An 8 to 10 minute team presentation and defense, worth 50% of PT1. Your team argues for a solution to a shared focus question, then each member answers one oral defense question. This is teacher scored.
From the Flow Chart planning sheet: the speaker order, from who opens to who closes. Every teammate speaks across the whole presentation, not only in their turn.
The hook, the problem, the focus question.
Leads a solution, with credited evidence, while teammates weave in.
Leads a solution, with credited evidence, while teammates weave in.
What is weak or hard, why the solution still holds, conclusion and implications.
One font family, two colors, big headings, minimal text. Every slide passes the 3-second read test. Visuals advance the point, never decorate, and every piece of evidence is credited on the slide or out loud.
See it done: the three high scoring decks in the High Scoring Slide Decks block below are the model. Open one and count the words per slide.
One story: every part ties back to the one-sentence team claim, with no repeated points across speakers. The full scoring breakdown, including how equal participation is checked, is in the TMP rubric in the Rubrics section.
What is happening, anchored with a credited stat or definition, then the exact question your team answers.
Name each solution, give 2 to 3 key supports with credit, and explain why it helps. Then Limits/Counter: what is weak or hard, and why your solution still works overall.
Restate your team's answer and say what should happen next.
8 to 10 minutes end to end.
What it looks like
Four teammates each deliver a separate report on a separate point, and the only thing joining them is a broad theme.
What it should look like
The presentation needs one team solution that every speaker builds toward.
A series of unconnected individual arguments, or individual reports yoked by a very broad theme, caps the Establish Argument row.
What it looks like
A slide packed with paragraphs of text and a picture that is only there to look nice, gone before anyone could read it.
What it should look like
If the audience cannot read it in 3 seconds, cut it.
Slides with information overload, decorative images that serve no argumentative purpose, or text that is unreadable in the time shown cap the design score.
What it looks like
The team explains how serious the problem is and who it affects, then ends without ever saying what should be done about it.
What it should look like
The rubric rewards a convincing argument for a solution built on strategically selected evidence.
Describing or reporting on a problem without arguing for a team solution or resolution stops the argument score at 2.
No card sits on this row yet.
Watch with the rubric open: one team story, smooth handoffs, credited evidence, and equal participation.
Sign in with your school account to view. These stay off the public web on purpose.
These decks and the videos above are from different teams. Study the decks for design and the videos for delivery; do not read them as pairs.
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.