2020
AP
®
Seminar
Performance Task 2
Sample Student Responses
and Scoring Commentary
© 2020 The College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, AP, AP Central, and the acorn logo are
registered trademarks of the College Board. AP Capstone is a trademark owned by the College Board.Visit
the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
AP Central is the ocial online home for the AP Program: apcentral.collegeboard.org.
Inside:
Individual Written Argument
R Scoring Guideline
R Student Samples
R Scoring Commentary
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
1
Performance Task 2: Individual Written Argument Scoring Guidelines
General Scoring Notes
When applying the rubric for each individual row, you should award the score for that row based solely upon the criteria indicated for that row,
according to the preponderance of evidence.
0 (Zero) Scores
• A score of 0 is assigned to a single row of the rubric when the response displays a below-minimum level of quality as identified in that row of the
rubric.
• Scores of 0 are assigned to all rows of the rubric when the response is off-topic; a repetition of a prompt; entirely crossed-out; a drawing or
other markings; or a response in a language other than English.
Off-Topic Decision:
For the purpose of the IWA, if the response is not in any way related to a theme connecting at least two of the stimulus materials, it will be counted
as off-topic and will receive a score of 0. Such responses should be rare.
• Considering the student-oriented scoring approach of the College Board, readers should reward the student who derives their ideas from the
materials, even if they wandered away from them as they pursued their topic.
• If you can infer any connection to a theme derived from two or more stimulus materials, the response should be scored. A failure to adequately
incorporate the stimulus materials falls under rubric Row 1, not here.
A READER SHOULD NEVER SCORE A PAPER AS OFF-TOPIC. INSTEAD, DEFER THE RESPONSE TO YOUR TABLE LEADER.
NR (No Response)
A score of NR is assigned to responses that are blank.
Word Count
The Individual Written Argument task instructions stipulate a word count of no more than 2,000 words. At times, responses might exceed this limit.
Students are allowed a 10% cushion. You should score these papers by discounting the words that are over 10% (or 2,200 words).
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
2
Individual Written Argument (IWA) 48 points
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 1
Understand
and Analyze
Context
(0 or 5 points)
0 points
The response does not incorporate any of the stimulus material, or, at most, it is
mentioned in only one sentence.
OR
The response includes a discussion of at least one of the stimulus materials;
however, it does not contribute to the argument.
5 points
The response demonstrates the relevance of at least one of the stimulus
materials to the argument by integrating it as part of the response. (For
example, as providing relevant context for the research question, or as
evidence to support relevant claims.)
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points include a reference to the stimulus
material that:
• Is tangential.
• May misrepresent what the sources are discussing/arguing or may use the
source in such a way that ignores its context.
• Is only used for a definition or facts that could be obtained from other, more
relevant sources.
• Is no more than a jumping-off point for the student’s argument, no more
than a perfunctory mention.
• Could be deleted with little to no effect on the response.
Typical responses that earn 5 points include a reference to the stimulus
material that:
• Reflects an accurate understanding of the source and demonstrates an
understanding of its context (e.g., date, region, topic).
AND
• Presents a reference to the source, which, if deleted, would change or
weaken the argument.
Additional Notes
• References to stimulus materials may be included multiple times in the response; only one successful integration of stimulus material is required to earn points.
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
3
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 2
Understand
and Analyze
Context
(0 or 5 points)
0 points
The response either provides no context.
OR
The response makes simplistic references to or general statements about the
context of the research question.
5 points
The response explains the significance or importance of the research question
by situating it within a larger context.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Provide unsubstantiated assertions without explanations (e.g., “this is
important”).
• May provide contextual details, but they are tangential to the research
question and/or argument.
• Provide overly broad, generalized statements about context.
• Provide context for only part of the question or argument.
Typical responses that earn 5 points:
• Provide specific and relevant details (i.e., what, who, when, where) for all
elements of the research question and/or argument.
AND
• Convey a sense of urgency or establish the importance of the research
question and/or argument.
Additional Notes
• Context is usually found in the first few paragraphs.
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
4
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 3
Understand
and Analyze
Perspective
(0, 6, or 9
points)
0 points
The response provides only a single
perspective.
OR
The response identifies and offers opinions or
unsubstantiated statements about different
perspectives that may be overly simplified.
6 points
The response describes multiple perspectives and
identifies some relevant similarities or differences
between them.
9 points
The response evaluates multiple perspectives (and
synthesizes them) by drawing relevant connections
between them, considering objections, implications, and
limitations.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Provide only one perspective.
• May use a lens or lenses that all work to
convey the same point of view.
• Convey alternative perspectives as
personal opinions or assertions without
evidence.
• Provide perspectives that are isolated
from each other without comparison.
• Provide perspectives that are
oversimplified by treating many voices,
stakeholders, or stances as one.
Typical responses that earn 6 points:
• Make general comparisons between perspectives
describing only basic agreement or disagreement.
• Explain that disagreement/agreement exists, but
they do not explain how by clarifying the points on
which they agree or disagree.
Typical responses that earn 9 points:
• Elaborate on the connections among different
perspectives.
• Use the details from different sources or
perspectives to demonstrate specific agreement or
disagreement among perspectives (i.e., evaluate
comparative strengths and weaknesses of different
perspectives by placing them in dialogue).
Additional Notes
• A lens is a filter through which an issue or topic is considered or examined.
• A perspective is a point of view conveyed through an argument.
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
5
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 4
Establish
Argument
(0, 8, or 12
points)
0 points
The response provides only unsubstantiated
opinions or claims.
OR
The response summarizes information (no
argument). The response employs inadequate
reasoning due to minimal connections
between claims and evidence.
8 points
The argument presents a claim with some flaws in
reasoning.
The response is logically organized, but the reasoning
may be faulty or underdeveloped.
OR
The response may be well-reasoned but illogical in its
organization. The conclusion may be only partially
related to the research question or thesis.
12 points
The response is a clear and convincing argument.
The response is logically organized and well-reasoned
by connecting claims and evidence, leading to a
plausible, well-aligned conclusion.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Base the argument on opinion(s).
• Seek to explain a topic, rather than take a
position (e.g., report, summary, chronicle,
etc.).
• Provide a contrived solution to a non-
existent problem or completely lack a
conclusion.
Typical responses that earn 8 points:
• Organize the argument well OR link evidence and
claims well in discrete sections, but do not do both.
In other words, the response may fail to explain how
evidence supports a claim—i.e., it lacks
commentary—OR the overall organization of the
response is difficult to follow, even though it has
done an adequate job of commenting on the
evidence.
• Provide evidence that often drives the argument,
rather than contributing to the response’s argument.
• Provide a conclusion/resolution that lacks either
enough detail to assess plausibility or is not fully
aligned with the research question.
Typical responses that earn 12 points:
• Organize information in a way that is often
signposted or explicit.
• Provide commentary that explains fully how
evidence supports claims (i.e., the commentary
will engage with the content of the evidence to
draw conclusions).
• Provide an argument that is driven by student
voice (commentary).
• Integrate alternate views, perhaps by engaging
with counterclaims or using them to demonstrate
a nuanced understanding.
• Provide a solution/conclusion that is fully aligned
with the research question.
• Present enough detail to assess the plausibility of
the conclusion/solution (perhaps with an
assessment of limitations and implications).
Additional Notes
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
6
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 5
Select and Use
Evidence
(0, 6, or 9
points)
0 points
Any evidence presented in the response is
predominantly irrelevant and/or lacks
credibility.
6 points
The response includes mostly relevant and credible
evidence.
9 points
The response includes relevant, credible, and sufficient
evidence to support its argument.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Include many sources that are not
credible for the context in which they are
used.
• Include no well-vetted sources (i.e.,
scholarly, peer-reviewed, credentialed
authors, independently verified) beyond
the stimulus materials.
• May include a well-vetted source that is
not used effectively (e.g., trivial selection,
not aligned with claim, misrepresented).
Typical responses that earn 6 points:
• Draw from a variety of sources that are relevant to
the topic and credible for the context in most
cases, but those sources are primarily non-
scholarly.
• Include many sources that are referenced rather
than explained.
• Provide evidence that does not fully support
claims (e.g., there are some gaps and trivial
selections).
• May cite several scholarly works, but select
excerpts that only convey general or simplistic
ideas OR include at least one piece of scholarly
work that is used effectively.
Typical responses that earn 9 points:
• Provide evidence that fully supports claims.
• Effectively connect evidence to the argument, even if
the relevance of the evidence is not initially
apparent.
• Provide purposeful analysis and evaluation of
evidence used (i.e., go beyond mere citation or
reference).
• Make purposeful use of relevant evidence from a
variety of scholarly work (e.g., peer-reviewed,
credentialed authors, independently verified,
primary sources, etc.).
Additional Notes
• Review the Bibliography or Works Cited.
• Review individual instances of selected evidence throughout (commentary about the evidence).
• General reference guides such as encyclopedias and dictionaries do not fulfill the requirement for a well-vetted source.
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
7
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 6
Apply
Conventions
(0, 3, or 5
points)
0 points
The response is missing a bibliography/works
cited OR the response is largely missing in-text
citations/footnotes.
3 points
The response attributes or cites sources used through
the use of in-text citations or footnotes, but not
always accurately. The bibliography or works cited
references sources using a generally consistent style
with some errors.
5 points
The response attributes, accurately cites, and integrates
the sources used through the use of in-text citations or
footnotes. The bibliography or works cited accurately
references sources using a consistent style.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Include internal citations, but no
bibliography (or vice versa).
• Provide little or no evidence of successful
linking of in-text citations to bibliographic
references (e.g., in-text references are to
titles but bibliographic references are
listed by author; titles are different in the
text and in the works cited).
Typical responses that earn 3 points:
• Provide some uniformity in citation style.
• Include unclear references or errors in citations
(e.g., citations with missing elements or essential
elements that must be guessed from a url).
• Provide some successful linking of citations to
bibliographic references.
• Provide some successful attributive phrasing
and/or in-text parenthetical citations.
Typical responses that earn 5 points:
• Contain few flaws.
• Provide consistent evidence of linking internal
citations to bibliographic references.
• Include consistent and clear attributive phrasing
and/or in-text parenthetical citations.
Note: The response cannot score 5 points if key
components of citations (i.e., author/organization, title,
publication, date) are consistently missing.
Additional Notes
• In AP Seminar, there is no requirement for using a particular style sheet; however, responses must use a style that is consistent and complete.
• Check the bibliography for consistency in style and inclusion of fundamental elements.
• Check for clarity of in-text citations.
• Check to make sure all in-text citations match the bibliography (without extensive search).
AP Seminar 2020 Scoring Guidelines
© 2020 The College Board
8
Reporting
Category
Scoring Criteria
Row 7
Apply
Conventions
(0, 2, or 3
points)
0 points
The response has many grammatical flaws, is
difficult to understand, or is written in a style
inappropriate for an academic audience.
2 points
The response is mostly clear but may contain some
flaws in grammar or a few instances of a style
inappropriate for an academic audience.
3 points
The response creates variety, emphasis, and
interest to the reader through the use of
effective sentences and precision of word
choice. The written style is consistently
appropriate for an academic audience, although
the response may have a few errors in grammar
and style.
Decision Rules and Scoring Notes
Typical responses that earn 0 points:
• Contain multiple grammatical errors that
make reading difficult.
• Use an overall style that is colloquial or in
other ways not appropriate for an academic
paper.
Typical responses that earn 2 points:
• Contain some instances of errors that
occasionally make reading difficult.
• Lapse into colloquial language.
• Demonstrate imprecise word choice.
Typical responses that earn 3 points:
• Contain few flaws.
• Use clear prose that maintains an academic or
scholarly tone.
• Use words and syntax to enhance communication
of complex ideas throughout.
Additional Notes
• Readers should focus on the sentences written by the student, not those quoted or derived from sources.
1
Preventing Mental Illness: Why Genetic Editing Is Unfeasible
Word Count: 2056
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 1 of 9
2
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately 46.6 million adults
in the United States currently live with a mental illness; that is almost a fifth of the country’s
population (2017). Following the increasing prominence of mental health issues in modern
society has come more research on the origins of these disorders. In addition to environmental
factors, genetics have been found to play a large role in people’s likelihood of developing a
mental illness (Hyman, 2000, pg. 455). For example, the serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR
has been discovered to have a relationship with depression and overall life satisfaction, as stated
by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, and
his colleagues of Harvard Medical School, the University of California’s Department of
Medicine, and Warwick Business School respectively (2012, pg. 193). Gene testing and
modifying technology has swiftly developed alongside this research; most notably, a new tool
called CRISPR/cas9 has recently emerged. Jana Murovec of the Biotechnical Faculty at
University of Ljubljana and her colleagues in the Department of Genetics, Development and Cell
Biology at Iowa State University (2017) report that this new genetic editor is much more precise
than any previous available technology and has opened new doors for the possibilities of DNA
modification in a variety of organisms (pg. 917).
These simultaneous developments beg the question: to what extent might genetic editing
be a practical preventive treatment for mental illness? Surrounding this query, there exists a wide
range of opinions on the morality, safety, and applicability of germline genome editing in
humans (Lawrence & Applebaum, 2011, pg. 315). According to Kelly Ormond, a professor in
the Department of Genetics and Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University
(2017), germline genome editing is a revision of the human genome that occurs in a germ cell or
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 2 of 9
3
embryo and results in heritable altered traits that would likely be passed onto offspring (pg. 167).
Despite the potential benefits that preventative treatments like this could provide for those highly
susceptible to mental illness, genetic editing is largely believed by the scientific community to be
ethically dubious, difficult to regulate, too complex to be reliably successful, and have a high
potential for abuse, as reported by professor in the Office of Health and Safety at Hokkaido
University Tetsuya Ishii (2015). At this point in time, the various concerns associated with
germline gene editing outweigh its possible usefulness and likely make it too impractical to be
successfully implemented.
The most prominent issue with DNA modification in humans is the controversy around
its morality. Mary Todd Bergman, a correspondent at the Harvard Gazette, reports that there is a
general sense among some of the public that it is inherently unethical to “play God” and alter the
very fabric of what makes us up as people (2019). This often includes religious groups such as
the 23 million Christians living in the United States (Pew Research Center). Therefore, any use
of germline genome editing would likely result in widespread backlash among both the general
public and the scientific community, as well as in few people being willing to participate in
developmental research or the eventual treatment itself. There is also thought to be a high
potential for abuse with genetic modification. Tetsuya Ishii (2015) describes how gene editing
could easily transition from only being used for disease or disability prevention, as in the case of
mental illnesses, to more cosmetic and medically unnecessary purposes, such as genetic
enhancement (pg. 50). This would include parents being able to alter their unborn child’s traits
such as height, pigmentation, or athletic ability without the child’s consent, even if this were not
necessarily in their child’s best interest; in past discussions, these children of the future have
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 3 of 9
4
been referred to as “designer babies” (Ishii, 2015, pg. 51). This phenomena could lead to
discrimination based on genetics or even the implementation of eugenics as was seen in the past
in Nazi Germany (Ormond, 2017, pg. 170). Thus, the scientific community should continue to
refrain from conducting research on human genome modification in order to prevent dangerous
outcomes such as this.
Several countries around the world already have legislation outlawing germline genome
editing, though it varies in leniency and intensity of enforcement (Ishii, 2015, pg. 53). According
to Eric Juengst, the director of the UNC Center for Bioethics and a Professor in the Departments
of Social Medicine and Genetics at the University of North Carolina (2017), if a scientific
consensus were reached that DNA modification could be effectively and ethically used
exclusively for the prevention of diseases or mental disorders, a massive overhaul of global
regulations on this subject would be required (pg. 16). Japan, the U.S., China, and Russia in
particular would be forced to confront the social concerns surrounding genetic editing and create
regulatory policies despite their different stances on its legality. (Ishii, 2015, pg. 53). Enforcing
these policies would surely be a challenge, as well. The outlawing of genetic enhancement may
create an illegal market for this type of editing, subsequently forcing law enforcement officials to
try to identify if individuals have been genetically enhanced merely from observing their external
traits (Juenst, 2017, pg. 21). This probable inability to create and enforce successful regulatory
legislation for DNA modification further contributes to why its implementation is risky in any
capacity.
However, despite the controversy surrounding this idea, genetic alterations to reduce
vulnerable people’s predisposition to mental illness have the potential to be very effective if
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 4 of 9
5
carried out responsibly. Steven Hyman, the director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric
Research and a member at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, as well as a Harvard
University Distinguished Service Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (2000)
reports that recent research has been able to identify certain genes or gene combinations that
influence the transportation of neurotransmitters between neurons as well as the proteins that
make up the brain’s synaptic structure, both of which substantially contribute to mental health
(pg. 455). He states, “Family, twin and adoption studies have shown that, for schizophrenia,
autism, manic depressive illness, major depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, panic
disorder and other mental illnesses, the transmission of risk is due to heredity” (2000, pg. 456).
This means that genetic modification could likely edit those inherited genes to significantly
reduce the probability that an individual will develop one of the aforementioned illnesses.
Additionally, a study conducted by Han-Na Kim, a professor of the Department of Biochemistry
of the School of Medicine at Ewha Womans University (2013), found specific genes that
influence the different personality profiles of women (pg. 667). This also indicates that traits
such as neuroticism, which influence mental health, can potentially be successfully altered by
genetic editing. This method would attack the source of mental disorders before they could even
arise, making it a valuable tool to consider regardless of its drawbacks and the other disputes
surrounding it.
Yet, in spite of the potential of this preventative approach to heritable mental health
issues, concerns still remain about the actual applicability of genetic editing even with its
hypothetical usefulness. Hyman (2000) explains that although certain specific genes have been
identified to significantly influence one’s risk of developing particular mental illnesses, inherited
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 5 of 9
6
predisposition is still very genetically complex. This means that multiple genes most likely
interact in a variety of ways to produce traits like vulnerability, or lack thereof, to mental illness,
and would therefore be difficult to isolate and successfully edit (pg. 457). Additionally, the
notion that genetic modification would meaningfully reduce the prominence of mental disorders
does not take environmental factors into account; these factors include external influences such
as one’s childhood, past experiences, stress, relationships, diet, exercise, and other elements, as
reported by researcher Minae Niwa of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (2013, pg. 335). Environmental factors also mean
the places that people find, or do not find, mental wellbeing in their individual lifestyles, like
certain routines or media consumption. Andrew O’Hagan, novelist and Visiting Professor of
Writing at King's College London, shows one example of this in stating,”[Disney’s] contribution
gives life to the notion that happiness is a creation, something made rather than inherited”
(2015). This exemplifies why genes are only partially responsible for mental health. Hyman
summarizes, “Gone is the notion that there is a single gene that causes any mental disorder or
determines any behavioural variant. [This concept] has been replaced by that of genetic
complexity, in which multiple genes act in concert with non-genetic factors to produce a risk of
mental disorder” (2000, pg. 455). Thus, the potential effectiveness of genetic editing is undercut
by the intricacy of causative genes as well as the major impact of environmental components on
mental health.
Concurrent developments in the fields of psychology and genetics have recently revealed
valuable insights on both how genes influence human susceptibility to mental illnesses as well as
how to edit the genomes of certain organisms with tools such as CRISPR/cas-9. Exploring the
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 6 of 9
7
possibility of genetic modification as a preventative treatment in order to lower predisposition
for mental illnesses therefore presents a pertinent discussion. Despite the speculative potential of
this method, several concerns have been presented that arguably outrule its practicality. Gene
modification, particularly germline genome editing in humans, is generally viewed as ethically
questionable in the scientific community as well as within the informed public. It has a high
potential for future abuse for purposes such as unnecessary genetic enhancement or eugenics. If
somehow implemented responsibly, it would still be a hassle to create functional regulatory
legislation and to enforce it around the world. Furthermore, the genetic editing that is currently
possible might not even be successful in changing mental health outcomes because of the genetic
complexity and unaccounted environmental factors that also affect vulnerability to mental
illness. Hence, the conclusion of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing
supports that the use of gene modification to reduce predisposition to mental disorders in at-risk
individuals is an inappropriate and ineffectual approach at this point in time (National Academy
of Sciences, 2018). Until more research and organized public discussion is conducted, it will
remain unfeasible.
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 7 of 9
8
References
Bergman, M.T. (2019). Perspectives on gene editing
. The Harvard Gazette.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/perspectives-on-gene-editing/
De Neve, J.E., Christakis, N.A., Fowler, J.H., & Frey, B.S. (2012). Genes, economics, and
happiness. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5
, 193-211.
Hyman, S.E. (2000). The genetics of mental illness: Implications for practice. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 78,
455-463.
Ishii, T. (2015). Germ line genome editing in clinics: The approaches, objectives and global
society. Briefings in Functional Genomics, 16,
46-56.
Juengst, E.T. (2017). Crowdsourcing the moral limits of human gene editing?. Hastings Center
Report, 47,
15-23.
Kim, H.N, Roh, S.J., Sung, Y.A., Chung, H.W., Lee, J.Y., Cho, J., Shin, H., & Kim, H.L. (2013).
Genome-wide association study of the five-factor model of personality in young Korean
women. Journal of Human Genetics, 58,
667–674.
Lawrence, R.E., & Appelbaum, P.S. (2011). Genetic testing in psychiatry: A review of attitudes
and beliefs. Psychiatry, 74,
315-331.
Murovec, J., Pirc, Z., & Yang, B. (2017). New variants of CRISPR RNA-guided genome editing
enzymes. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 15,
917-926.
National Academy of Sciences. (2018). Statement by the organizing committee of the second
international summit on human genome editing.
National Academies.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/11/statement-by-the-organizing-committe
e-of-the-second-international-summit-on-human-genome-editing
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 8 of 9
9
National Institute of Health. (2017). Mental illness
.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml#part_155771.
Niwa, M., Jaaro-Peled, H., Tankou, S., Sheshadri, S., Hikida, T., Matsumoto, Y., Cascella, N.G.,
Kano, S., Ozaki, N., Nabeshima, T., & Sawa, A. (2013). Adolescent stress–induced
epigenetic control of dopaminergic neurons via glucocorticoids. Science, 6117,
335-339.
O’Hagan, A. (2015). The happiness project
. The New York Times Style Magazine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/t-magazine/happiness-project-disneyland.html
Ormond, K.E., Mortlock, D.P., Scholes, D.T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L.C., Faucett, W.A.,
Garrison, N.A., Hercher, L., Isasi, R., Middleton, A., Musunuru, K., Shriner, D., Virani,
A., & Young, C.E. (2017). Human germline genome editing. American Journal of
Human Genetics, 101,
167-176.
Pew Research Center. (N.D.) Religion
. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
PT2 IWA Sample A, page 9 of 9
How does living in a low-income household affect children in the United States?
Word count: 1995
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 1 of 11
Introduction
Jairo Gomez lives in a one-bedroom apartment with eight other family members. His
family made $30,000 a year, which according to the federal government, is $15,000 below the
poverty line. When he was in tenth grade, he stayed home from school to take care of his
siblings, making his attendance and grades suffer. He claimed if he didn’t get an education, he’d
be in poverty like his parents. According to UCDAVIS, a center for poverty research, “The
official poverty rate is 12.3 percent, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 estimates. That
year, an estimated 39.7 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure”
(UCDAVIS, 2018). Poverty means that the income level from employment in a household is so
low that basic daily needs cannot be met. Poverty has a significant impact on families, especially
on children. Families in poverty struggle with providing their children proper nutrition, clothing,
housing, and education as well. Daniel Kahneman states, “When entered in multiple regression
model to predict well-being along with other aspects of life circumstances (marital status, age,
education), the effects of household income are almost invariably both statistically significant
and quantitatively important” (Kahneman, 2010). Growing up in poverty can damage children’s
well-being as well as their academic potential. In addition, low income, debt, and poor quality
housing put children at a much higher risk of developing mental health problems, such as
depression and anxiety. Like Jairo Gomez, many children living in poverty who have younger
siblings are required to stay home from school to take care of them, so parents would not have to
spend their remaining money on babysitters. This results in a lack of education which can harm a
child’s future as well as their happiness and life satisfaction. Children who are a part of a low
income household are also exposed to a greater risk of family violence. According to Dr.
Katherine Maurer, a 2013 Center for Poverty Research Visiting Graduate Scholar, “ Poverty and
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 2 of 11
the increased stress it causes can increase the risk for family violence, which suggests that
economic downturns like the Great Recession may contribute to this stagnation” (Maurer).
Family violence has social, physical, and psychological impacts on children. Low income affects
children negatively as they are at risk for mental health issues due to feelings of shame, bullying,
and social exclusion. They are also at risk for future academic failure and physical abuse.
Social Lens
Social issues, such as child abuse and social exclusion, have a significant impact on
children in low income households. According to May Bulman, a social affairs correspondent,
“Children in low-income families are going hungry and experiencing feelings of shame and
social exclusion due to lack of money and food” (Bulman, 2019). Due to this feeling of shame,
children living in poverty are embarrassed to be around their peers since they cannot afford food
at school. They also experience bullying, which can be a great detriment to their mental health.
Adding on to Bulman, Kirrily Pells, who teaches on the MA Sociology of Childhood and
Children's Rights, states, “In the qualitative interviews children described verbal bullying that
made direct reference to their impoverished circumstances, whether through name-calling and
insults such as ‘child of a destitute’ or through making fun of the poor quality of their clothing or
their lack of shoes” (Pells, 2016). Poor children have to go through harsh comments and insults
every day because of how they dress, even though it is never their fault. This can lead to
depressing thoughts. Other than social exclusion and bullying, children in poverty are heavily
exposed to child abuse and family violence. Maren K. Dale, staff attorney at U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Victims of Physical Abuse, “The incidence rate of abuse for
children in low-SES families is more than three times the rate for children not in low-SES
families” (Dale, 2014). Low socioeconomic status (SES) has a significant impact on child abuse.
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 3 of 11
Since parents are so stressed out about their income level, they tend to take it out on their
children. Child maltreatment can have awful effects on a child’s physical and mental well being.
In agreement, Dr. Katherine Maurer, as previously mentioned, states, “A lack of steady work can
cause problems in the home. Unemployment is a high risk factor for IPV and is associated with
double the risk of PCA, as well as triple the severity of injury” (Maurer). Physical child abuse
(PCA) can lead to damage to a child’s physical health, which is particularly frightening. Shame
and child abuse are two of the many social challenges children in poverty face, and can harm a
child’s physical and psychological well-being.
Scientific Lens
Many kids who live in a low-income household struggle with mental health issues, as mentioned
earlier. Those who spent more time in poverty in early childhood are likely to develop
psychiatric disorders while approaching adulthood. According to Dhruv Khuller, a physician at
New York-Presbyterian Hospital and a researcher at the Weill Cornell Medical College
Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, “Americans living in families that earn less than
$35,000 a year are four times as likely to report being nervous and five times as likely to report
being sad all or most of the time, compared to those living in families earning more than
$100,000 a year” (Khullar, 2018). These feelings can develop early in life and can be transmitted
across future generations. Children living in deep poverty experience various consequences
throughout their childhood such as depression and anxiety. Similarly to Khullar, Mary Elizabeth
Dallas, a journalist who covers issues on pediatric health and behavior, states, “Growing up in
poverty exposes children to greater levels of stress, which can lead to psychological problems
later in life, a new study suggests” (Dallas, 2017). There is a strong link between poverty and
health, and there are many factors that are associated with it. For example, due to poverty,
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 4 of 11
families have a lack of access to important things like health insurance which can lead to bad
habits such as smoking because of stress. Contributing to Dallas and Khullar, Jim Dryden, who
covers psychiatry and neuroscience, states “Children raised in poverty tend to have poorer
cognitive and educational outcomes and are at higher risk for psychiatric illnesses, including
depression and antisocial behaviors” (Dryden, 2016). Depression can really take a toll on a child
and can lead to thoughts of suicide. Child poverty continues to be a major source of mental
health issues that remain unsolved.
Futuristic Lens
Poverty has long-lasting effects on children’s future academic successes. ChildFund
International, a child development organization, shows that “Children from lower-income
families are more likely than students from wealthier backgrounds to have lower test scores, and
they are at higher risk of dropping out of school. Those who complete high school are less likely
to attend college than students from higher-income families” (ChildFund, 2013). Since many
children in poverty cannot afford college, they have a less chance of leading rewarding,
productive lives. In addition, children living in a poor household with many siblings have an
obligation to miss days of school to take care of them when their parents cannot, in order to save
money on babysitters. Jennifer Graham, covering ethics, parenting and family finance, states, “In
low-income families in particular, ‘youth may be called on to care for sick family members or
stay home with younger siblings when a parent or primary caregiver is sick or cannot take time
off work’” (Graham, 2019). Children who stay home to take care of their younger siblings miss
the opportunity for education compared to those who live in a higher income household. Because
of this, children may not be able to get into college and could end up in poverty like their
parents. Operation Warm Inc., a corporation that creates brand new winter coats and gives them
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 5 of 11
away to children in need, helping to improve self-confidence, peer acceptance, school
attendance, and overall wellness, continues to prove this stating “Nearly 30 percent of poor
children do not complete high school, which limits future economic success and potential
employability, leading to poverty as an adult” (Operation Warm Inc., 2018). Parents with low
incomes have less time to help their children with school and less stable home environments,
which can result in a lack of preparation for future academic hardships. There are many major
long-term impacts of poverty on children, and educational attainment is one of them.
Can Low Income Families Be Happy?
Although money can be essential to one’s happiness, many families actually say having a
lower income brought them closer together and helped them build stronger relationships with
each other. Susan Scutti, an Atlanta-based writer who covers daily medical and science news for
CNN Health, states, “‘They really prioritize relationships because of their reduced resources, and
so they are more likely to really focus on emotions that bind them to one another and find
satisfaction and delight in relationships through compassion and love’” (Scutti, 2018). The
emotions that highly contribute to well-being are those of love and compassion. The Dalai Lama
proves this, stating “What characterizes happiness at this deeper level is the sense of fulfillment
that you experience. While the joy of the senses is brief, the joy at this deeper level is much
longer lasting. It is true joy” (Lama, 2016). Despite the fact that true contentment comes from
relationships and love, children in low income households are still considered unhappy due to the
stress, shame, and lack of education they tend to experience. Opposing Scutti, Elizabeth Bruenig,
opinion columnist focusing on politics, religion and morality in public life, states, “The
researchers also controlled for stress—the poor suffer a great deal more of it—and concluded
that the psychological burdens of poverty don't sufficiently explain the greater sadness endured
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 6 of 11
by the poor” (Bruenig, 2015). Money may not buy happiness, but it definitely has a significant
impact on emotional well being. A higher salary certainly gives more emotional benefit than a
lower one.
Conclusion
Overall, low income households influence children in various detrimental ways. It is
important that mental health practitioners and health care providers are aware of the potential
threats low income can pose to children so that they can provide them with proper
recommendations and guidance. A potential solution to help child poverty would be granting
social protection. UNICEF, a United Nations agency responsible for providing humanitarian and
developmental aid to children worldwide, defines social protection as “...cash transfers, such as
child benefits to shield children from the worst impacts of poverty, as well as integrated systems
to provide vulnerable children and families with the extra support and care they need.”
(UNICEF, 2019) Investing in children and social protection can prevent, manage and overcome
the poverty that threatens children’s mental state. However, too many children are still denied
social protection. This is due to limited budgets and resources, and the most vulnerable children
are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Nevertheless, those who do gain extra
support which can benefit their emotional well-being. In addition, free tutoring systems should
be created in poorer areas to keep children in poverty on track academically. This would not only
help children receive higher test scores and fewer failures, it would help them reach academic
achievement in the future. Nicholas Schuller, the Regional Manager of the nonprofit tutoring
organization Achieve Learning and Resource Center (ALRC), states, “High quality tutoring
needs to be available to low-income students. Without the support of a strong tutor, poor students
face a struggle if they wish to graduate from high school prepared to attend college” (Schuller,
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 7 of 11
2010). However, these tutoring systems are very expensive as tutors would need to be paid.
Since many lower-class families cannot afford to get their kids tutors, this free tutoring program
would definitely keep kids from falling behind and have a significant impact on their future
successes. The challenges children in poverty face can plague them throughout their lifespan,
which is why they need the most support they can get. Otherwise, future generations would be
impacted as well.
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 8 of 11
References
Bulman , May. “Children in Low-Income Families Facing 'Hunger and Shame', Study
Finds.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 2 Apr. 2019,
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hild-poverty-uk-children-hunger-
hungry-meals-low-income-families-benefits-a8848041.html.
Bruenig, Elizabeth. “Wealth Doesn't Make the Rich Happier, But Poverty Makes the
Poor Sadder.” The New Republic, 27 Jan. 2015,
newrepublic.com/article/120859/money-doesnt-buy-happiness-poverty-increases-
sadness-study.
Dale, Maren K. “Addressing the Underlying Issue of Poverty in Child-Neglect Cases.”
American Bar Association, 2014,
www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-
rights/articles/2014/addressing-underlying-issue-poverty-child-neglect-cases/.
Dallas, Mary Elizabeth. “The Toll Poverty Takes on Children's Mental Health.” CBS
News, CBS Interactive, 10 Jan. 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/poverty-children-
mental-health/.
“The Effects of Poverty on Education in the United States.” ChildFund International,
2013, www.childfund.org/Content/NewsDetail/2147489206/?hss_channel=tw-
26086784
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 9 of 11
“Ending Child Poverty.” UNICEF Europe and Central Asia, 2019,
www.unicef.org/eca/what-we-do/ending-child-poverty.
Graham, Jennifer. “More than 1 in 10 Kids Are Chronically Absent from School. Here's
Why Doctors Are Now Saying Some Sick Kids Should Head to Class.” Deseret
News, Deseret News, 30 Jan. 2019, www.deseret.com/2019/1/30/20664539/more-
than-1-in-10-kids-are-chronically-absent-from-school-here-s-why-doctors-are-
now-saying-some-sic.
Kahneman D, Deaton A. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional
well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(38):16489–16493.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107
Khullar, Dhruv. “Health, Income, & Poverty: Where We Are & What Could Help.”
Health, Income, & Poverty: Where We Are & What Could Help | Health Affairs, 4
Oct. 2018, www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20180817.901935/full/.
Lama, Dalai.,The Book of Joy: Lasting Happiness in a Changing World. [New York] :
[Westminster, MD]: Penguin Random House, 2016.
“Long-Term Impacts of Poverty on Children: Health & Education.” Operation Warm
Inc., 27 June 2018, www.operationwarm.org/blog/long-term-impacts-of-poverty-
on-children-health-education/.
Maurer, Katherine. “Income Support May Reduce Violence for Poor Families.” UC
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 10 of 11
Davis Center for Poverty Research, poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/income-
support-may-reduce-violence-poor-families.
Pells, Kirrily. “Poverty, Inequity and Children's Experiences of Bullying.”
Www.younglives.org.uk, 21 Oct. 2016, www.younglives.org.uk/content/poverty-
inequity-and-children%E2%80%99s-experiences-bullying.
“What Is ‘Deep Poverty’?” UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, 2018,
poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-deep-poverty.
Schuller, Nicholas. “Why Low-Income Students Need Tutoring – Poverty Insights.”
Poverty Insights Why LowIncome Students Need Tutoring Comments, 2010,
www.povertyinsights.org/2010/05/27/why-low-income-students-need-tutoring/.
Scutti, Susan. “Less Money Can Mean More Contentment, Study Says.” CNN, Cable
News Network, 28 Feb. 2018, www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/health/poor-rich-
happiness-study/index.html.
PT2 IWA Sample B, page 11 of 11
Shouldn’t Individual's’’ Perception be Similar When Being in the Same Surrounding?
AP Seminar
2020
Word count: 2073
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 1 of 9
Individuals will experience different emotions in different surroundings. The brain will
naturally have a trigger causing an emotional reaction. What is an emotional reaction? “ A
reaction of the body to a situation primarily by another influence such as other individuals,
groups, things or entities” (Mike, 2005). Behavior is determined by emotions whether the
individual is feeling excited, worried, happy, etc. A relevant example comes from an article
called “The Happiness Project” O'Hagan describes the excitement being at Disney seeing how
the house had amazing colors that would light you up inside. Another example is when O'Hagan
said “When foreigners think about Scotland they often think of the beautiful mountains and deep
shadowy glens, apple-cheeked girls wearing tartan, men in kilts drinking whisky and starting
bravely into the future”. Meaning that Individuals will have a triadic structure causing their
behavior to change in certain situations. However, if a group is nervous for an event coming up
that does not mean that the others will feel as nervous as the particular individual. This does not
always mean happiness this can also mean when they are not comfortable in a situation, they
can be scared or sad etc… it all comes naturally. “Perception is the recognition and
interpretation of sensory stimuli based upon memory. In other words, it is the way individuals
interpret data around others” (Human Relations). Individuals' behavior will be affected anywhere
either it’s their environment, social or a culture, it doesn't matter where they are it is the way
they are feeling in a situation. This also means that their behavior will also affect their
personality. Personality “refers to a person’s general way of thinking, feeling, and behaving
based on underlying motivations and impulses (Culture, Personality, and Perception). The
behaviors that an individual has are how their personality is made.
Influences are constrained by the dominant view of the representation of the world.
Assumed that individuals will understand the world through the 5 senses in their mind (Bickhard,
1992). The 5 senses are touch, sight, sound, smell and taste that an individual should be
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 2 of 9
capable of understanding how the world goes around. University of Minnesota studies show that
the environment can facilitate or discourage interactions among people and the subsequent
benefits of social support. The environment can influence peoples’ behavior and motivation to
act. For example, There's trash all over a public park and no one wants to pick it up and since
everyone one else is leaving trash everywhere they will also. As in if a group of people decide to
keep their community clean others will be motivated to help and keep it clean. The environment
can also influence the mood. For example, the results of several research studies reveal that
rooms with bright light, both natural and artificial, can improve health outcomes such as
depression agitation, and sleep (Impact Does the Environment). Each individual has their own
unique and will see and think in a different way. As a person who loves outdoors will be happy
to get fresh air as others might dislike outdoors won’ t be excited to see nature. Air pollution can
also affect behavior but this air pollution is not outside instead this pollution is indoors. Causing
highly negative effects of their behavior from anxiety, stress or simply daily headaches. Most
individuals have their own daily routines but could begin to change themselves to help them
stay motivated. “Behavioral potentials set the limits within which our dispositions can vary…
different behavioral dispositions are related to our motivations, to our basic needs, attitudes and
interests” ( R.J. Rummel). Starting a new routine by doing new activities that get people more
motivated for example going on outdoor adventures such as a hike or canoeing that will have
them feeling good inside. According to Jessica Stillman she came up with some simple
solutions that science proved that can change a personality for the better. The examples she
used were 1. Before going to bed reflects something positive that happens during the day. 2.
Being polite and saying hello to new people. 3. Find a volunteer organization to help others
without getting anything in exchange. If an individual feels neurotic another of her tips was 1.
When waking up tell yourself “I will be happy today” 2. Open up to someone and tell them how
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 3 of 9
you feel. 3. Instead of thinking about the negatives, think of the things that make you feel
relaxed or happy (J. Stillman). Experiencing new things will change an individual's personality.
Individuals will find their motivation in what they love doing the most. These simple tasks can be
beneficial if they decide they want a better personality and attitude. The work has to be put in for
it to actually happen if the individual just decides they want to change to have a more positive
personality and do nothing about it to change it then the most simple thing is nothing will change
and will stay the way they are.
Individuals have a hard time with physical appearance and try living with high
expectations in society. Afraid they will be judged by others and not be able fit in with the world.
A study has shown that “Others pay more attention to a person’s race and religion, and still
others attend a person's height or weight” (Principles Of Social Psychology). Each individual is
different; they will see and think differently. Interactions and origins will affect an individual
trying to fit in. The surrounding of these people will change their behavior pending the group of
peers they associate with. Pending on the groups of peers they decide to hang out with can
either have positive or negative impacts on their personality. For example, high school students
will try to be someone who they are not having a negative impact on themselves. The individual
might not agree with the things they do but if their peers are doing it the individual feels peer
pressured into doing it just to fit in with them because they are worried to be alone in society.
This is because when an individual tries to fit in with society and feels that the only option is to
hang out with peers that are bad influences. If they don't do as they demand they will not want
the individual to hang out with them causing their personality to change into a negative behavior
getting them in trouble. In addition, hanging with a group of peers will motivate them to do
better, keep them out of trouble and to have a positive personality. According to Mellissa and
Bargh a research was done that “Numerous theorists have argued that behavior is mentally
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 4 of 9
represented in a similar way to other social information such as judgments and attitude”. The
perception of the individual views the group of peers they associate will determine their behavior
and action. Being worried of physical appearance or being judged by others shouldn't matter
because each human is unique in their own ways. Another example is when individuals get
plastic surgery because others judge their appearance or do not accept themselves for who
they are. They feel that getting plastic surgery will make them feel more acceptable in today’s
society and will boost their self-confidence. It is mostly females that have plastic surgery to get
the curves they see on models. A lot of the surgerys that are now done in today's generation are
liposuction, tummy tuck, breast augmentation and laser hair removal. Dr. Adrain Furnham states
that “Females with low self-esteem, low life satisfaction, low self-rated attractiveness are more
likely to undergo cosmetic surgery” (A. Furnham). No one should be ashamed of the way they
were born. Every human on this planet is perfect that way they are and they do not have to
change anything about themselves just to feel more acceptable in today’s society. But others
will not think the same and therefore is why they get plastic surgery done to feel more
acceptable.
Many humans come from different countries meaning they have their own culture and
way of viewing things. Once an individual moves to a different part of the country they will also
bring their culture with them. An individual culture can have a different language, meals, music,
art, sounds and clothing. Culture can affect the perceptions that others make such as race,
gender, sexual orientation, class, ability, nationality, religion and age. Individuals can tend to be
scared to show off their culture because they are afraid of getting judged. “Culture involves how
a person lives, speaks, interacts with others and what individuals create, but perception is
considered on how the individual sees the world” (G. Arnold). What this means is that they were
raised to see the world different. For example, in a hispanic culture the Lady of Guadalupe
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 5 of 9
remains a powerful symbol of faith. As for others they might not even know who the Lady of
Guadalupe is or what she represents. Even if they know they will not view her the same as a
hispainc culture would see her because they grew up in a culture where she is represented.
Each individual will have a different perception of a culture and they will have different opinions
on how they see things. This can affect an individual's behavior either they are comfortable in
the situation they are in. Since they are not used to a certain kind of culture it will be a new
experience for them. Another example, are religions there are approximately 4200 religions
around the world. Each religion there has a different belief in worship. Each person believes
what they want to believe and the religion they want to be. They say there is only one original
religion but every religion says that they are the one. A Christianty will have a different
perception than a Judaism because they both share a common thing and it is worship but they
have two different ways of viewing the world. Each individual has the right to believe in what
they want without getting judged by others. “A poet once said, “There are plenty of ruined
buildings in the world but no ruined stones.” But who can live in a world of stones? One might
argue… the reality is we love us the reality we brought into” (A. O’Hagan). This can be many
themes but the one of themes is the way an individual will and wants to see the world. There are
no right or wrong answers; it is a personal opinion of their perceptive. The choices that an
individual takes is the behaviors and attitude they decide they want.
Each individual has their own unique. Each individual will have their different behaviors
and their own ways of seeing the world. Their surroundings will affect their emotions depending
if they are comfortable in the situation or not. This will determine the behavior they will have in
the situation. The way an individual perspective of a surrounding can affect their overall
behavior is getting out of their daily routine. Trying something new or experiencing something
they never thought of even doing. Each individual is responsible for their life which means that
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 6 of 9
they have the freedom to do whatever they want. Having a positive mindset to everything an
individual will do. There will always be different aspects of the world and everyone will see it
differently and it should not stop anyone from believing in what they believe in. There will always
be different perceptions to everything and that does not mean that someone is right or that
someone is wrong it just means that everyone has a different opinion about the way they see
things. This also does not mean that they need to bring each other instead support each other
with anything because we are all humans and no one is perfect in this world. As O’Hagan
describes the excitement when he went to Disney. He would mention what he saw and how he
saw things and how he felt at the moment. He explained it in his perfection as others will explain
a different emotion and will feel a different way and this is because we are different and have a
unique way of thinking. In the real world we all see things differently and have our own opinions
about different things. No one should bring on another down because of their appearance,
culture or anything in general and accept everyone for who they are.
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 7 of 9
Citations
Authors Ron Refaeli, et al. “How Do Emotions Work?” Frontiers for Young Minds
,
kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2017.00069
Chu, Melissa. “Why Your Environment Is the Biggest Factor in Changing Your
Life.” Inc.com
, Inc., 21 Aug. 2017,
www.inc.com/melissa-chu/its-possible-to-design-your-environment-to-help-yo.ht
ml.
Furnham, Adrian, and James Levitas. “Factors That Motivate People to Undergo
Cosmetic Surgery.” The Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery = Journal Canadien
De Chirurgie Plastique
, Pulsus Group Inc, 2012,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513261/.
Furnham, Adrian, and James Levitas. “Factors That Motivate People to Undergo
Cosmetic Surgery.” The Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery = Journal Canadien
De Chirurgie Plastique
, Pulsus Group Inc, 2012,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513261/.
Mike Schnoor. “Emotional Response.” Mike Schnoor
, Mike Schnoor
Https://Mikeschnoor.com/Upload/2018/05/mikeschnoor_logo_website.Png, 18 May
2007, mikeschnoor.com/2005/03/05/emotional-response/.
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 8 of 9
Multicomfort.saint
,
multicomfort.saint-gobain.com/news/how-your-personal-environment-can-affect-
your-mood-and-mental-health.
PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIOR
, www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP7.HTM.
Stillman, Jessica. “20 Simple Activities That Science Proves Can Change Your
Personality for the Better.” Inc.com
, Inc., 12 Nov. 2018,
www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/this-is-how-to-change-your-personality-for-better-a
ccording-to-latest-research.html.
STUDY.COM
,
study.com/academy/lesson/cultural-perception-definition-examples.html.
STUDY.COM
,
study.com/academy/lesson/how-emotions-affect-behavior.html.
Support, Lumen Learning. “SPCH 1311: Introduction to Speech
Communication.” Lumen
,
courses.lumenlearning.com/atdcoursereview-speechcomm-1/chapter
/culture-personality-and-perception/.
“What Impact Does the Environment Have on Us?” Taking Charge of Your Health
& Wellbeing
,
www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/healing-environment/w
hat-impact-does-environment-have-us.
PT2 IWA Sample C, page 9 of 9
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
1
Index of Scores for Samples
Sample Reference Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7
A: Genetic Editing 5 5 9 12 9 5 3
B: Low Income and Children 0 0 6 8 6 3 2
C: Perception 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
2
Sample A
Preventing Mental Illness: Why Genetic Editing Is Unfeasible
Sample Scores: 5, 5, 9, 12, 9, 5, 3
On- or Off-Topic Decision
The response was determined to be on-topic. By exploring the practice of gene editing as it relates to
mental health, the topic of the response is firmly situated in the broader topic of mental wellness and
emotional happiness.
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context (Stimulus Material)
The response earned 5 points in Row 1. On the first page, the response integrates information from
“Genes, Economics, and Happiness” in a paraphrase that references research on a particular gene that
has “a relationship with depression and overall life satisfaction.” This is an example of a successful
integration of the source as context for the research question. Selecting this evidence from the stimulus
sources also reflects an accurate understanding of the material while harnessing the evidence to present
the relationship between genes and mental wellness. Although later on page 6 the response cites
O’Hagan, this inclusion from “The Happiness Project” does not reflect an accurate interpretation of the
source material. By presenting this quote as justification for how “genes are only partially responsible
for mental health,” the response inaccurately suggests that O’Hagan’s article about Disney World was
also about genes. Had this been the only integration from the stimulus sources, the response would not
have earned any points for this rubric row because it would reflect an inaccurate understanding, and
this bit of information did not further the argument in any meaningful way.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context
The response earned 5 points in Row 2. In its introduction, the response cites 2017 statistics from the
National Institute of Mental Health: “approximately 46.6 million adults in the United States currently live
with a mental illness.” The response then presents evidence that reflects the increased research into
causes of mental illness, stating that “genetics have been found to play a large role in people’s likelihood
of developing a mental illness,” thus linking gene research to mental illness. The importance of this
scientific connection for this specific group of people successfully situates the research question in
context, asking, “[T]o what extent might genetic editing be a practical preventative treatment for mental
illness?”
Row 3: Understand and Analyze Perspective
The response earned 9 points in Row 3. The response not only includes multiple perspectives, but also
brings those perspectives into thoughtful dialogue. On page 3, the response presents Bergman,
reporting that some believe “it is inherently unethical to ‘play God’ and alter the very fabric of what
makes us up as people,” and ties this in general terms to religious groups and more specifically to the
Ishii source about the potential abuses of genetic editing, including “more cosmetic and medically
unnecessary purposes, such as genetic enhancement.” The response introduces different perspectives
such as the “countries around the world [that] already have legislation outlawing germline genome
editing.” Adding an alternative perspective, the response notes, “despite the controversy surrounding
this idea, genetic alterations to reduce vulnerable people’s predisposition to mental illness have the
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
3
potential to be very effective if carried out responsibly.” The response adds evidence from Hyman and
Kim to support this perspective. The response also acknowledges the commonly understood counter-
perspective, which prioritizes environmental influences. It is not just the number of perspectives, but
also the ways in which the response situates them in conversation with each other—and its own voice—
that elevate this paper to the highest score for this row.
Row 4: Establish Argument
The response earned 12 points in Row 4. The response organizes the argument logically, moving from
the research question about the extent to which genetic editing could be used to prevent mental illness
to stating the range of opinions on genetic editing, including “the morality, safety, and applicability of
germline genome editing in humans.” The response then cites evidence about the topic’s moral
controversy and the “high potential for abuse with genetic modification.” The response concludes,
“Despite the speculative potential of this method, several concerns have been presented that arguably
outrule its practicality.”
In the supporting paragraphs, the response provides commentary that clearly links the evidence to
claims. For example, on page 4, about the countries who have legislation against genetic editing, the
response moves from Ishii’s acknowledging the variety of enforcement practices in the different
countries to Juengst’s recognizing the need for “a massive overhaul of global regulations” if the scientific
community reached a consensus on acceptable use of DNA modification. The response draws
conclusions from these pieces of evidence on the practical challenges of regulating genetic editing and
reasons, “This probable inability to create and enforce successful regulatory legislation for DNA
modification further contributes to why its implementation is risky in any capacity.”
After an examination of the limitations, the response provides sufficient detail to recognize the
plausibility of its conclusion: “Until more research and organized public discussion is conducted, it
[genetic editing to prevent mental illness] will remain unfeasible.”
Row 5: Select and Use Evidence
The response earned 9 points in Row 5. The response includes several credible, scholarly sources
including the Journal of Human Genetics, the Plant Biotechnology Journal, and the American Journal of
Human Genetics. Likewise, the response includes information from the Bulletin of the World Health
Organization and a report from the National Academy of Sciences as evidence specifically relevant to
this topic. Beyond the stimulus materials and peer-reviewed articles, the response purposefully
incorporates statistical information from the Pew Research Center and the National Institute of Mental
Health and commentary from more popular publications. For example, the response cites a review by
Lawrence & Applebaum in Psychiatry about the range of opinions on gene editing, followed by a
scientific definition of germline genome editing by Ormand from a peer-reviewed journal. It then
connects both of these references to Ishii’s conclusion that “genetic editing is largely believed by the
scientific community to be ethically dubious, difficult to regulate, too complex to be reliably successful,
and have a high potential for abuse.” In doing so, the response demonstrates both purposeful use and
appropriate selection of sources.
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
4
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Citation and Attribution)
The response earned 5 points in Row 6. The response includes a properly formatted Reference page
with all entries corresponding to in-text citations, showing consistent evidence of linking sources to
evidence. The internal citations consistently provide either attributive phrasing such as, “According to
Eric Juengst,” and, “a study conducted by Han-Na Kim, a professor of the Department of Biochemistry,”
or include appropriate in-text parenthetical citations.
Row 7: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style)
The response earned 3 points in Row 7. The response maintains an academic tone throughout by
demonstrating a mastery of effective word choice, appropriate terminology, and clear and concise
sentence structure. The response consistently uses transitional phrases to move into new paragraphs
and strong transitional words to move from one idea to another within paragraphs. Take, for example,
the terms “additionally,” “yet,” “furthermore,” “hence,” and “however” within sentences and phrases
such as, “[t]he most prominent issue…” and, “[t]his also indicates…” between ideas and paragraphs.
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
5
Sample B
How does living in a low-income household affect children in the United States?
Sample Scores: 0, 0, 6, 8, 6, 3, 2
On- or Off-Topic Decision
The response was determined to be on-topic, clearly connecting to the theme of well-being.
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context (Stimulus Material)
The response earned 0 points in Row 1. The response’s use of Kahneman’s quote, taken from a text
about the impact of money on happiness, presents a conclusion drawn from a “multiple regression
model.” Although attempts to integrate it do not reflect a wholly inaccurate understanding of it, the
response also does not indicate a full comprehension of this text. Attempts to apply the multiple
regression model to the “academic potential” of children in poverty, perhaps conflating potential with
achievement, obscure the fact that the stimulus document did not cover the effect of poverty on
children.
The response also uses a quote taken from The Book of Joy to support a claim related to emotional
wellbeing, expanding the conversation to “true joy” and unsuccessfully attempting to relate that to low-
income households. This tangential inclusion of the stimulus material does not further the response’s
argument in any meaningful way.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context
The response earned 0 points in Row 2. The unmanageably broad topic is evident in the research
question and is far too complex to be addressed in this task. The hypothetical example of Jairo Gomez is
unsubstantiated, and the information provided about this hypothetical student is not detailed. For
example, “he stayed home from school…making his attendance and grades suffer.” The 2017 Census
Bureau estimate of how many Americans live in poverty is sound evidence, but fails to capture the
relevance of this number to American children specifically, thereby only partially addressing the
question. The statistic provided later in the response, “[n]early 30 percent of poor children do not
complete high school,” might have been used to begin building context for a narrower response, but the
breadth of this response is only partially contextualized with this information. Many claims that appear
to exist to provide evidence for the significance of the question are either unsubstantiated or too
obvious to indicate an understanding of demonstrating appropriate context for a research-based
argument. Evidence of this can be found throughout the introduction.
Row 3: Understand and Analyze Perspective
The response earned 6 points in Row 3. The response offers multiple perspectives through evidence
from stakeholders: students, a teacher of psychology, a staff attorney, a physician, a researcher,
journalists, and organizations. However, there are only general comparisons among perspectives. For
example, on page 2, the response attempts to connect two pieces of evidence, “Adding on to Bulman,
Kirrily Pells,” but does nothing more than insert the general agreement word “adding.” Page 3 offers “In
agreement,” but again offers no commentary that elaborates on those connections. The response pulls
together numerous stakeholders to explore poverty’s effect on children; they all have general
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
6
agreement that poverty is detrimental to children. One dissenting voice, Susan Scutti, contributes that
children in poverty have closer families, which can only be described as revealing basic disagreement.
Row 4: Establish Argument
The response earned 8 points in Row 4. The response demonstrates an attempt to provide a logical
organizational structure, but that structure suffers from the unmanageable breadth and depth of the
topic. Since the response tries to encapsulate so many topics (bullying, social exclusion, academic
failure, and physical abuse), the argument devolves into a list of ways in which being poor hurts
children, with disparate pieces of evidence used to imply the response’s argument that poverty hurts
children. As such, the response demonstrates an understanding of how evidence should support claims,
but the overly broad nature of the paper’s topic prevents the argument from coming together to
support any feasible conclusion.
The response arrives at the conclusion that low-income households “influence children in various
detrimental ways” in the last paragraph and offers humanitarian aid and tutoring as possible solutions,
without sufficient detail for a reader to assess its plausibility.
Row 5: Select and Use Evidence
The response earned 6 points in Row 5. The response includes evidence from multiple scholarly and
journalistic sources, though relevance and credibility are rarely explained and so must be surmised
through the References page. Additionally, the use of those sources is often misaligned with the
evidence provided. For example, on page 4, Operation Warm, described as “providing winter coats to
needy children,” provides evidence of the percentage of poor children who do not complete high school
with no explanation for why Operation Warm is a relevant or credible source for that information.
Finally, on page 5, Elizabeth Bruenig, an opinion journalist, is employed to discuss an otherwise
unreferenced study.
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Citation and Attribution)
The response earned 3 points in Row 6. The response is mostly uniform in citation style. The Reference
page is, for the most part, formatted correctly. The in-text citation UCDAVIS, unsuccessfully linked to a
citation in the References section, could be either Maurer or “What is ‘Deep Poverty’?” Also, the in-text
citation UNICEF is unclearly linked to the References citation “Ending Child Poverty.” Finally, Dryden is
referenced in the paper but does not appear in the list of references. While there is uniformity with
citation style and overall successful linking in citations, the errors in citation demonstrate a mid-level
mastery.
Row 7: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style)
The response earned 2 points in Row 7. While the response is mostly clear, there are lapses into
colloquial language. For example, the response states that “parents are so stressed out.” The response
also displays moments of syntactical awkwardness. For example, on page 2, the awkward transition
from the Bulman source into the Pells source says, “Adding on to Bulman.” Additionally, the response
attempts to address too many disparate ideas in the space of a sentence. For example, on page 4, the
response discusses shame and abuse together in one sentence without using punctuation appropriately
to clarify and separate ideas.
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
7
Sample C
Shouldn’t Individual’s Perception Be Similar When Being in the Same Surrounding?
Sample Scores: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
On- or Off-Topic Decision
The response was determined to be on-topic. Although the integration of the stimulus material is
unsuccessful, the response is broadly related to the theme of happiness and “emotional reaction[s],”
especially through behaviors. For example, the response states, “Behavior is determined by emotions
whether the individual is feeling excited, worried, happy, etc.”
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context (Stimulus Materials)
The response earned 0 points in Row 1. Although the response references “The Happiness Project”
article more than once, it does so in ways that are contrived or otherwise fail to demonstrate an
accurate understanding of the stimulus material. For example, the response says O’Hagan “describes the
excitement being at Disney seeing how the house had amazing colors that would light you up inside,”
which does not correspond with the assumed research question: “The behaviors that an individual has
are how their personality is made.” Then the response interprets a quote from the same passage about
Scotland as evidence of how “[i]ndividuals will have a triadic structure causing their behavior to change
in certain situations,” thereby providing an inaccurate reading of the source.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context
The response earned 0 points in Row 2. The response opens with the overly broad statement,
“Individuals will experience different emotions in different surroundings.” The response does not
narrow the context from unspecified “individuals,” “people,” and “humans” throughout. Later in the
narrative, the response does provide examples using “high school students” and “females,” but does not
provide evidence or explanation to place any claims in a larger context. The response appears to discuss
a topic about the relationship between behavior, personality, and perception without explaining why
this question requires academic attention.
Row 3: Understand and Analyze Perspective
The response earned 0 points in Row 3. The response presents an oversimplified opinion that individuals
have emotions relative to their surroundings. While the response attempts to consider the role of the
five senses on individuals’ emotions and shifts to a discussion of physical appearance (i.e., “Individuals
have a hard time with physical appearance and try living with high expectations in society”), these
diversions are not distinct perspectives.
Row 4: Establish Argument
The response earned 0 points in Row 4. The response fails to make an argument regarding the idea of
individuals and their emotions. While the response considers various constructs such as “[i]nfluences are
constrained by the dominant view of the representation of the world” and “[m]any humans come from
different countries,” the response does not move beyond the vague notion of connecting individuals
and their emotions. Attempting to substantiate this idea late in the narrative, the response lists
instructive ideas individuals may try in an attempt to understand their emotions (e.g., “[t]rying
AP Seminar
Performance Task 2
Individual Written Argument (IWA)
2020 Scoring Commentaries
© 2020 College Board
8
something new,” “[h]aving a positive mindset”), ending with the somewhat disconnected directive, “No
one should bring on another down because of their appearance, culture or anything in general...”
Row 5: Select and Use Evidence
The response earned 0 points in Row 5. The response presents sources that are not credible and seems
to rely on commercial websites for evidence without the use of well-vetted sources. For instance, the
Citations page lists two sources each from Inc.com and Study.com, but the response does not link these
sources to identifiable in-text citations. The most credible source is a journal article by Dr. Adrian
Furnham republished by the National Institutes of Health, but the response uses one quote from this
source (“Females with low self-esteem, low life satisfaction, low self-rated attractiveness are more likely
to undergo cosmetic surgery”), which is only tangentially relevant to the topics of behavior, perception,
and emotion.
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Citation and Attribution)
The response earned 0 points in Row 6. While the Citations page is alphabetized, the response provides
little evidence of successful linkage of sources to in-text citations. The Citations page contains several
errors, such as one entry labeled “Authors Ron Refaeli, et al,” the repetition of the Furnham source, the
use of the author’s first name for the Schnoor source, and several sources with only a URL listed in the
entry. Several in-text citations do not link to an entry on the Citations page, including “Human
Relations,” “Culture, Personality, and Perception,” G. Arnold, and R. J. Rummel. These errors combine to
display a lack of mastery of the skill of applying bibliographic conventions.
Row 7: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style)
The response earned 0 points in Row 7. The response contains several grammatical errors, such as
sentence fragments (e.g., “Causing highly negative effects of their behavior from anxiety, stress or
simply daily headaches”) and a number of run-on sentences (e.g., “There will always be different
perceptions to everything and that does not mean that someone is right or that someone is wrong it just
means that everyone has a different opinion about the way they see things”). The response contains
mostly short sentences that convey an overall choppy tone. The response’s persistent use of
contractions and preponderance of errors place the tone in a less formal style that shows a lack of
mastery of writing for an academic audience.
