Facilitating meaningful discourse directly supports what students should be able to do with respect to the third of the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP 3) in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NGA Center and CCSSO 2010): "Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" (p. 6). Following best practices of teaching the features unique to argumentative writing and sharing exemplars, the authors presumed they could build students' capacities to realize what composes a mathematical argument and help them identify ways to improve their individual writing. Specifically, the authors decided to have students address four components when constructing a mathematical argument: (1) the "claim" presenting the position being taken; (2) the "evidence" that supports the claim; (3) the "warrant" explaining how the evidence supports the claim, such as a definition; and (4) the "mechanics," which help to convey ideas that flow. The authors used student- and teacher-made exemplars and discussed and explained "how each text demonstrates characteristics of effective writing in that particular genre" (Graham et al. 2012, p. 22). The authors also created mathematical arguments that excluded key components (i.e., claim, evidence, or warrant) and had students critique them. These samples reflected students' struggles when writing a mathematical argument. Reflecting best literacy practices, the samples were then used to model techniques for improving the mathematical argument so students could imitate this process when revising their own work.