The purpose of this research is to examine growth and interdependency of epistemic tools –language, argument, and dialogic interactions- in two different learning environments (Argument-Based Inquiry [ABI] vs Traditional Inquiry). Epistemic tools may help students to come to know the scientific concepts. NGSS framework reflects this approach to epistemic tools through emphasis on scientific practices that promotes argument, language, and dialogic interactions –not the replication of science knowledge and science language. For this study, 490 lab reports, which is collected from a cohort of college freshmen (n=30) who took both Physics I (Traditional Inquiry) and Chemistry I (ABI) lab courses in the same semester, were scored to quantify students’ quality of argument and multimodal representation (MMR) use. In this longitudinal study, Physics and Chemistry courses were compared based on MMR and argument growth across the semester by employing linear mixed effect model analysis. The results provide evidence of greater benefits from ABI than traditional inquiry on students’ quality of argument and MMR use. The findings also show that these abilities can increase quickly and then begin to reach a stable level after just several weeks. Moreover, the growth of argument and MMR use are significantly related.