Overview
- Weight: 35% of your AP Seminar score
- Individual Written Argument (IWA): 2,000 words, 70% of PT2 score, College Board scored
- Individual Multimedia Presentation (IMP): 6-8 minutes, 20% of PT2 score, teacher scored
- Oral Defense (OD): 2 questions, 10% of PT2 score, teacher scored
- Minimum time: 30 school days to complete
- Stimulus materials: Released annually in January
- Required checkpoints: Source log conversation AND argument outline presentation
The Intellectual Adventure: Your Solo Quest for Connected Understanding
PT2 is where you prove you're not just a smart student but an emerging intellectual who can see connections others miss. While PT1 was about harmonizing with others, this is your solo performance - time to show what happens when you're alone with ideas and brave enough to follow them wherever they lead.
Those stimulus materials? They're not prompts - they're puzzle pieces scattered on the table. Your job isn't to describe each piece but to discover how they form a picture no one else has seen. The magic happens when you notice that the economic data connects to the poem in ways the authors never intended, or when the historical document illuminates something hidden in the scientific study.
Finding your research question is like tuning into a frequency only you can hear. It should make you genuinely curious - the kind of question that has you reading articles at midnight not because they're assigned but because you NEED to know. Too broad ("technology's impact") and you'll drown. Too narrow ("Instagram usage in my school") and you'll starve for sources. Find the question that's juuuust right - specific enough to explore deeply, significant enough to matter.
Here's the difference between synthesis and summary: Summary says "Source A argues X, Source B argues Y." Synthesis says "The tension between Source A's economic optimism and Source B's environmental warnings reveals a fundamental assumption about progress that Source C's historical analysis helps us reconsider." You're not reporting - you're discovering.
The Detective Work: Mining Stimulus Materials for Hidden Gold
Becoming a Connection Archaeologist When those stimulus materials drop, don't read them like assignments - read them like clues. First pass: What is each source literally saying? Second pass: What assumptions hide beneath? Third pass: What conversations are these sources having with each other that they don't know about?
Here's where intellectual courage matters. That poetry paired with economic data? Don't dismiss it as random. Maybe the poem's metaphors reveal what the data can't capture about human experience. Maybe the data exposes the cost of the poem's idealism. The best arguments come from students brave enough to explore weird connections.
Map these connections visually - not because you have to, but because seeing relationships spatially reveals patterns. Use different colors for different types of connections: thematic echoes, contrasting methodologies, evolutionary progressions, hidden assumptions. When your map looks like a conspiracy theorist's bulletin board, you're onto something.
The Question Quest: Finding Your Intellectual North Star Your research question is not just what you'll study - it's what will obsess you for weeks. It must thread through at least two stimulus sources while leaving room for discovery. Weak questions have obvious answers. Strong questions make you go, "Huh, I genuinely don't know, but I need to find out."
The viability test: Google your question. If the first page gives you the answer, it's too simple. If nothing comes up, it's too narrow. If you find expert discussions with no consensus, you've struck gold. Can you imagine smart people disagreeing about this? Perfect.
Let your question evolve as you research. Starting with "How does technology affect relationships?" is fine. But as you dig, you might discover it's really "How do asynchronous communication platforms reshape intimacy expectations among digital natives?" That evolution from vague interest to precise inquiry? That's intellectual growth in action.
Research and Source Management
Strategic Source Selection Your sources should create a scholarly conversation around your question. Include foundational works that establish key concepts, recent research showing current understanding, and diverse perspectives that complicate simple answers. Aim for 10-15 sources beyond the stimulus materials.
Prioritize scholarly sources but don't ignore credible popular sources that provide real-world applications. A mix might include peer-reviewed articles, respected news analysis, government data, and expert organizations' reports. Each source type serves different purposes in your argument.
Keep meticulous notes linking sources to specific argument components. Your checkpoint source log isn't busy work - it's a thinking tool. Document not just what sources say but how they relate to each other and your developing argument.
The Checkpoint Conversations The source log checkpoint tests your genuine engagement with research. Be ready to discuss why you selected specific sources, how they've shaped your thinking, and what perspectives you're still seeking. Authentic research involves dead ends and evolution - discuss these honestly.
For the argument outline checkpoint, prepare to explain structural decisions. Why does your argument progress in this sequence? How do sections build on each other? What evidence best supports each claim? This conversation reveals whether you're driving the argument or just following sources.
Writing the IWA
Introduction That Establishes Significance Open by situating your question in real-world context. Why should readers care? Use a compelling example, statistic, or scenario that illustrates the stakes. Then zoom out to show broader significance before focusing on your specific question.
Introduce stimulus materials naturally as part of the conversation you're joining. "While Source A highlights economic factors and Source B emphasizes cultural values, neither fully addresses how these forces interact in decision-making." This approach shows sophisticated source use.
Building Your Argument Structure your argument to build understanding progressively. Each paragraph should advance your thesis while addressing complexity. Use topic sentences that make claims, not just announce topics. "Social media algorithms create echo chambers" is stronger than "This paragraph will discuss algorithms."
Integrate evidence seamlessly. Instead of "Source C says..." try "The longitudinal data reveals a troubling pattern: [specific evidence]." This approach maintains your voice while crediting sources. Remember to analyze evidence, not just present it - explain how it supports your specific claim.
Address counterarguments substantively. Don't create strawman opposition. Find credible sources that genuinely challenge your position and explain why your argument still holds. This complexity strengthens rather than weakens your position.
Synthesis Throughout Synthesis means putting sources in dialogue, not just mentioning multiple sources. "While Johnson's economic analysis suggests X, Patel's psychological research indicates Y. This apparent contradiction resolves when we consider..." This approach creates new understanding.
Use stimulus materials strategically throughout, not just in the introduction. They might provide foundational concepts, contrasting perspectives, or real-world applications. Show how your outside research extends, challenges, or complicates stimulus insights.
Conclusion That Resonates Avoid mere summary. Instead, emphasize your argument's implications. What should readers do with this new understanding? What questions remain? How does your argument change how we should think about this issue? End with insight, not repetition.
Creating Your IMP
Distillation, Not Summary Your presentation can't cover everything in your paper. Select the most compelling elements that convey your argument's essence. Focus on key insights that will resonate with an educated, non-expert audience.
Design your presentation arc: Hook them with significance, guide them through your key evidence and reasoning, and leave them with memorable takeaways. Each slide should advance your narrative, not just display information.
Visual Enhancement Use visuals to make abstract concepts concrete. A well-designed graph can convey trends more powerfully than paragraphs of statistics. Conceptual diagrams can illustrate relationships between ideas. Images can provide emotional resonance for logical arguments.
Maintain visual consistency while avoiding monotony. Use a professional template but vary layouts to maintain interest. Ensure text is minimal and readable. Your slides support your verbal presentation; they don't replace it.
Delivery Dynamics Practice until you can present conversationally, not memorized. Use note cards with key phrases, not full sentences. Make eye contact with different audience members. Vary your pace - slow for complex ideas, quicker for familiar territory.
Show genuine engagement with your topic. Enthusiasm is infectious. If you find your research fascinating, help your audience see why. Use specific examples and anecdotes that bring abstract concepts to life.
Oral Defense Excellence
Research Process Reflection Be ready to discuss how your thinking evolved. What early assumptions did research challenge? Which sources most influenced your direction? What dead ends taught you something valuable? Specific examples show authentic engagement.
Prepare to explain methodological choices. Why did you prioritize certain source types? How did you evaluate credibility? What search strategies uncovered valuable sources? These details show sophisticated research thinking.
Extending Your Argument The second question type pushes beyond your presented argument. Be ready to discuss implications you couldn't fully explore, questions your research raised, or how your findings apply to different contexts. This shows you understand your argument's boundaries and possibilities.
Think about connections to current events or future trends. How might your argument apply to emerging situations? What would you research next? This forward thinking demonstrates deep understanding.
Common Challenges and Solutions
Stimulus Paralysis: Some students become too attached to stimulus sources. Remember, they're starting points, not boundaries. Your outside research should significantly extend beyond stimulus materials.
Question Drift: As you research, maintain focus on your actual question. It's easy to follow interesting tangents that don't advance your argument. Regularly return to your question to ensure alignment.
Source Imbalance: Avoid over-relying on one or two sources. If one source provides multiple pieces of evidence, balance with other perspectives. Your argument should emerge from conversation, not monologue.
Presentation Redundancy: Don't just read excerpts from your paper. Reimagine your argument for oral delivery. What examples work better spoken? What visual evidence couldn't fit in your paper?
The Metamorphosis: From Student to Independent Thinker
PT2 is secretly about something bigger than research - it's about discovering your intellectual voice. By the time you submit that IWA, you'll have transformed from someone who follows assignment guidelines to someone who pursues ideas because they matter.
Your perspective isn't just valuable - it's essential. You're not a freshman trying to sound smart by quoting experts. You're an emerging thinker contributing to real conversations. When you synthesize sources in ways their authors never imagined, when you ask questions that make your teacher pause and think, when you defend positions you've carefully constructed - that's not completing an assignment. That's doing intellectual work.
The journey will be messy. You'll have 3 AM moments where everything connects. You'll have afternoons where nothing makes sense. You'll write paragraphs that sing and others you'll delete entirely. This isn't failure - it's thinking. Real intellectual work is recursive, frustrating, and occasionally transcendent.
Here's the secret: The skills you're building - seeing connections, constructing arguments, defending positions with evidence and nuance - these aren't just for AP scores. They're for navigating a world drowning in information but starved for synthesis. They're for college seminars where professors expect original thought. They're for careers that don't exist yet but will require exactly this kind of flexible, connected thinking.
Trust your curiosity. Follow weird connections. Build arguments that surprise even you. The best moment in PT2 isn't when you submit - it's when you realize you've discovered something you genuinely didn't know before. That transformation from assignment-completer to knowledge-creator? That's the real achievement.
Welcome to the community of people who think for a living. We've been waiting for you.