# data[].attributes.body
They had different sections dedicated to different perspectives instead of it just being one whole IWA. Also the one I read didn’t seem to have a whole section dedicated to a solution but kind of meshed with the conclusion in their IWA

# data[].attributes.body
What I noticed when other perspectives were address, the would start off “According to..... (the article name and author)” and they would put the quote or paraphrase of what the author perspective is and what they believe about the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
I notice that the good examples being their IWAs by starting general and then narrowing down towards a more specific pathway. For example, the one about Suicide starts by saying death is inevitable but then shifts towards suicide, specifically suicide help. Another example is the divorce paper. It starts off saying no marriage is perfect but then shifts towards the effect divorce has on an adolescent's well being. It shows how you can transition from a larger topic/general theme to a specific issue whether it is a position based or solution based argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly, when doing my IWA, I was really concerned that my vocab wasn’t good enough or that I needed to sound more “professional” but when reading the IWAs that scored 5s, I noticed that they scored well because of the organization, format, and mainly, they all format the intro in a very direct way explaining the issue, the controversy, and potentially how to fix it. Overall, as long as you’re concise and actually answer, it should be fine

# data[].attributes.body
I noticed how they started their IWA with a good and clear introduction to give some background about the issue that they were focusing on.

# data[].attributes.body
-The sections were organized and different perspectives didn’t mix with one another
-When they began, they didn’t start off with a quote or article, they began with a simple introduction of what they knew about the topic or small background information before addressing the situation

# data[].attributes.body
I noticed that the good examples begin their IWAs by introducing the topic in a general and simplistic sense so that the reader can understand what they're diving into. They also section off each perspective that is broken down clearly and efficiently.

# data[].attributes.body
Speak generally on their topic and explain the different ideas people have on the issue. Then they create their thesis/state their argument.

# data[].attributes.body
The assisted suicide IWA did a good job writing about the opposing side. They used quotes from physicians themselves which made it more credible but also giving some reasons why assisted suicide can be more helpful (for the economy)

# data[].attributes.body
Each author summarizes their reasoning, adding new details, and restates their argument in a conclusion paragraph.

# data[].attributes.body
restate their claim and reinforce the main claims made in the body of the IWA.

# data[].attributes.body
-They have a conclusion if they were position based and/or solution if it was a problem/solution topic
-The conclusions was restate in shorter terms what the whole point of the argument was about
-There were no articles or quotes at the end used in the conclusion(just something I noticed)

# data[].attributes.body
All of the IWA’s end their paper with a conclusion paragraph where they restate there argument in a different way. They also summarize their line of reasoning and overall sum up their paper.