Maturità Type B: how to write the argumentative essay

You have been in Year 5 of high school for two weeks, and the first in-class essays are already arriving between the end of September and October. From now until 16 June, the date set for the first paper of the 2027 maturità (Italy’s school-leaving exam), every written Italian assignment is a training session for the exam: same type, same time, same marking grid. Whoever starts working on it now arrives in June with eight or ten essays already written; whoever puts it off until March writes barely two, and while also having to finish the literature syllabus.

Type B is not “the essay” of the first two years. You start from a given text, and the exam has two parts that both count: analysing that text, and building an argumentative text of your own that stands up by itself. Here you will find the method for both, the mistakes I see repeated every year, and three cases worked out in full.

What Type B really asks

In the first paper you have seven prompts in all: two of Type A (literary text, prose and poetry), three of Type B, two of Type C (current affairs). You choose only one, with six hours of time. You can’t leave before three have passed.

The three Type B prompts cover different areas (mixed or artistic-literary, historical-political, scientific-technological-economic), but the structure is identical: a given argumentative text and two requests. The comprehension and analysis: showing that you have understood the text, identified the author’s thesis and the arguments with which they support it. The production: an argumentative text of your own, with a thesis of your own clearly stated and arguments in support.

The two parts are marked together, with the national grid used for all types (the framework of ministerial decree DM 1095/2019): four general indicators common to all (ideation, planning and organisation of the text; cohesion and coherence; lexical richness with grammatical correctness; breadth of knowledge and critical judgement) worth up to 60 points out of 100, plus the specific indicators of Type B worth up to another 40; the total out of one hundred is then converted into a mark out of twenty. Comprehension is not a side dish: it enters the specific indicators together with the production, and dismissing it in four lines leaves points on the table.

Comprehension and analysis: where the easiest marks get thrown away

It is the part that almost everyone dismisses in a few lines, and it is a double mistake: it costs points by itself, and it weakens the production, because without isolating the thesis and arguments of the given text your own text risks talking about something else.

The task is not to summarise, it is to analyse. Summarising tells what the text says, in the order in which it says it. Analysing breaks it down: what is the author’s thesis (one sentence, not a paragraph), what arguments they bring in support, with what tools: a figure, an example, an objection anticipated and rejected.

An example. The given text argues that reading books is not disappearing, only changing format.

Summary (what too many people write): “The text is about the fact that today people read in different ways from before, with audiobooks and ebooks, and the author says it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, indeed young people read a lot anyway.”

Analysis (what should be written): “The author argues that reading is not declining but changing medium, and builds the thesis on three arguments: a quantitative figure (audiobooks are growing more than printed books are falling), a generational argument (younger readers read on several formats, not on just one) and an objection anticipated and rejected (those who say that listening is not reading confuse the medium with the cognitive activity).”

The difference is not one of length, it is one of viewpoint: in the first case you stay underneath the text and repeat its content, in the second you look at it from outside and describe how it is constructed. It is this second viewpoint that the grid marks.

The mistakes that cost points

1. Confusing summary and analysis. The most widespread, just seen above.
2. A thesis that can’t be made out. It must be identified in one sentence, usually within the first paragraph, not deduced by putting together half-sentences scattered about. It is declared, not hinted at.
3. Arguments that are only opinions. “I believe that”, “in my view”, “it is obvious that” followed by a statement with no reason supporting it. An opinion declares a position, an argument justifies it: example worked out below, often it is the difference between 10 and 14 out of 20.
4. The showy ending with no content. A sentence or a quotation that adds nothing. The conclusion pulls together the arguments and, if possible, opens a perspective, but never repeats the introduction in other words.
5. Mixed registers. Elaborate at the start and colloquial at the end: it signals that the text was not planned as a whole. The register is chosen once and maintained.
6. Length out of proportion. Too short and it doesn’t develop three arguments and a counter-thesis; too long, without an outline, it almost always repeats itself. The six hours are for designing too, not just for writing.

The method, step by step

The text that holds up is written from an outline, not from the inspiration of the moment:

1. Read the text twice. The first time to understand it, the second to underline the author’s thesis and arguments.
2. Choose the thesis before writing a line. A single sentence, defensible with at least three reasons. If you can’t find them, it is probably too generic.
3. Look for the strongest counter-thesis, the one an intelligent reader would make, not the easiest to take apart.
4. Build the outline: introduction (context and thesis), three paragraphs of arguments with one idea each, counter-thesis and rebuttal, conclusion.
5. Write following the outline, without improvising new arguments halfway through the text.
6. Reread looking for two things: is the thesis still the same from start to finish? Does each paragraph have a single idea?

The connectives that hold the reasoning up

They aren’t filler: they signal the logical move you are making, and using the right one is what sets an argued text apart from a list of sentences placed side by side. (The essay is written in Italian, so the Italian connectives come first.)

Quoting the given text, using your own examples

The given text must be quoted, not summarised in your own words without saying so: a short direct quotation in quotation marks (“the author says it explicitly: «…»”), or a declared paraphrase (“the author argues that…, though without using these words”). You must not present an idea from the text as obvious or as your own: whoever marks it has the same text in front of them.

Examples and personal experiences, in the production, help; the risk is that the example turns into a story that never returns to the general argument. A well-used example serves the argument and after two lines returns to the thesis; an anecdote that lives a life of its own takes up the space of a second argument.

First worked case: the complete outline on a technology topic

Scientific-technological prompt: the given text discusses the spread of generative AI in studying, between those who see it as a help and those who see it as a shortcut.

• Thesis: using generative AI to write your own tests or essays weakens learning, even when the result is correct.
• Argument 1: you learn above all from the mistake you recognise and correct yourself; if another tool writes in your place, you skip the moment in which you would find out what you don’t know.
• Argument 2: the test measures specific skills (arguing, organising, using specific vocabulary) which a text written by others certifies without their really existing in the person who hands it in.
• Argument 3: systematic use creates a dependence that shows when the tool is missing, in an oral test or an assignment without devices, because whoever has always delegated the writing can’t reproduce the reasoning alone.
• Counter-thesis: AI will be used at work from now on, banning it at school is unrealistic and deprives students of a useful skill.
• Rebuttal: the comparison doesn’t hold, it confuses two contexts: at work the product counts, at school the reasoning that has to be certified. The thesis doesn’t ban the tool: it distinguishes between checking a doubt (legitimate) and having the text written in your place, which empties the exercise.
• Conclusion: the problem is not the tool, but the question that is often missing: did I do the reasoning that was required, or did the software do it for me? A criterion that is valid outside school too.

The paragraph written out in full: where opinion ends and argument begins

The same argument, in two ways: the first is written by many and is worth little, the second is the one the grid rewards.

Opinion version (to avoid): “In my view using artificial intelligence to do homework is wrong, because it makes everyone lazier, and it happens more and more often: something should be done, it is a serious problem.”

Argument version (the one to write): “You learn above all at the moment when you make a mistake and recognise it yourself: that is where the difference between what you wrote and what would be correct is registered. If a text is written by an outside tool, that moment doesn’t arise at all, not because the student is lazy, but because the process that generates learning has been skipped. It is the same reason why copying the solution to a maths problem without having tried it doesn’t prepare you for the test: you have seen the result, not gone through the reasoning.”

The difference: the first declares a position and reinforces it with adjectives; the second explains why it holds, with a mechanism (learning from error) and a verifiable comparison. With an opinion you can agree or not; with an argument you can only say whether the reasoning holds.

Second worked case: another complete outline, historical-social area

Second prompt, historical-social area: the given text reflects on how social networks have changed relationships among young people, between the promise of staying connected and the risk of more superficial contact.

• Thesis: social networks, despite the promise of “connecting”, have made the bonds between young people more superficial.
• Argument 1: the quantity of contacts replaces quality: hundreds of people reached with likes and short comments, not with conversations that take time.
• Argument 2: comparison with lives shown only at their best moments generates insecurity, which draws people away from real contact instead of bringing them closer.
• Argument 3: reading an expression, handling a silence or a disagreement is trained in direct relationship, not online, and the difference is felt when you need to handle them in person.
• Counter-thesis: social networks allow people to stay in touch with distant friends and communities that otherwise wouldn’t exist: they increase relationships, they don’t reduce them.
• Rebuttal: true, and it doesn’t contradict the thesis: keeping up an existing bond at a distance is different from building a new one of equal depth. The thesis doesn’t say that social networks wipe out bonds, only that they lower the average quality, and even those who defend them move the important conversations to a phone call.
• Conclusion: the problem is not to stop using them, but to recognise when a relationship needs to leave the screen, a skill that nobody explicitly teaches.

How to rebut a counter-thesis well (the mini-case)

Rebutting is not saying that the counter-thesis is wrong and changing the subject: it is conceding what is true in it, and showing why it isn’t enough to dismantle your thesis. A third mini-example, separate from the two above.

Counter-thesis: “The humanities matter less than the sciences, because they don’t lead directly to a profession.”

Weak rebuttal (to avoid): “It isn’t true, the humanities are important and you only have to study them more to understand that.”

Rebuttal that holds: “It is true that few professions require a degree in literature or philosophy. But the objection confuses ‘leading to a profession’ with ‘being useful in a profession’: writing clearly, arguing or reading critically are not asked for by a single trade, but by almost all of them, technical ones included. The same criterion, applied consistently, would also exclude a good part of the pure mathematics of high school.”

In three moves: concede what is true in the objection, isolate the error of reasoning (here, confusing two different criteria) and show that applied consistently it would backfire on whoever uses it. A rebuttal that merely denies is worth nothing on the grid, and it shows.

How we work on this, in lessons

With students in Year 5, the work almost always starts from the outline, not from the writing: a text without an outline can only be corrected sentence by sentence and the problems remain; a weak outline can be seen and corrected in ten minutes, before writing a line.

The second step is to isolate, among the arguments you bring yourself, which are opinions dressed up as arguments, the most common mistake and the easiest to correct once you see it: you just ask yourself “why is that so?” a couple more times.

Lessons are online, one to one; the 10-hour package (rates on the pricing page) is worth it in the weeks before the February mock exams. Anyone who has never had a lesson with us starts with a free 30-minute introductory call; payment is offline, by bank transfer, Satispay, PayPal, card, Apple Pay or Revolut.

To train on your own you will find the first-paper Italian practice test: Types A, B and C, estimated mark out of twenty; the correct answer is free, and the guided solution unlocks with the first lesson. For the whole of Year 5: the plan for the maturità year from September. For the other humanities subjects (history, philosophy, Greek) there is the humanities page.

For the historical documents that often serve as a starting point, I wrote a summary of the Giolittian age and the First World War. If you are coming to the maturità as a private candidate, the admission rules are in the post on external candidates.

If the first essay has already been marked and the score doesn’t add up, write to us: we look together at what weighed most, and start again from there.