This study investigated the value of using a scaffolded critique framework to promote two different types of writing--argumentative writing and explanatory writing--with different purposes within an argument-based inquiry approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A quasi-experimental design with sixth and seventh grade students taught by two teachers was used. A total of 170 students participated in the study, with 87 in the control group (four classes) and 83 in the treatment group (four classes). All students used the SWH templates as an argumentative writing to guide their written work and completed these templates during the SWH investigations of each unit. After completing the SWH investigations, both groups of students were asked to complete the summary writing task as an explanatory writing at the end of each unit. All students' writing samples were scored using analytical frameworks developed for the study. The results indicated that the treatment group performed significantly better on the explanatory writing task than the control group. In addition, the results of the partial correlation suggested that there is a very strong significantly positive relationship between the argumentative writing and the explanatory writing.