The Individual Written Argument (IWA)

You’ll be able to

Describe the requirements of the Individual Written Argument (Performance Task 2)
Build an original argument from the released stimulus material to a self-developed question
Map the IWA’s expectations onto the scoring rubric rows

What Performance Task 2 asks

The Individual Written Argument (IWA) is the second performance task and the one you do entirely alone. The College Board releases a set of stimulus materials — several cross-disciplinary sources on a broad theme. From these, you identify a theme or issue, develop your own research question, gather additional sources beyond the stimulus, and write an evidence-based argument of about 2,000 words that establishes and defends your own position. It is the fullest test of the whole QUEST arc: question, explore, analyze, evaluate perspectives, and synthesize.

From stimulus to original question

The stimulus packet is a springboard, not a syllabus. Read across the materials for a thread — a tension or theme several of them touch — and turn it into a focused research question that is genuinely yours. You must go beyond the stimulus, bringing in credible outside sources, and you must build an original argument, not merely summarize what the packet says. The strongest IWAs use the stimulus as entry points into a conversation the student then extends, with a clear thesis, a coherent line of reasoning, synthesized evidence, and attention to complexity.

Writing to the rubric

The IWA rubric rewards, in essence: a clear research question and thesis; understanding and analysis of the theme and sources; evaluation of multiple perspectives and the evidence behind them; a convincing line of reasoning built through synthesis; attention to complexity, implications, or limitations; correct and consistent attribution and citation; and controlled, discipline-appropriate writing and conventions. Knowing the rows lets you self-check a draft: for each row, ask "where in my paper does a grader see this?" A gap in a row is a gap in your score.

Worked example

The IWA stimulus materials all touch on "attention" — a neuroscience article, an essay on advertising, and a memoir about distraction. Walk through turning this into an IWA plan.

1.Read for a shared thread: all three concern how something competes for or captures human attention.
2.Narrow to an arguable question: "To what extent should companies be regulated for designing products that exploit attention?"
3.Go beyond the stimulus: gather outside sources — for example, empirical studies on attention-capture design and a policy analysis of proposed regulation.
4.Stake a thesis: light-touch regulation is justified because attention-capture design imposes measurable harms that markets do not correct on their own.
5.Plan a synthesized line of reasoning: use the neuroscience source for the mechanism, the advertising essay and studies for the harm and intent, and the policy source for feasibility — then address the strongest counterargument (overreach/free choice) before concluding.

Answer: The plan reads the stimulus for a common thread (attention), develops an original arguable question about regulating attention-capture design, brings in outside sources, and stakes a defensible thesis. The argument then synthesizes stimulus and outside sources into one line of reasoning and answers the strongest counterargument — hitting the IWA’s question, evaluation, synthesis, and complexity rubric rows.

Checkpoint

What role do the released stimulus materials play in the Individual Written Argument?

Watch out

A frequent IWA mistake is writing a "book report" on the stimulus — restating what each source says instead of building your own argument. The stimulus is where you start; the grade lives in the original question, outside research, and synthesis you add.

Checkpoint

A student’s IWA states a clear thesis and synthesizes sources well, but never acknowledges any objection or limitation to the argument. Which rubric expectation is most directly unmet?

On the exam

Reverse-engineer the IWA from the rubric: before submitting, point to the sentence(s) where a grader sees each row — question, analysis, perspectives, synthesis, complexity, citation, conventions. Any row you cannot point to is a row you are losing.

Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.