: every slide shows short text plus credit, no repeated points across speakers, and total time adds up to 8 to 10 minutes.

Roles to Assign

Opener/Context, Solution leads, Limits/Counter, Conclusion/Implications, Slide driver, Timekeeper, and Evidence verifier (checks on-slide credits).

Run this top to bottom before presentation day.

General Requirements

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

Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context

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

Row 2: Establish Argument

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

Row 3: Select and Use Evidence

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

Row 4: The Solution

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

Row 5: Design

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

Row 6: Performance

Eye contact and energy are the two most heavily scored components. Also: vocal variety, movement, not over-relying on note cards, and cards that are easy to handle.

Since this is an ARGUMENT paper, you must: present a debate with multiple perspectives, answer your research question, and propose a solution or resolution. 2,000 words max (excluding citations), at least one stimulus source, scholarly sources, and MLA or APA citations with a Works Cited.

Part 1: Foundation

Write your research question, your working thesis (your answer to the question), and the stimulus source(s) you will use with a note on how each one enters your argument.

Part 2: Introduction

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

Part 3: Body Sections

For each section: a main claim, the sources and key evidence you will use, and your analysis explaining how it supports your thesis. Put sources IN CONVERSATION rather than summarizing each one separately, connect every source back to your question and thesis, address multiple perspectives, and add YOUR analysis: you are the expert now.

Part 4: Counterargument and Rebuttal

Required for top scores. What would someone who disagrees say, and how do you respond? You do not always need to refute: you can confirm, concede, qualify, adjust, or redefine.

Part 5: Conclusion

Your solution or resolution (required), its limitations (is it applicable everywhere, for all people?), and its implications (what are the consequences if it is adopted?).

Thesis Templates

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

Source Language

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

Final Checklist

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

Four more outline formats (Classic Argument Model, claim-and-evidence grids, the paragraph-by-paragraph I-E-E-C template, and the rubric-aligned planner) are in the class IWA Outline doc if this structure does not fit your topic.

One source to analyze. Three questions, each scored independently. In class, practice rounds step down as your speed builds: 60 minutes for your first, then 45, then 40. On the real exam, budget about 30 minutes for Part A so you protect 90 for Part B.

Question 1: Identify the Argument

• Identify the author's main argument and at least two supporting claims.
• One sentence is fine, but it must express a complex argument, not just a topic.
• Look for the call to action: what does the author want people to do, change, support, or stop?
• Avoid the surface-level read. Ask what the author is really arguing about WHY or WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN.

Question 2: Explain the Line of Reasoning

• Explain the reasoning, not just a list of points. Break into small paragraphs and follow the argument chronologically.
• Hit ALL major claims and say HOW the author connects them. Connection verbs: establishes, builds on, complicates, reveals, concludes.
• Look for and name: hook, thesis, claims, evidence (point to it, do not evaluate it yet), counterargument, rebuttal, call to action.
• The test: if your sentences would still make sense in a different order, you are labeling. Rewrite to show how one claim makes the next one possible.

Question 3: Evaluate the Evidence

• Use RAVEN, but apply it. Do not just name the letters.
• Evaluate at least three pieces of evidence: aim for two credible/relevant and one that needs work.
• Start with a general evaluative statement about credibility as a whole.
• Tie every evaluation back to what the evidence is being asked to prove. Generic claims do not earn the top score.
• Name a specific limitation for at least one source: small sample size, missing credentials, dated data, vested interest, narrow scope.

The 4 vs the 6

"Source X has Expertise" earns a 4. "Source X's expertise in Y allows the author to support the claim that Z" earns the 6.

A mini IWA: 4 sources connected by a theme, no more than 90 minutes. The College Board sources are the backbone of your evidence; you only need to incorporate and synthesize 2.

Setup

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

The Argument

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

Thesis Frame

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

The Structure (One Format, Every Time)

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

The 6/6 Move

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

Outside Evidence

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

Score Yourself by Row, Never Holistically

Row 1 Establish Argument, Row 2 Line of Reasoning, Row 3 Select and Use Evidence, Row 4 Apply Conventions: each 0/2/4/6. A response can be a 6 on Row 1 and a 2 on Row 3.

Every term below shows up in the rubrics, the prompts, or Mrs. Cohen's feedback. The Big Six come straight from the classroom Key Definitions poster, with the same examples.

The Big Six (from the poster)

Argument anatomy

Source and evidence vocabulary

Task vocabulary

Want these in flashcard form? Cover the right column, read the left, and define out loud. The terms repeat across every assessment, so this list works for the EOC too.

The sunglasses analogy. A lens works like a pair of tinted sunglasses: it filters what you see. Put on the economic lens and money questions jump out; put on the ethical lens and right-and-wrong questions jump out. A lens is a way of LOOKING. A perspective is what someone ARGUES once they have looked.

The ladder: from topic to argument

The one test that always works

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.

Why this matters on every rubric

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.

Sentence frames for putting perspectives in conversation

"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.

The three synthesis moves

1. Clarify: use one source to sharpen or explain another. "Chen's national data shows the trend; Rodriguez's case study shows what it looks like in one district."

2. Complicate: use one source to show what another misses. "Where Source A emphasizes cost savings, Source C complicates this by documenting the hidden labor costs A never measures."

3. Push back: use one source to directly challenge another, then say who has the stronger case and why. Your commentary referees the disagreement.

Before and after: the same evidence, two paragraphs

Notice what changed: the sources now react to each other (complicates, reads as a direct response, together suggest), the writer's commentary connects them, and the paragraph ends somewhere none of the sources went alone.

Sentence frames to steal

"Where [Source A] emphasizes ___, [Source C] complicates this by ___."

"[Source B]'s findings explain WHY the pattern [Source A] documents exists: ___."

"Taken together, these sources suggest ___, a conclusion none of them reaches individually."

"If [Perspective A] gets their way, ___; if [Perspective B] gets their way, ___. Either path means ___."

For more frames, open the They Say / I Say Templates in the Template Gallery. For a model, reread the conclusion of any high scoring IRR sample on this site and watch the "if A gets their way / if B gets their way" move.

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.

Use this any time you evaluate evidence: EOC A Q3, the IRR, the IWA, or class discussion.

Step 1: Lead with an Overall Evaluation

Start with a general evaluative statement about the credibility and relevance of the evidence as a whole, then get specific.

Step 2: Apply RAVEN, Do Not Name It

For each piece of evidence, pick the two most relevant letters (Reputation, Ability to observe, Vested interest, Expertise, Neutrality) and explain how they bear on this specific claim.

Step 3: The Evaluation Sentence Frame

Weak: "Source X has Expertise." Strong: "Source X's expertise in Y allows the author to support the claim that Z." Always connect the credibility move to the claim it is being asked to prove.

Step 4: Evaluate Relevance Separately

Explain what the evidence actually proves and what it cannot prove. Credible evidence can still be irrelevant to the claim it sits next to.

Step 5: Name a Limitation

The limitation menu: small sample size, missing credentials, dated data, vested interest, narrow scope. Pick the one that genuinely applies and explain why it matters for this argument.

Pacing Rule

Two pieces of evidence, fully evaluated (credibility with two RAVEN letters, plus relevance, plus a limitation), beats ten shallow one-liners. Depth is the rubric, not quantity.