Adjusting your IWA for Global Perspectives Removing Stimulus Component: 1. When you use any of the articles from the Stimulus packet as evidence in your essay, you may keep this as evidence in the essay. Just consider the article like you would any other article you are using to support your argument. Be sure you have cited the article properly in your Works Cited. The entry should be in MLA format; it should NOT say College Board within the entry. Adding a reflection to the conclusion of your essay: 2. The conclusion of your essay should be balanced and reflective. Since you are evaluating a complex issue, it is not going to have a simple answer at the end; rather, it is going to conclude that the various perspectives in which you have analyzed will uniquely impact the outcome of issue. 3. Your conclusion should also identify the need for further research since the issue is not necessarily resolved by your 2,000 words! What else still needs consideration? What answers couldn t be found that need attention? What other perspectives need to be explored? How will any of this impact the answer to the issue? Expanding discussion of source credibility and relevance and suggesting further research: 4. There should be globally contrasting sources of evidence in your essay. (For instance, what an expert in the U.S. thinks about the issue may contrast with what experts in China think, so you want to bring out this contrast at given points in your essay as it applies). 5. The Global Perspectives task would like to see you actually analyze your sources as part of your research discussion. (They want to see it a bit more than AP Seminar does, so follow these guidelines to make sure you ace this portion!) This will demonstrate that you fully understand not just the evidence itself but where it came from and how these sources impact
the evidence s strength. When mentioning a source attempt to do the following: a. Identify the source s credibility and his/her/their relevance to the issue. b. Evaluate the strength of the source to justify why you feel confident in turning to this source for input. c. Expose any weaknesses the source may have. Don t be afraid that this is going to weaken your argument. If you word this properly, it will actually strengthen it. Your aim is to say, This source has this weakness, which I recognize, and it should be taken into consideration as we evaluate this issue in a fair way. If you don t recognize a source s weakness though one exists, it s almost as if you re sweeping that under the rug; if someone else comes along and finds this hole in your argument, then YOU look like the one lacking credibility! Formatting and Saving Your Document 6. For the heading, use the following information below as a model. Fill in the bolded-segments with your own, personalized information. Name, Candidate # xxxx Boca Raton Community High School, US818 9239_02_US818_xxxx_01 Use Research Question as Title Here 7. Save the document, in Microsoft Word, using the following protocol. Please be sure to fill in the grayed string of x s with your four-digit, candidate ID! 9239_02_US818_xxxx_01 (SEE ATTACHED SAMPLES)
SAMPLES OF EXPANDED SOURCE EVALUATION
SAMPLE 1: Validating a fairly strong source but considers clear weaknesses A case study using AI in the field of medical research was conducted by the New Scientist journal s website. Here, researchers argue that AI can be used to help doctors assess just how serious a particular case of breast cancer is, and therefore, how to treat it (Graham-Rowe). Research in the UK reveals how techniques from AI can be used to predict the spread of the tumors, and whether or not patients have an increased chance of survival. The university teams found that when they compared their predictions with the actual outcomes of the study, they found it significantly outperformed simple logistic regression (Rowe-Graham), showing that according to the tests conducted, AI would clearly benefit cancer treatment. This seems to suggest that AI could be used in diagnosis and predicting outcomes by doctors in other branches of medicine. Since the article comes from a website, the source could be questionable because it isn t fully cited, but as it is part of the New Scientist journal, it does appear to be peer reviewed for publication. For this reason, the claims of the author and researchers that AI could help to tackle breast cancer appear valid, thus supporting the notion that AI is medically beneficial to research in humans. One aspect of this source worth questioning, however, is that it is only one piece of research supporting this point. The test sample only contained 100 women, so the results may be unrepresentative or unrealistic to the greater population. The research group does admit this limitation, and that more research would be needed on a wider scale (Graham-Rowe). SAMPLE 2: Validates a strong source (source + evidence presented) The source of this information appears credible because there are nearly 70 references that support the information it provides, all of which are cited throughout, showing that thorough research has been done to obtain the data it offers. It is worth considering, however, that the source focuses largely on referencing those studies that are in favor of AI, which means it fails to take the negative into account. This approach hints at source bias, but even still, the evidence ultimately proposed is compelling, thorough, and therefore believable, so it can be assumed that AI, indeed, has innumerable medical benefits in this regard.
SAMPLE 3: Exposes a weak source Moreover, AI could potentially benefit the medical field because according to chief researchers at Applied Technology Meditex developing AI would allow computers to solve intellectual tasks without the need of human intervention (Martin). However, others view this replacement as needless and that if substituting robots in for waiters, servants, guides and other support staff, it will sooner or later result in the creation of more advanced robots, thereby substituting policemen, nurses, software developers... and this will ultimately lead to the demise of not only the economy, but eventually, the entire human race (Antonov). A seemingly valid point, this claim, made by Finnish sociologist and Director for the Euro Central Intel Centre Bruce Antonov, ultimately seems fallacious because of the slippery slope it unnecessarily creates; the source implies that by replacing one job sector we will undoubtedly replace all, and it also makes it appear that we only have two options in this argument: to reject AI in the medical field and save the human race, or accept robots and destroy people. The fallacious nature of Antonov s argument, which does not support the use of AI in the medical field, therefore makes this side of the argument less believable. Despite this, opponents still claim that the use of AI in the medical field is not a worthy pursuit. For example, like Antonov, Marc Bolstrom believes that..however, though Bolstrom suggests that AI will reduce progress in the medical field, the argument seems invalid because no real evidence exists to support this. And though this source cites the work of others to prove that super-intelligence could create isues, none of these sources indicate what this problems would be or any evidence of such trouble being caused. Moreover, on more than one occasion, Balstrom reers to papers he s written himself, which does not imply in-depth research; instead, it only indicates bias, making the argument for those siding against medical AI weak again.