Scientific argumentation is an essential skill in science education, particularly in understanding Newton’s Laws, as it enables students to construct claims supported by evidence and logical reasoning based on real-world phenomena. However, many students struggle to produce complete and structured arguments. This study aims to explore students' scientific argumentation skills through the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) model, focusing on Grade X MIA 1 students at SMAS Kawung 2 Surabaya. Using a mixed-methods approach with an explanatory sequential design, the study involved 20 students in an experimental class. Data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests consisting of the same three essay questions, and interviews were conducted to assess deeper development in argumentation. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including normality tests, paired t-tests, n-gain, and effect size calculations. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed narratively, using data reduction and coding based on Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern (TAP), and responses were classified into five levels (1–5). Results revealed an improvement in students’ argumentation levels. For question 1, students progressed from level 2 to level 3, with some reaching level 4. For question 2, the increase was from level 1 to level 2, with a few achieving levels 3 and 4. The N-gain score of 0.35 (moderate) and an effect size of 2.46 (strong) indicate a significant positive impact of the ADI approach. The findings suggest that ADI can effectively enhance students' scientific argumentation skills and may serve as a promising strategy for educators to integrate into argumentation-based learning modules.