Guide to Part B End of Course Exam

Hey AEP Seminar students, it is Mrs. Malloy from Carmel High School in Carmel, Indiana, and I am here today to talk to you about the end of course exam. Specifically today, we're going to talk about Part B. So what are we going to learn? Well, today we're going to focus on the task, the process, and the rubric, because having a clear understanding of those elements is going to make sure that you can confidently craft an effective argument for the Part B you will do on the exam. So let's start by looking at the task instructions themselves. So whether you're taking this digitally or in person on paper, you're going to have the same task. The task is going to read as follows. You're going to read the four sources carefully, focusing on a theme or issue that connects them and the different perspectives each represents. Then you're going to write a logically organized, well-reasoned, and well-written argument that presents your own perspective on the theme or issue you identified. You must incorporate at least two of the sources provided and link the claims in your argument to supporting evidence. You may also use the other provided sources or draw upon your own knowledge. In your response, refer to the provided sources as source A, source B, source C, or source D, or by the author's name. So let's break this down. First of all, we're going to be given four sources. Of those four sources, they're all going to connect. They're going to have some overarching theme that connects them. Within each source, there's going to be a different perspective or argument that's presented. Our job here, much like the IWA, is to use those sources to inspire our argument. We're going to create an argument that is logically organized, well-reasoned, and well-written, which means that we're going to have claims that are linked. with commentary. Our evidence is going to be linked to our claims through commentary. We're going to be creating an argument that is debatable, okay? Something that can be argued against because that's really what we're doing with an argument. So when we're thinking about the difference here between the IWA and Part B, there's a lot of similarities, first of all, right? We know we have stimulus and we have to make an argument. But for the IWA, you had to establish a theme connecting two and then only... we're required to incorporate one within your argument. For the part B, you are required, if we look back at the line, to incorporate two pieces or two stimulus sources into our argument. So we have to make sure that we are incorporating those two so that we can fulfill the task itself. If you're feeling nervous about doing this, just remind yourself that the process and the skills that you did through the IWA are so incredibly similar that you are prepared to do this. The only difference now is that we have to incorporate two of these sources into our argument. And yes, you might be thinking, well, this isn't multi-draft and I'm not using outside sources. Well, that might be true, but everything you have is here. And so what you can do is show that, yes, I do know how to make an argument. It wasn't just a fluke thing that I could do it for the IWA when I had the time to write multiple drafts. I actually know what an argument is and I know how to make them using the sources that are presented to me. So there are a few misconceptions as to what the process is not, okay, or what some kids think the process is. So some students automatically think, okay, I'm going to read the stimulus, I'm going to figure out what the theme is, and then I'm going to write this paper in which I just really individually talk about each source and tell you what is happening in each source as it pertains to the theme. So I saw this theme of work, and so I'm going to tell you how I see work. in every single source that was provided to me in the time I have, and then I'm done. But unfortunately, this is not what you should be doing. A lot of times at reading, they call this a marching through the sources, because you're not really presenting an argument. You're just summarizing what each source says related to the theme and then moving on. That is not an argument. The second misconception that we see a lot as graders is that some students come in and they'll say, I wrote my IWA about this or my IRR or you know what, in AP environmental, we're talking about this topic. I had to do this in AP US history. You have some idea of what you already want to argue. Then when you sit down and actually see the stimulus material, you decide how you can manipulate the sources so that you can make them work with the argument you want to make. The one that you decided in advance of sitting for the exam. This again is not what you want to do. Because here, yes, you could say you're making an argument, but you're not fulfilling the requirements of the rubric or the prompt. It's asking you to incorporate two, but not just incorporate them so that you have them, but incorporating them in an authentic way that is true to what the sources are actually about or arguing and not manipulating them just to fit your argument. So what is the process? And I know there's a lot of arrows on the screen, but that should visually cue to you right now that this isn't a straightforward process. You know, there is a lot of things you have to do than just compose your Part B. A lot of people like to jump right to the end. And then I will tell you as a grader and other graders can tell you and your teachers can tell you this, too. If you start writing your essay before you've done any of the other steps, you just start writing. Here's the thing. You may think you have an idea of where you're going, but the truth is you don't know where you're going. Graders don't know where you're going. Nobody really does until maybe you hit page two or three. But at that point, it is too late to make a really, really good argument. So if you take away nothing else, please know the biggest takeaway here is that you need to plan before you start writing. Okay. So what's that process look like? Well, we're going to read the stimulus material and you're going to read all. four sources. One of the things that kids and my students always ask is they'll say, what if one of the sources is really hard or I don't really know what's going on? Well, here's the thing. Should you attempt to read all four sources? Absolutely. But if you know that you have a time crunch and one of those sources seems so over your head that you just don't know what to do and you feel stuck, then you can just read it quickly and move on to the other sources. We're not necessarily encourage you just to eliminate a source because it's still connected in some way with the theme. But we also want to be smart about the fact that we have to incorporate two of these. So if you feel completely overwhelmed at some point, because one of those sources is just too much, that's okay. Because we're reading these not so quickly that we lose substance, but we don't have the time to take 90 minutes to annotate one source. Okay, that's the time we have for this whole process. So What we're doing is we're reading the sources, we're annotating. I always tell my students to write down, you know, what are the key ideas that you see, or if you had to give a gist, if you had to tell somebody in just a few words what this source is about, just make a note of that so you can remind yourself. After you've read the four sources, you want to figure out what that theme is that's connecting the sources, that bigger overarching theme. But then what's that smaller theme or what's a more nuanced connection that you can see between two sources? Because you're going to have to narrow the scope. to make an argument in which you connect those two sources related to a theme. The next thing you want to do is you want to generate your own perspective. Or if you've worked all year with the idea of you make a research question and then you make a claim, you can still jot yourself down a research question here, because if that question helps you to better formulate your perspective, then do it that way, right? Whatever works for your process is going to work here. But you have to make sure that if... all the sources are arguing one thing, we have to figure out what we're going to argue that's different. And each of the sources is going to have its own argument, but your job is to figure out your own position and how you're going to enter the conversation. Just like Mr. Gonzalez and I talked about for the IWA, the idea here is to think about alignment and think about your position. Are you going to write a position paper or a solution paper, right? We don't want to be doing both. Once we have that idea of how we can craft our perspective or our question, we're then going to turn that into a very specific and complex main claim or thesis. This is where we start to narrow the scope even further to make sure that we have something that is going to control our entire paper. Now, I know some of you are over your teacher saying this, but it is so true. If you have a weak main claim or thesis, then the rest of your argument is going to be weak because. That sentence is what's going to drive the complexity of your paper. It's also what's going to drive your alignment. Now, here's the thing. Once you have that claim, we have to go back to the stimulus material to start to identify evidence. And if we realize that our claim is too far away from the stimulus material, we actually have to go backwards. We have to go back to that crafting of the claim and we have to adjust. Or we have to see if there's another stimulus material source that we could use instead. But we don't move forward until we know that we are authentically aligned to the stimulus material. Once you know that your main claim. is complex and specific, and you know that you are authentically connected to the stimulus, then we're going to outline our argument and we're going to make sure it's logically organized and complex, just like you did for the IWA. Think about what are your claims going to be? What are your counters? What are your rebuttals? How am I going to start it? How am I going to end it? Right? We're outlining the entire paper. And I want to point out to you that we have went through six steps, or this is the sixth step, before we've started writing. So do not start this until you've done all the back work to make sure you've planned an effective and aligned argument. OK, another question that I get from students a lot in my own classroom is, do I have to include a counter or do I have to include concessions? But if we look at that word complex that College Board is asking us to focus on, then complexity. How how convincing can your argument be if you're not addressing any limitations or counterclaims or the other side? And the answer is not very complex. So we want to make sure that we're addressing this with complexity, which means we want to not only present the things that support our argument, but we want to show the other side. We want to show multiple or alternate perspectives. So try to incorporate those counterclaims or confessions as you go to really show a more complex and thoughtful argument. Now we are finally at the step where we're going to compose our part B. After you write it, I... always encourage students to leave five to ten minutes at the end to go back and proofread, just to make sure your ideas are clear as you go. Now, one of the things I want to emphasize here, especially when we're talking about proofreading, but really is something to think about on the front end, is sometimes we start writing fast and things become not legible anymore. So, those are things that we can fix. However, if your whole paper is written in a way that we can't understand it, that's going to be a problem. for how it's going to be interpreted because graders aren't going to be able to make sense of some of the things that you're saying. So make sure as you're writing, you take the time to write legibly and clearly and that your ideas come through. Now, you have 90 minutes roughly to do this. So are you going to make mistakes? Absolutely, you're going to make mistakes. It's a time setting. It's not a multi-draft essay. We're not asking for perfection here, but you want to leave yourself some time to proofread. so that you have time to go back and catch the major things, the things that might be distracting from your argument or making your ideas unclear, or the spots in your handwriting where we no longer can make sense of what you're saying, okay? But know, those of you who are perfectionists, it's okay if there's an error here or there, as long as your ideas are clearly communicated. So let's remind ourselves of the task itself. Remember, part B is one question. You're going to get four sources all connected by a similar theme. You're going to have approximately 90 minutes to write this essay, and it is 31.5% of your AP score. So of all of the things that you've done all year that contribute to your AP score, this one is the greatest weight. This is the one that shows that you have all the skills that we've been working on, because if you can make a really good argument, you've done all the things that we've been asking all year. When thinking about how to break this down, I have included how I would suggest breaking it down. This isn't a one size fits all, because keep in mind that if you are doing this on paper, you will have two hours to do this test. If you're doing it online, you will have the same. However, if you're on paper, you can move back and forth between part A and part B. And so you can start with part B and go back to part A or see how much time. And all of those things are a little bit more flexible. If you are doing this digitally, once you finish part A, you will have whatever time you have left for part B. Now I can tell you in my own classroom, most of my students, when we do practice versions of part A, take 40 to 45 minutes to do a part A. So that's going to leave them with a little bit less than 90 minutes to finish the part B. And that's okay. Your timing might be a little bit different than somebody else's. But what we don't want you to do, and what... you don't want to do is to take 90 minutes on part A and leave yourself 30 minutes for part B. You still want to be aware of the time, but you might be a little bit over the 90 minutes or a little bit under, and that's okay. But one thing you cannot do, again, no matter how much time you have left, even if you leave yourself with only 60 minutes, take the time to plan out your argument in advance. And then the time you have left, you can use to actually write. So let's say you are working off of 90 minutes. what I would encourage you to do 25 to 30 minutes to read, to think, to plan out your argument. That gives you about 45 to 55 minutes to write your argument. And that should leave you about five to 10 minutes to edit and revise. Again, the most important step, the step with the star here, is the time to plan, to think about it, to read the stimulus in advance before you just start writing. So let's talk about how you're going to be scored. So there are four major components of the Part B evaluation. The first one is your understanding and engagement with the stimulus material. So did you say... to the true to the stimulus material? Is it clear that you understood them when you were creating the theme or topic that united them? And then did you incorporate two of them into your response? For those of you who are doing this digitally, this is going to be extremely important because we are going to be assessed slightly different in terms of how much the stimulus is going to factor into the other rows as well. It's not just going to be by itself. But the big idea, no matter which way you're testing, is to remember that we want to stay true to what this is asking you to do. You have to show an understanding of the stimulus and then use the stimulus, integrate them authentically into your argument to get a high score here. Okay. The next way that you are being assessed is in your line of reasoning. This is very, very similar to your IWA. We're looking at your claims, your evidence, your commentary, the linking of them, right? We want to make sure that your argument is controlling this. paper, not the arguments of other sources, not a description of other sources, or not just things that you wanted to tell us that are not necessarily an argument. Then you're going to be assessed on your ability to select and use evidence to make an argument. And again, what we're looking at is did you select evidence and then use it authentically to make the claims that you're trying to make? Did it extend and complicate and confirm the things that you're making? We don't want it to be one of those things where I did pick the evidence and I used it, but I didn't use it correctly. And so I've either manipulated the source or I've used it incorrectly. Some of you too will use a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, which means things that you're just saying without any evidence. And that's going to be problematic for this row. One of the questions that students always ask about evidence is, can I use outside stuff and how do I handle that? If you're using things that are from your own knowledge. Just like you would have with the IWA, remember that things that are anecdotal, right, stories that you have or personal experiences, there's a place for those. But your entire evidence shouldn't be all of those things that are from your own experience. And then the last one, we're looking for your clarity of communication, how well you're conveying the argument that you're making and your ideas. And then we're also looking for you to be consistent in the attribution that you have for the sources. Remember, you can use the name of the sources that are provided, or you can attribute it to source A, source B, source C, source C, respectively. Okay, if you are going to pull in something outside, give as much information as you can to help validate the credibility and relevance of those sources. So if you are currently taking APUSH, for example, and your AP history teacher taught you something and you want to be able to cite it, give that teacher credibility, or if you know the name of your textbook, you can use that as well. to help establish if you heard something on NPR, but you can't remember who actually said it, but you know, it's true. It's okay to attribute just saying according to NPR and then give the information that you know, again, this is a time setting and we're going off of what we know. So besides the stimulus material, which we can, we have to use, but we also have more details to be able to convey better citations for those other things that you're going to pull in from the outside, give as much as you can to address those. credibility and relevance pieces. So let's remind ourselves how we identify the theme. The first slide I wanted to include, I only wanted to include to show you that this process is no different than what Mr. Gonzalez and I talked about with the IWA. You read the sources, you figure out the broad theme, you identify the sub themes, you narrow your scope, what's that focus and scope and why would people care? Then we identify the two provided sources that we can use authentically. Then we start outlining. So nothing here has changed. Again, same process as the IWA. So if we look at four sources that were given in the 2019 AP seminar part B, we can see from the screen that there are four different sources. Now I'm not expecting you as you're watching this to go in and read all of these sources, but if you want to, you can use the packet that's provided on AP Central. You'll go into past exam questions for 2019 and you can look at these sources more in depth. But all you need to know... is if we look at the sources that were provided, these are the most common themes that came out of those sources. And so we saw a lot of stuff about consumer culture or materialistic society, about consumption, about excess, about how we treat nature, this idea of quality over quantity and needing to reform because we're thinking about how we get rid of some of these, you know, of garbage that we have or waste and recycling. So these are the themes that that came up most consistently. This doesn't, this isn't a one size fits all list by any means. But if we take that idea of what we're noticing between all of the four sources, and then we say, okay, as I'm reading through, what connection do I see between two sources that I can then use within my paper? So I'm an English teacher. So I immediately went to Thoreau because for me, I like Thoreau, but I also enjoyed what he was saying in this particular passage. I also was interested in the garbage art source. So as I'm reading through, what I did is I changed the text on here to blue so that you could see the difference. If you want to pause and read this whole selection, you can. But they're talking about in this section, John Hoffman, who essentially made the idea of dumpster diving a trendy, cool thing. And he explains how his parents taught him the dumpster diving lifestyle. So that made me start thinking about this idea of waste and how many things we get rid of. If people can live off of dumpsters, you know, we are a culture that is excess and what we're getting rid of. Then I started reading Thoreau and I saw this connection. And again, you can see the things in blue that stood out to me about a new suit and jackets and trousers and hats and shoes and clothes. But the idea here was essentially the cliche that, you know, it's not clothes that make a man. Things don't make a man. You know, it's the content of the character. And so as I was putting those two things together. I started to think about how I can connect them. And I came to the idea of fast fashion. And by fast fashion, I really mean those, when we think about fashion that's created and then we get rid of it and now we have a new trend, right? Because these things are popping up one different per season, but also because styles are going in and out. And those of your teachers who are familiar with fashion in the 90s, I noticed now when I walk into Target that those styles are... starting to come back. It looks like clueless is becoming popular again. So how do we then generate a perspective now that we figured out the theme? Well, now that we have a theme, we then want to make sure we've identified our theme or topic. We got to go back to the stimulus material and identify what arguments are being made because we can't just regurgitate an argument they're already making. We have to come up with an argument of our own. Then we're going to narrow the focus and scope so that we can frame our own perspective. to then decide if we're going to do a position paper or a solution paper. And then we go back to the stimulus again to make sure that that's going to work with the sources that we've picked. So I did the same process with the idea of fast fashion. So remember, I started with the connection of source B and source C. I saw these terms of reuse and dumpster diving and the need for new clothes. So that led me to a focus of fast fashion and social media influencers. And if I'm a student who. I know a lot of stuff about pop culture. I'm going to take what I know and what I feel confident arguing, but also staying true to the stimulus material. And so I thought I would argue a position-based paper. To what extent are social media influencers on sites like Instagram and Twitter impacting the popularity of fast fashion for American consumers? Now, do you have to write this out in question form? You don't. But for me, that was better for me to plan when I thought about, well, what question do I want to ask? How would I frame this? Okay. This allows me to stay true to sources B and C while still trying to make an argument that is much more narrow than just saying fast fashion. Is it good or is it bad? Now, I could take that same idea, same sources of B and C, and say that I am a student who is more into science or environmentally based without manipulating the sources. I could then make an argument about the EPA and maybe looking at would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the EPA would regulating the fast fashion industry reduce the amount of pollution produced by the industry. Now you might be thinking, well, if I go back to the stimulus, I do that last connection. Does this really work? Well, the answer is no, because source C is actually now being manipulated because he's not talking about, Thoreau's not talking about this in any capacity. So if I go back to the stimulus, then what I can do instead is swap out source C. for Source D where we're talking about innovation and technology. and how we can adapt to better help. And so now I have two sources that allow me to keep the focus and the question that I have, but it wasn't the two sources that I originally thought I was going to use, but now I can be authentic. So the next step then is to plan the argument. So if I take that same idea that we were talking about, I'm going to shift it from now my perspective to being my main claim. Just a reminder. the main claim, your thesis, or your argument is the most important sentence in your entire paper. It's going to answer the question, what am I trying to prove and why, right? This is going to be clear and specific and narrow in both focus and in scope. And most importantly, if it's an argument, it's got to be argumentative or debatable. And the other thing that we want is you want to explicitly reference it throughout your paper because the more that you reference it, the more clearly tied to your argument you're going to be, right? We want to be explicit and blatant about our argument. But here's what we don't want to do. We don't want to write a cliche. And we also don't want to make it overly generalized. So if I took that same perspective that we just talked about, or the question that I wrote, and I said, you know, would the Environmental Protection Agency regulating the fashion industry for me? reduce pollution. And I said, well, fast fashion is bad for the environment. So I'm going to write about that. Well, how can I make this a little bit more complex? Because at the end of the day, this is overly generalized, right? If you think about complexity, this is good for the environment, this is bad for the environment, that doesn't really get us anywhere. But can I take that same idea and start to narrow down? Well, what about it is bad? Is it bad for our water? And those of you who are more familiar with environmental policies or climate change or things like that, you know, if you're thinking about the climate and how it affects nature, we know that there's a problem with some of these microfibers and them getting into the water and things like that. So narrow down the scope. There's an idea here that can work, but right now it's too generalized. We take that same idea about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and their regulation and we turn it and we say, you know what, regulation would it? help encourage the idea that one man's trash is another man's treasure. This is problematic because this is a cliche, right? How many times have we heard that expression or idiom, the idea that it's someone's trash is now someone's treasure? You can't write a complex paper about that. Could you shift this a little bit and think about how it could encourage the idea of reusing or recycling or things like that? Absolutely. But in its current form, it is just a cliche and it's not going to serve you well going forward. And if you go back to that first slide, remember, this is the most important sentence that you have in your paper or sentences because the main claim or thesis doesn't have to be one sentence. So this is what's going to shape the direction and complexity of your paper. So make sure it is written well. So if we took the other idea and we looked at social media, social media influencers on Instagram and Twitter impact. the popularity of fast fashion for American consumers, then we can start to create something a little bit more specific. Social media influencers on sites like Instagram and Twitter directly advertise fast fashion, thus making them responsible for the popularity that fast fashion has with American consumers. So we can start to see more complexity here. Rather than just say they're popular or they're not popular, we started to make the argument that we're going to blame social media influencers for why people so quickly get rid of fashion or switch trends or need all of these excess of clothing. The complexity here at the level of detail is much better than the generalization or a cliche. So once we have that main claim or thesis, we then need to start thinking about the parts of our argument just like we would have for the IWA. How am I going to start this? What am I doing in terms of introduction? How am I setting the context? Making sure that they know where we're going and know why it's important. Then I'm going to think about my subclaims or reasons. What are those going to be? And then what evidence can help me prove each of those? How can I link those with commentary? Same thing for counterclaim with evidence. Same thing for rebuttal. We also want to make sure that we're addressing any limitations and implications and then ending with a conclusion. These are all of the parts. of an effective argument. It doesn't change if you're doing it in a time setting versus a multi-draft setting. The parts of the argument in terms of what makes them complex and convincing and cohesive are the same. The only difference here is maybe in your IWA. You had time to do two claims and two counterclaims, but maybe now you only have time for two claims and one counterclaim, right? That's okay. The level of complexity that you're going in to get into the level of debt, it's going to be different when you can do the research and find all of these outside sources to help build that. Right now, you're only relying on what's been provided in the stimulus materials and what your own prior knowledge is. And there's enough in the stimulus material to make a really effective argument. OK, but just know that we're not going to hold it to the same standards of the IWA because this is a time setting. It's like the first draft of it. OK, but with the IWA, you have all of these other resources that you have at your disposal that you don't have here. OK, so if we look at how you're assessed in terms of argument or line of reasoning, one of the things I want to point out in that high response. is that it's driving. The argument is driving your response, whereas in a medium, we know what you're trying to argue, but you don't have the command or control that you really need because the linking isn't there. Versus a low, you really are just summarizing and sometimes summarizing what each source provided says. So make sure, like we talked about with the IWA, your argument, what you are arguing, is in control of the entire paper. And we do that by making sure we're linking claims and evidence through commentary. And we have an organization that explicitly makes clear the purpose that we have, but also makes sense in what we're trying to prove. So what I did is I took that same topic of social media and I thought about, OK, if I were a student and as you're planning, you don't have to plan this out. I mean, if you want to use visuals to plan this out as you're writing in the book or just like bullet points, whatever works for you is totally fine. But I took that same idea of social media influencers and I thought, OK. How would I break this down so that I could write this argument and write it well in the time that I had? Well, one of the claims for why I'm blaming social media influencers is that they give the impression that fashion or material goods define a person. And I can talk about how that is, you know, I can use the Thoreau source to talk about how that's not true. And I can go back to that idea. But they do give the impression that the fashion that you have, what you wear is what defines you. I also thought another reason why they're to blame is that social media influencers never wear the same outfit more than once. And so they give you this impression that if you re-wear something, if you use it again, it's almost wrong. And that to me was really problematic because, again, if we're thinking about waste and fast fashion, they're encouraging the use of having more fashion or more trends. Then if I thought of the counter, well, how can I, you know, what would the other side argue? Well, the other side would say that. influencers are less responsible for popularity than affordability. If things are cheaper at certain places or less expensive, then of course that's what people are going to buy. And those clothes being less effective or less expensive typically don't last as long as other clothing. And so therefore they're not as responsible as prices. However, the rebuttal that I could use is if I go back to source B and it talks about Hoffman making the idea of dumpster diving. cool, right? Influencers literally influence, they set trends. So if these Instagram or Twitter influencers start rewearing the same things or start dumpster diving or thrift store buying or things like that, right? We can think back to when Macklemore's song about thrift stores was popular, people were going to thrift stores, right? If they influence, they have the ability to then make fast fashion not popular. So I have all of this stuff and now I can start to think about actually writing my essay. One of the things though you have to think about during the planning stages and before you start writing is how you're going to incorporate evidence. So I wanted just to point this out now, but I'm not going to go into as much depth with this only because during the IWA, we had multiple videos on how to incorporate evidence and on AP Classroom, there are videos about incorporating evidence as well. But I just wanted to remind you, so if you're struggling with incorporating evidence, I encourage you to go back to those videos. If not, this should be enough to just remind you of the things that we've talked about previously. For a high score here, you need to fully integrate two of those stimulus or source materials. And remember, integrate, we can think of just like essential use in the IWA. The argument can't function without those things. They are used in an authentic way. And they're actually like a crucial part of your argument. For a medium score, you're integrating them. But maybe you're doing it in a more obvious or superficial way where it's not really a lot of depth. It's not necessarily fully connected in terms of supporting your argument. Like you told us what they were, but you're not using them quite as well as you could. We almost take that pause to talk about source. And for a low, you're misinterpreting the source or the use of the evidence doesn't really match what you're trying to say. It's that student that manipulates. I have my prepackaged argument and now I'm using this evidence just to make it work. Okay. It doesn't really make sense with the claim. So again, we want to use that same idea of fully integrate. With the two sources we're going to use from the stimulus material, we want to think of them in that essential use way. If I were to remove them, my argument is weakened because of that. They can be used in terms of, you know, claim, counter, wherever they see fit. But this is also true for anything outside that you bring in. If you're using those pieces of evidence, you want to integrate them. You don't want to just say, hey, I heard this on NPR and then move on. It needs to be an actual part of your argument. So. With the slide on the screen, feel free to pause and take the time to read it, but I just want to point out a couple things to emphasize here for you. This was taken from the 2019 sample that you can find on sample A on AP Central. What you'll notice is this student is making an argument about the consumer mindset, and he's criticizing it. And he uses Thoreau to help do that about how we have this belief in our society or this wrong. mindset that it's the clothing that make a man essentially. And then he or she takes the same idea and stays true to the argument about the consumer mindset and includes a historical event to show when we had to stop this mindset, right? During the Great Depression, when we had to do that, we've got stuff during World War II and we see it again, you know, in the 60s when we're talking about dumpster diving. And then he pulls in Source B to help show that. connection between all of these different parts. So, you know, we have multiple times in our history where we've had to suspend the consumer mindset because of different historical events that were happening. So now source C and source B are used in an essential way. They're integrated into the argument and they're aligned with what the student is trying to argue, which is why they feel so incredibly authentic. So what's our takeaway for today? Well, as we get into the exam, One thing I want you to do is to be rational. And you know, as much as I do, the AP seminar loves our acronyms. So I was trying to make this not only since you're used to IMP and IWA, but also something that you can just take with you, just like you would do with Quest, right? So we want to be rational as we approach the part B of the exam. You want to read the stimulus first. Then you want to authentically identify the theme that's connecting at least two of the sources. And I want to emphasize authentically because we're not. coming in with a prepackaged theme or idea in our head already. Then we're going to take a stance, position, or solution, and we're going to craft a thoughtful, arguable thesis before we start writing. Once we do that, we're going to go back to the stimulus again, and we're going to identify how at least two of the stimulus sources can be used to develop our argument. We should have been thinking about that already, but now we're going to come back and do it again now that we have an idea of what we want to argue. We're then going to... outline the argument in advance, ensuring alignment, cohesion, and complexity before we start drafting. Then, and I know this one's a little bit more of a stretch, but it's not really, you're going to nourish your argument by including commentary and exploring implications, limitations, and objections. The only way we make our argument cohesive and convincing and complex is to actually use commentary to start drawing those links between claims and evidence. to also explore the complexity, the implications, the limitations, right? We want to make sure that we're not just presenting an argument and outlining it, but we really want to build up and develop that argument into something it's effective and we feel really good about. We're then going to attribute and embed source material and communicate our ideas clearly so our reader knows what we're trying to argue. And then last, we're going to leave time to proofread and revise, okay? So the process, just like in everything we do in AP seminar, we are going to be rational about it because we are educated consumers of information who are now empowered at this point to be able to make really effective arguments. So now that you have a clear understanding of the task, the process, and the rubric, you can confidently craft an effective argument for part B. As always, I want to thank you for watching. I hope you find some joy in your day, but knowing that you are going into the exam, I want to say good luck. Just remember that you have these skills, you've been practicing them all year. So we are all confident that you can do a great job.

So let's start by looking at the task instructions themselves. So whether you're taking this digitally or in person on paper, you're going to have the same task. The task is going to read as follows. You're going to read the four sources carefully, focusing on a theme or issue that connects them and the different perspectives each represents. Then you're going to write a logically organized, well-reasoned, and well-written argument that presents your own perspective on the theme or issue you identified.

You must incorporate at least two of the sources provided and link the claims in your argument to supporting evidence. You may also use the other provided sources or draw upon your own knowledge. In your response, refer to the provided sources as source A, source B, source C, or source D, or by the author's name.

So let's break this down. First of all, we're going to be given four sources. Of those four sources, they're all going to connect. They're going to have some overarching theme that connects them. Within each source, there's going to be a different perspective or argument that's presented.

Our job here, much like the IWA, is to use those sources to inspire our argument. We're going to create an argument that is logically organized, well-reasoned, and well-written, which means that we're going to have claims that are linked. with commentary. Our evidence is going to be linked to our claims through commentary.

We're going to be creating an argument that is debatable, okay? Something that can be argued against because that's really what we're doing with an argument. So when we're thinking about the difference here between the IWA and Part B, there's a lot of similarities, first of all, right? We know we have stimulus and we have to make an argument. But for the IWA, you had to establish a theme connecting two and then only...

we're required to incorporate one within your argument. For the part B, you are required, if we look back at the line, to incorporate two pieces or two stimulus sources into our argument. So we have to make sure that we are incorporating those two so that we can fulfill the task itself.

If you're feeling nervous about doing this, just remind yourself that the process and the skills that you did through the IWA are so incredibly similar that you are prepared to do this. The only difference now is that we have to incorporate two of these sources into our argument. And yes, you might be thinking, well, this isn't multi-draft and I'm not using outside sources.

Well, that might be true, but everything you have is here. And so what you can do is show that, yes, I do know how to make an argument. It wasn't just a fluke thing that I could do it for the IWA when I had the time to write multiple drafts. I actually know what an argument is and I know how to make them using the sources that are presented to me.

So there are a few misconceptions as to what the process is not, okay, or what some kids think the process is. So some students automatically think, okay, I'm going to read the stimulus, I'm going to figure out what the theme is, and then I'm going to write this paper in which I just really individually talk about each source and tell you what is happening in each source as it pertains to the theme. So I saw this theme of work, and so I'm going to tell you how I see work. in every single source that was provided to me in the time I have, and then I'm done.

But unfortunately, this is not what you should be doing. A lot of times at reading, they call this a marching through the sources, because you're not really presenting an argument. You're just summarizing what each source says related to the theme and then moving on. That is not an argument.

The second misconception that we see a lot as graders is that some students come in and they'll say, I wrote my IWA about this or my IRR or you know what, in AP environmental, we're talking about this topic. I had to do this in AP US history. You have some idea of what you already want to argue. Then when you sit down and actually see the stimulus material, you decide how you can manipulate the sources so that you can make them work with the argument you want to make.

The one that you decided in advance of sitting for the exam. This again is not what you want to do. Because here, yes, you could say you're making an argument, but you're not fulfilling the requirements of the rubric or the prompt.

It's asking you to incorporate two, but not just incorporate them so that you have them, but incorporating them in an authentic way that is true to what the sources are actually about or arguing and not manipulating them just to fit your argument. So what is the process? And I know there's a lot of arrows on the screen, but that should visually cue to you right now that this isn't a straightforward process.

You know, there is a lot of things you have to do than just compose your Part B. A lot of people like to jump right to the end. And then I will tell you as a grader and other graders can tell you and your teachers can tell you this, too. If you start writing your essay before you've done any of the other steps, you just start writing.

Here's the thing. You may think you have an idea of where you're going, but the truth is you don't know where you're going. Graders don't know where you're going. Nobody really does until maybe you hit page two or three.

But at that point, it is too late to make a really, really good argument. So if you take away nothing else, please know the biggest takeaway here is that you need to plan before you start writing. Okay. So what's that process look like? Well, we're going to read the stimulus material and you're going to read all.

four sources. One of the things that kids and my students always ask is they'll say, what if one of the sources is really hard or I don't really know what's going on? Well, here's the thing.

Should you attempt to read all four sources? Absolutely. But if you know that you have a time crunch and one of those sources seems so over your head that you just don't know what to do and you feel stuck, then you can just read it quickly and move on to the other sources.

We're not necessarily encourage you just to eliminate a source because it's still connected in some way with the theme. But we also want to be smart about the fact that we have to incorporate two of these. So if you feel completely overwhelmed at some point, because one of those sources is just too much, that's okay.

Because we're reading these not so quickly that we lose substance, but we don't have the time to take 90 minutes to annotate one source. Okay, that's the time we have for this whole process. So What we're doing is we're reading the sources, we're annotating.

I always tell my students to write down, you know, what are the key ideas that you see, or if you had to give a gist, if you had to tell somebody in just a few words what this source is about, just make a note of that so you can remind yourself. After you've read the four sources, you want to figure out what that theme is that's connecting the sources, that bigger overarching theme. But then what's that smaller theme or what's a more nuanced connection that you can see between two sources?

Because you're going to have to narrow the scope. to make an argument in which you connect those two sources related to a theme. The next thing you want to do is you want to generate your own perspective.

Or if you've worked all year with the idea of you make a research question and then you make a claim, you can still jot yourself down a research question here, because if that question helps you to better formulate your perspective, then do it that way, right? Whatever works for your process is going to work here. But you have to make sure that if...

all the sources are arguing one thing, we have to figure out what we're going to argue that's different. And each of the sources is going to have its own argument, but your job is to figure out your own position and how you're going to enter the conversation. Just like Mr. Gonzalez and I talked about for the IWA, the idea here is to think about alignment and think about your position. Are you going to write a position paper or a solution paper, right? We don't want to be doing both.

Once we have that idea of how we can craft our perspective or our question, we're then going to turn that into a very specific and complex main claim or thesis. This is where we start to narrow the scope even further to make sure that we have something that is going to control our entire paper. Now, I know some of you are over your teacher saying this, but it is so true.

If you have a weak main claim or thesis, then the rest of your argument is going to be weak because. That sentence is what's going to drive the complexity of your paper. It's also what's going to drive your alignment. Now, here's the thing.

Once you have that claim, we have to go back to the stimulus material to start to identify evidence. And if we realize that our claim is too far away from the stimulus material, we actually have to go backwards. We have to go back to that crafting of the claim and we have to adjust.

Or we have to see if there's another stimulus material source that we could use instead. But we don't move forward until we know that we are authentically aligned to the stimulus material. Once you know that your main claim. is complex and specific, and you know that you are authentically connected to the stimulus, then we're going to outline our argument and we're going to make sure it's logically organized and complex, just like you did for the IWA.

Think about what are your claims going to be? What are your counters? What are your rebuttals? How am I going to start it? How am I going to end it?

Right? We're outlining the entire paper. And I want to point out to you that we have went through six steps, or this is the sixth step, before we've started writing.

So do not start this until you've done all the back work to make sure you've planned an effective and aligned argument. OK, another question that I get from students a lot in my own classroom is, do I have to include a counter or do I have to include concessions? But if we look at that word complex that College Board is asking us to focus on, then complexity.

How how convincing can your argument be if you're not addressing any limitations or counterclaims or the other side? And the answer is not very complex. So we want to make sure that we're addressing this with complexity, which means we want to not only present the things that support our argument, but we want to show the other side.

We want to show multiple or alternate perspectives. So try to incorporate those counterclaims or confessions as you go to really show a more complex and thoughtful argument. Now we are finally at the step where we're going to compose our part B. After you write it, I...

always encourage students to leave five to ten minutes at the end to go back and proofread, just to make sure your ideas are clear as you go. Now, one of the things I want to emphasize here, especially when we're talking about proofreading, but really is something to think about on the front end, is sometimes we start writing fast and things become not legible anymore. So, those are things that we can fix. However, if your whole paper is written in a way that we can't understand it, that's going to be a problem. for how it's going to be interpreted because graders aren't going to be able to make sense of some of the things that you're saying.

So make sure as you're writing, you take the time to write legibly and clearly and that your ideas come through. Now, you have 90 minutes roughly to do this. So are you going to make mistakes?

Absolutely, you're going to make mistakes. It's a time setting. It's not a multi-draft essay.

We're not asking for perfection here, but you want to leave yourself some time to proofread. so that you have time to go back and catch the major things, the things that might be distracting from your argument or making your ideas unclear, or the spots in your handwriting where we no longer can make sense of what you're saying, okay? But know, those of you who are perfectionists, it's okay if there's an error here or there, as long as your ideas are clearly communicated. So let's remind ourselves of the task itself. Remember, part B is one question.

You're going to get four sources all connected by a similar theme. You're going to have approximately 90 minutes to write this essay, and it is 31.5% of your AP score. So of all of the things that you've done all year that contribute to your AP score, this one is the greatest weight.

This is the one that shows that you have all the skills that we've been working on, because if you can make a really good argument, you've done all the things that we've been asking all year. When thinking about how to break this down, I have included how I would suggest breaking it down. This isn't a one size fits all, because keep in mind that if you are doing this on paper, you will have two hours to do this test.

If you're doing it online, you will have the same. However, if you're on paper, you can move back and forth between part A and part B. And so you can start with part B and go back to part A or see how much time.

And all of those things are a little bit more flexible. If you are doing this digitally, once you finish part A, you will have whatever time you have left for part B. Now I can tell you in my own classroom, most of my students, when we do practice versions of part A, take 40 to 45 minutes to do a part A. So that's going to leave them with a little bit less than 90 minutes to finish the part B. And that's okay.

Your timing might be a little bit different than somebody else's. But what we don't want you to do, and what... you don't want to do is to take 90 minutes on part A and leave yourself 30 minutes for part B. You still want to be aware of the time, but you might be a little bit over the 90 minutes or a little bit under, and that's okay.

But one thing you cannot do, again, no matter how much time you have left, even if you leave yourself with only 60 minutes, take the time to plan out your argument in advance. And then the time you have left, you can use to actually write. So let's say you are working off of 90 minutes. what I would encourage you to do 25 to 30 minutes to read, to think, to plan out your argument.

That gives you about 45 to 55 minutes to write your argument. And that should leave you about five to 10 minutes to edit and revise. Again, the most important step, the step with the star here, is the time to plan, to think about it, to read the stimulus in advance before you just start writing. So let's talk about how you're going to be scored. So there are four major components of the Part B evaluation.

The first one is your understanding and engagement with the stimulus material. So did you say... to the true to the stimulus material?

Is it clear that you understood them when you were creating the theme or topic that united them? And then did you incorporate two of them into your response? For those of you who are doing this digitally, this is going to be extremely important because we are going to be assessed slightly different in terms of how much the stimulus is going to factor into the other rows as well.

It's not just going to be by itself. But the big idea, no matter which way you're testing, is to remember that we want to stay true to what this is asking you to do. You have to show an understanding of the stimulus and then use the stimulus, integrate them authentically into your argument to get a high score here. Okay.

The next way that you are being assessed is in your line of reasoning. This is very, very similar to your IWA. We're looking at your claims, your evidence, your commentary, the linking of them, right? We want to make sure that your argument is controlling this.

paper, not the arguments of other sources, not a description of other sources, or not just things that you wanted to tell us that are not necessarily an argument. Then you're going to be assessed on your ability to select and use evidence to make an argument. And again, what we're looking at is did you select evidence and then use it authentically to make the claims that you're trying to make? Did it extend and complicate and confirm the things that you're making? We don't want it to be one of those things where I did pick the evidence and I used it, but I didn't use it correctly.

And so I've either manipulated the source or I've used it incorrectly. Some of you too will use a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, which means things that you're just saying without any evidence. And that's going to be problematic for this row. One of the questions that students always ask about evidence is, can I use outside stuff and how do I handle that? If you're using things that are from your own knowledge.

Just like you would have with the IWA, remember that things that are anecdotal, right, stories that you have or personal experiences, there's a place for those. But your entire evidence shouldn't be all of those things that are from your own experience. And then the last one, we're looking for your clarity of communication, how well you're conveying the argument that you're making and your ideas. And then we're also looking for you to be consistent in the attribution that you have for the sources. Remember, you can use the name of the sources that are provided, or you can attribute it to source A, source B, source C, source C, respectively.

Okay, if you are going to pull in something outside, give as much information as you can to help validate the credibility and relevance of those sources. So if you are currently taking APUSH, for example, and your AP history teacher taught you something and you want to be able to cite it, give that teacher credibility, or if you know the name of your textbook, you can use that as well. to help establish if you heard something on NPR, but you can't remember who actually said it, but you know, it's true.

It's okay to attribute just saying according to NPR and then give the information that you know, again, this is a time setting and we're going off of what we know. So besides the stimulus material, which we can, we have to use, but we also have more details to be able to convey better citations for those other things that you're going to pull in from the outside, give as much as you can to address those. credibility and relevance pieces.

So let's remind ourselves how we identify the theme. The first slide I wanted to include, I only wanted to include to show you that this process is no different than what Mr. Gonzalez and I talked about with the IWA. You read the sources, you figure out the broad theme, you identify the sub themes, you narrow your scope, what's that focus and scope and why would people care?

Then we identify the two provided sources that we can use authentically. Then we start outlining. So nothing here has changed.

Again, same process as the IWA. So if we look at four sources that were given in the 2019 AP seminar part B, we can see from the screen that there are four different sources. Now I'm not expecting you as you're watching this to go in and read all of these sources, but if you want to, you can use the packet that's provided on AP Central. You'll go into past exam questions for 2019 and you can look at these sources more in depth. But all you need to know...

is if we look at the sources that were provided, these are the most common themes that came out of those sources. And so we saw a lot of stuff about consumer culture or materialistic society, about consumption, about excess, about how we treat nature, this idea of quality over quantity and needing to reform because we're thinking about how we get rid of some of these, you know, of garbage that we have or waste and recycling. So these are the themes that that came up most consistently. This doesn't, this isn't a one size fits all list by any means. But if we take that idea of what we're noticing between all of the four sources, and then we say, okay, as I'm reading through, what connection do I see between two sources that I can then use within my paper?

So I'm an English teacher. So I immediately went to Thoreau because for me, I like Thoreau, but I also enjoyed what he was saying in this particular passage. I also was interested in the garbage art source.

So as I'm reading through, what I did is I changed the text on here to blue so that you could see the difference. If you want to pause and read this whole selection, you can. But they're talking about in this section, John Hoffman, who essentially made the idea of dumpster diving a trendy, cool thing.

And he explains how his parents taught him the dumpster diving lifestyle. So that made me start thinking about this idea of waste and how many things we get rid of. If people can live off of dumpsters, you know, we are a culture that is excess and what we're getting rid of. Then I started reading Thoreau and I saw this connection. And again, you can see the things in blue that stood out to me about a new suit and jackets and trousers and hats and shoes and clothes.

But the idea here was essentially the cliche that, you know, it's not clothes that make a man. Things don't make a man. You know, it's the content of the character.

And so as I was putting those two things together. I started to think about how I can connect them. And I came to the idea of fast fashion.

And by fast fashion, I really mean those, when we think about fashion that's created and then we get rid of it and now we have a new trend, right? Because these things are popping up one different per season, but also because styles are going in and out. And those of your teachers who are familiar with fashion in the 90s, I noticed now when I walk into Target that those styles are...

starting to come back. It looks like clueless is becoming popular again. So how do we then generate a perspective now that we figured out the theme? Well, now that we have a theme, we then want to make sure we've identified our theme or topic. We got to go back to the stimulus material and identify what arguments are being made because we can't just regurgitate an argument they're already making.

We have to come up with an argument of our own. Then we're going to narrow the focus and scope so that we can frame our own perspective. to then decide if we're going to do a position paper or a solution paper.

And then we go back to the stimulus again to make sure that that's going to work with the sources that we've picked. So I did the same process with the idea of fast fashion. So remember, I started with the connection of source B and source C. I saw these terms of reuse and dumpster diving and the need for new clothes. So that led me to a focus of fast fashion and social media influencers.

And if I'm a student who. I know a lot of stuff about pop culture. I'm going to take what I know and what I feel confident arguing, but also staying true to the stimulus material. And so I thought I would argue a position-based paper.

To what extent are social media influencers on sites like Instagram and Twitter impacting the popularity of fast fashion for American consumers? Now, do you have to write this out in question form? You don't. But for me, that was better for me to plan when I thought about, well, what question do I want to ask?

How would I frame this? Okay. This allows me to stay true to sources B and C while still trying to make an argument that is much more narrow than just saying fast fashion.

Is it good or is it bad? Now, I could take that same idea, same sources of B and C, and say that I am a student who is more into science or environmentally based without manipulating the sources. I could then make an argument about the EPA and maybe looking at would be the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or the EPA would regulating the fast fashion industry reduce the amount of pollution produced by the industry. Now you might be thinking, well, if I go back to the stimulus, I do that last connection. Does this really work?

Well, the answer is no, because source C is actually now being manipulated because he's not talking about, Thoreau's not talking about this in any capacity. So if I go back to the stimulus, then what I can do instead is swap out source C. for Source D where we're talking about innovation and technology. and how we can adapt to better help.

And so now I have two sources that allow me to keep the focus and the question that I have, but it wasn't the two sources that I originally thought I was going to use, but now I can be authentic. So the next step then is to plan the argument. So if I take that same idea that we were talking about, I'm going to shift it from now my perspective to being my main claim.

Just a reminder. the main claim, your thesis, or your argument is the most important sentence in your entire paper. It's going to answer the question, what am I trying to prove and why, right? This is going to be clear and specific and narrow in both focus and in scope. And most importantly, if it's an argument, it's got to be argumentative or debatable.

And the other thing that we want is you want to explicitly reference it throughout your paper because the more that you reference it, the more clearly tied to your argument you're going to be, right? We want to be explicit and blatant about our argument. But here's what we don't want to do.

We don't want to write a cliche. And we also don't want to make it overly generalized. So if I took that same perspective that we just talked about, or the question that I wrote, and I said, you know, would the Environmental Protection Agency regulating the fashion industry for me? reduce pollution. And I said, well, fast fashion is bad for the environment.

So I'm going to write about that. Well, how can I make this a little bit more complex? Because at the end of the day, this is overly generalized, right? If you think about complexity, this is good for the environment, this is bad for the environment, that doesn't really get us anywhere. But can I take that same idea and start to narrow down?

Well, what about it is bad? Is it bad for our water? And those of you who are more familiar with environmental policies or climate change or things like that, you know, if you're thinking about the climate and how it affects nature, we know that there's a problem with some of these microfibers and them getting into the water and things like that. So narrow down the scope. There's an idea here that can work, but right now it's too generalized.

We take that same idea about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and their regulation and we turn it and we say, you know what, regulation would it? help encourage the idea that one man's trash is another man's treasure. This is problematic because this is a cliche, right?

How many times have we heard that expression or idiom, the idea that it's someone's trash is now someone's treasure? You can't write a complex paper about that. Could you shift this a little bit and think about how it could encourage the idea of reusing or recycling or things like that? Absolutely. But in its current form, it is just a cliche and it's not going to serve you well going forward.

And if you go back to that first slide, remember, this is the most important sentence that you have in your paper or sentences because the main claim or thesis doesn't have to be one sentence. So this is what's going to shape the direction and complexity of your paper. So make sure it is written well. So if we took the other idea and we looked at social media, social media influencers on Instagram and Twitter impact. the popularity of fast fashion for American consumers, then we can start to create something a little bit more specific.

Social media influencers on sites like Instagram and Twitter directly advertise fast fashion, thus making them responsible for the popularity that fast fashion has with American consumers. So we can start to see more complexity here. Rather than just say they're popular or they're not popular, we started to make the argument that we're going to blame social media influencers for why people so quickly get rid of fashion or switch trends or need all of these excess of clothing.

The complexity here at the level of detail is much better than the generalization or a cliche. So once we have that main claim or thesis, we then need to start thinking about the parts of our argument just like we would have for the IWA. How am I going to start this?

What am I doing in terms of introduction? How am I setting the context? Making sure that they know where we're going and know why it's important.

Then I'm going to think about my subclaims or reasons. What are those going to be? And then what evidence can help me prove each of those? How can I link those with commentary? Same thing for counterclaim with evidence.

Same thing for rebuttal. We also want to make sure that we're addressing any limitations and implications and then ending with a conclusion. These are all of the parts.

of an effective argument. It doesn't change if you're doing it in a time setting versus a multi-draft setting. The parts of the argument in terms of what makes them complex and convincing and cohesive are the same.

The only difference here is maybe in your IWA. You had time to do two claims and two counterclaims, but maybe now you only have time for two claims and one counterclaim, right? That's okay. The level of complexity that you're going in to get into the level of debt, it's going to be different when you can do the research and find all of these outside sources to help build that.

Right now, you're only relying on what's been provided in the stimulus materials and what your own prior knowledge is. And there's enough in the stimulus material to make a really effective argument. OK, but just know that we're not going to hold it to the same standards of the IWA because this is a time setting. It's like the first draft of it.

OK, but with the IWA, you have all of these other resources that you have at your disposal that you don't have here. OK, so if we look at how you're assessed in terms of argument or line of reasoning, one of the things I want to point out in that high response. is that it's driving. The argument is driving your response, whereas in a medium, we know what you're trying to argue, but you don't have the command or control that you really need because the linking isn't there.

Versus a low, you really are just summarizing and sometimes summarizing what each source provided says. So make sure, like we talked about with the IWA, your argument, what you are arguing, is in control of the entire paper. And we do that by making sure we're linking claims and evidence through commentary. And we have an organization that explicitly makes clear the purpose that we have, but also makes sense in what we're trying to prove. So what I did is I took that same topic of social media and I thought about, OK, if I were a student and as you're planning, you don't have to plan this out.

I mean, if you want to use visuals to plan this out as you're writing in the book or just like bullet points, whatever works for you is totally fine. But I took that same idea of social media influencers and I thought, OK. How would I break this down so that I could write this argument and write it well in the time that I had?

Well, one of the claims for why I'm blaming social media influencers is that they give the impression that fashion or material goods define a person. And I can talk about how that is, you know, I can use the Thoreau source to talk about how that's not true. And I can go back to that idea.

But they do give the impression that the fashion that you have, what you wear is what defines you. I also thought another reason why they're to blame is that social media influencers never wear the same outfit more than once. And so they give you this impression that if you re-wear something, if you use it again, it's almost wrong. And that to me was really problematic because, again, if we're thinking about waste and fast fashion, they're encouraging the use of having more fashion or more trends.

Then if I thought of the counter, well, how can I, you know, what would the other side argue? Well, the other side would say that. influencers are less responsible for popularity than affordability. If things are cheaper at certain places or less expensive, then of course that's what people are going to buy. And those clothes being less effective or less expensive typically don't last as long as other clothing.

And so therefore they're not as responsible as prices. However, the rebuttal that I could use is if I go back to source B and it talks about Hoffman making the idea of dumpster diving. cool, right? Influencers literally influence, they set trends.

So if these Instagram or Twitter influencers start rewearing the same things or start dumpster diving or thrift store buying or things like that, right? We can think back to when Macklemore's song about thrift stores was popular, people were going to thrift stores, right? If they influence, they have the ability to then make fast fashion not popular.

So I have all of this stuff and now I can start to think about actually writing my essay. One of the things though you have to think about during the planning stages and before you start writing is how you're going to incorporate evidence. So I wanted just to point this out now, but I'm not going to go into as much depth with this only because during the IWA, we had multiple videos on how to incorporate evidence and on AP Classroom, there are videos about incorporating evidence as well.

But I just wanted to remind you, so if you're struggling with incorporating evidence, I encourage you to go back to those videos. If not, this should be enough to just remind you of the things that we've talked about previously. For a high score here, you need to fully integrate two of those stimulus or source materials.

And remember, integrate, we can think of just like essential use in the IWA. The argument can't function without those things. They are used in an authentic way. And they're actually like a crucial part of your argument.

For a medium score, you're integrating them. But maybe you're doing it in a more obvious or superficial way where it's not really a lot of depth. It's not necessarily fully connected in terms of supporting your argument. Like you told us what they were, but you're not using them quite as well as you could. We almost take that pause to talk about source.

And for a low, you're misinterpreting the source or the use of the evidence doesn't really match what you're trying to say. It's that student that manipulates. I have my prepackaged argument and now I'm using this evidence just to make it work.

Okay. It doesn't really make sense with the claim. So again, we want to use that same idea of fully integrate.

With the two sources we're going to use from the stimulus material, we want to think of them in that essential use way. If I were to remove them, my argument is weakened because of that. They can be used in terms of, you know, claim, counter, wherever they see fit. But this is also true for anything outside that you bring in. If you're using those pieces of evidence, you want to integrate them.

You don't want to just say, hey, I heard this on NPR and then move on. It needs to be an actual part of your argument. So.

With the slide on the screen, feel free to pause and take the time to read it, but I just want to point out a couple things to emphasize here for you. This was taken from the 2019 sample that you can find on sample A on AP Central. What you'll notice is this student is making an argument about the consumer mindset, and he's criticizing it.

And he uses Thoreau to help do that about how we have this belief in our society or this wrong. mindset that it's the clothing that make a man essentially. And then he or she takes the same idea and stays true to the argument about the consumer mindset and includes a historical event to show when we had to stop this mindset, right? During the Great Depression, when we had to do that, we've got stuff during World War II and we see it again, you know, in the 60s when we're talking about dumpster diving.

And then he pulls in Source B to help show that. connection between all of these different parts. So, you know, we have multiple times in our history where we've had to suspend the consumer mindset because of different historical events that were happening.

So now source C and source B are used in an essential way. They're integrated into the argument and they're aligned with what the student is trying to argue, which is why they feel so incredibly authentic. So what's our takeaway for today?

Well, as we get into the exam, One thing I want you to do is to be rational. And you know, as much as I do, the AP seminar loves our acronyms. So I was trying to make this not only since you're used to IMP and IWA, but also something that you can just take with you, just like you would do with Quest, right? So we want to be rational as we approach the part B of the exam.

You want to read the stimulus first. Then you want to authentically identify the theme that's connecting at least two of the sources. And I want to emphasize authentically because we're not. coming in with a prepackaged theme or idea in our head already. Then we're going to take a stance, position, or solution, and we're going to craft a thoughtful, arguable thesis before we start writing.

Once we do that, we're going to go back to the stimulus again, and we're going to identify how at least two of the stimulus sources can be used to develop our argument. We should have been thinking about that already, but now we're going to come back and do it again now that we have an idea of what we want to argue. We're then going to...

outline the argument in advance, ensuring alignment, cohesion, and complexity before we start drafting. Then, and I know this one's a little bit more of a stretch, but it's not really, you're going to nourish your argument by including commentary and exploring implications, limitations, and objections. The only way we make our argument cohesive and convincing and complex is to actually use commentary to start drawing those links between claims and evidence.

to also explore the complexity, the implications, the limitations, right? We want to make sure that we're not just presenting an argument and outlining it, but we really want to build up and develop that argument into something it's effective and we feel really good about. We're then going to attribute and embed source material and communicate our ideas clearly so our reader knows what we're trying to argue.

And then last, we're going to leave time to proofread and revise, okay? So the process, just like in everything we do in AP seminar, we are going to be rational about it because we are educated consumers of information who are now empowered at this point to be able to make really effective arguments. So now that you have a clear understanding of the task, the process, and the rubric, you can confidently craft an effective argument for part B.

As always, I want to thank you for watching. I hope you find some joy in your day, but knowing that you are going into the exam, I want to say good luck. Just remember that you have these skills, you've been practicing them all year. So we are all confident that you can do a great job.

Transcript for:Guide to Part B End of Course Exam

Transcript for:
Guide to Part B End of Course Exam