Week 1 Argument Workshop: Finding the Arguments in a Letter About Pool Hours

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Letters, posts, and ads ask you to believe or do things all the time, and a single short message can mix a report, an explanation, a question, and an argument or two. This week you learned to tell a claim from a non-claim, to find an argument's conclusion and stated reasons with and without indicator words, and to use the doubt test to separate an argument from an explanation. In this workshop you sort every sentence of a short letter about pool hours, find the argument hiding inside one sentence, build a short argument of your own with its strongest objection and a reply, and then catch a chatbot making the slips this week warns about.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In an illustrative letter asking a community pool to add evening lap-swim hours, which sentences are claims, which sentence is the main conclusion, which sentences are offered as reasons for it, and which sentence only explains something readers already accept?

Workshop data: Eight sentences from an illustrative letter about community-pool hours

Source: An illustrative letter to a neighborhood newsletter, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it comes from no real person, pool, or newsletter.

• Rows: 8 sentences, one row each in the sorting table
• Columns: sentence, claim or not, role in the letter, and clue word if any
• Source text: the full letter: Last summer the community pool closed at 6 p.m. every evening. Many residents who work day shifts never got to swim. The pool should add evening lap-swim hours this summer. The lifeguards are already on site until 8 p.m. to clean the deck, so the extra hours would need no new staff. The swim team's practice moved to mornings because the coach changed jobs. Isn't it time the pool served everyone? Come to the board meeting and say so. Evening swimming is the best part of summer.

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them

Ways of working

• map-the-argument
• test-the-reasoning
• build-and-defend

Procedure

1. Read the whole letter in the first table of Part 4 twice: once for what it wants, and once sentence by sentence. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: You can say in your own words what the letter asks the pool to do.
2. For each of the eight sentences, ask whether it could be true or false as it stands, and write yes or no in the Claim column of the sorting table. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: Every row has a yes or a no.
3. In the Role column, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a stated reason, a smaller argument, an explanation, a report, an unsupported assertion, a question, or a command, and copy any indicator word into the Clue column. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: Exactly one row is labelled the main conclusion, and every indicator word you copied appears in its sentence.
4. Type your Claim column into a free spreadsheet, one row per sentence, and count it with a formula such as =COUNTIF(B2:B9,"yes") and =COUNTIF(B2:B9,"no"); record both counts in the tally table. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: Your two counts add up to 8, the number of sentences.
5. Fill in the map table: copy the main conclusion and its stated reasons in the letter's own words, then copy the conclusion and the reason of the smaller argument inside one sentence. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: Every cell of the map table holds words you can find in the letter.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two reasons, the strongest objection someone could raise, and your reply. You may argue for either answer. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: Your conclusion is a claim, each reason is a claim offered for it, and the objection is stated as fairly as its best defender would state it.
7. Open one approved chatbot, paste the Part 6 prompt below your completed tables, and check its answer against your own work and the checks in Part 6. Tool: Pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for argument maps and Venn diagrams; a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for the frequency, risk, and two-way tables; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for named concepts; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose arguments the student maps and tests before trusting them. Check: You have at least two chatbot statements to quote and correct.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available.

Count the yes and no entries in your Claim column by hand, write each count in the tally table, and show that the two counts add up to 8. Then complete every other table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The letter comes first: sort each of its eight sentences before you look for the argument.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Claim? (yes or no)	Role in the letter	Clue word, if any
S1. Last summer the community pool closed at 6 p.m. every evening.
S2. Many residents who work day shifts never got to swim.
S3. The pool should add evening lap-swim hours this summer.
S4. The lifeguards are already on site until 8 p.m. to clean the deck, so the extra hours would need no new staff.
S5. The swim team's practice moved to mornings because the coach changed jobs.
S6. Isn't it time the pool served everyone?
S7. Come to the board meeting and say so.
S8. Evening swimming is the best part of summer.

Tally your Claim column so you can check that every sentence was sorted.

Student scaffold table 2

Result	Count from your spreadsheet
Claims
Not claims
Total sentences

Map what the letter argues, using the letter's own words.

Student scaffold table 3

Part	Words from the letter
Main conclusion
Stated reason
Stated reason
Smaller argument: its conclusion
Smaller argument: its reason

Build your own short argument on the same question and defend it.

Student scaffold table 4

Part	Your words
Your conclusion
Your first reason
Your second reason
The strongest objection
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, how many of the letter's sentences are claims and how many are not? Show that your two counts add up to the number of sentences.
2. Which indicator words appear in the letter, and which one introduces an explanation rather than a premise?
3. Run the doubt test on sentence 5 and on sentence 3. Explain why one of them explains and the other is argued for, naming who the audience is.
4. Sentence 4 holds a smaller argument of its own. Name its premise and its conclusion, and explain how that smaller conclusion connects to the letter's main conclusion.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things that finding the letter's conclusion and reasons cannot tell you about whether the pool should add evening hours, and say what you would need to check for each. (b) Describe a short message from your own life, such as a post, a sign, or a workplace email, that mixed an explanation with an argument, and say which of this week's tests you would run on it first.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 1 Argument Workshop tables above. They sort the eight sentences of an illustrative letter to a neighborhood newsletter about evening hours at a community pool. Please do six things. First, list which sentences are claims and which are not. Second, name the letter's main conclusion and its stated reasons, and say whether any sentence holds a second, smaller argument. Third, say whether sentence 5 is an argument or an explanation, and why. Fourth, tell me whether the letter's argument is valid and whether it commits any fallacy. Fifth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and of the pool board's likely view. Sixth, tell me how much evening hours would raise attendance and what experts or studies say about evening swimming.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often announce that the letter's argument is "valid" or "logically sound" because its reasons sound true, which mixes up whether reasons are true with whether they would guarantee the conclusion.
• Chatbots often stick a fallacy name on the letter, or call a neighbor's criticism of the letter's reasons an attack on the writer.
• Chatbots often sum up the pool board's side as "the board does not care about working residents."
• Chatbots often say the 6 p.m. closing caused the swim team's practice to move to mornings, linking two facts that sit near each other in the letter.
• Chatbots often claim that evening hours would raise attendance "by half" or by some percent, with no starting count at all.
• Chatbots often cite "a study" showing that evening swimmers sleep better, or quote a board member who never appears in the letter.
• Chatbots often add that "experts agree pools should stay open late" to strengthen the letter.
• Chatbots often declare that the pool "definitely should" add hours, or that both sides are "equally right," as if finding the parts settled the question.
• Chatbots often turn the letter's "many residents" into "no one who works days can ever swim," or build a trend from one neighbor's story.
• Chatbots often write a "neutral" summary that calls the letter "a sensible plan" or the board "stubborn."

Write 3–5 sentences that quote at least two statements from the chatbot you used, say what is wrong with each and correct it with evidence from the letter, your tables, or this week's chapter, and name one thing the chatbot got right.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis of the letter, printed here in full: "Every sentence in the letter is a claim, including the question in sentence 6. The letter's conclusion is sentence 8, that evening swimming is the best part of summer. Sentence 5 is a premise because it uses the word because, and it shows that the 6 p.m. closing caused the swim team's practice to move to mornings. The letter's argument is valid, since its reasons are true, and anyone who questions it is attacking the writer personally. The board's only reason for refusing is that it does not care about working residents. Because one neighbor could not swim, no one who works days can ever swim. Experts agree that pools should stay open late, a study found that evening swimmers sleep far better, and evening hours would raise attendance by half. A neutral summary: this is a sensible plan that a stubborn board keeps blocking, so the pool should definitely add the hours." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (a non-claim called a claim, the wrong conclusion, an explanation read as a premise, a cause read into two nearby facts, a verdict of valid the week has not tested, any criticism called an attack on the person, a straw version of the other side, a sweeping claim from one story, an unnamed expert, an invented study or statistic, a change with no base, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), cite the evidence from the letter, your tables, or this week's chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 1 — identify claims and arguments in everyday and academic passages, distinguishing arguments from explanations, reports, and unsupported assertions, and locate premises and conclusions with and without indicator words) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All four completed tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Argument Workshop report on the pool-hours letter: four completed tables (the sentence sort, the tally, the map, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same letter, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Sorting the letter's sentences	All eight sentences carry a claim judgment and a fitting role, the two non-claims are labelled as a question and a command, and each copied clue word appears in its sentence.	The sort is attempted, but one or two judgments or roles are wrong or missing, or a clue word is misplaced.	No sort is recorded, or the roles are copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Finding the conclusions and stated reasons	The main conclusion and its stated reasons are quoted from the letter, and the smaller argument inside sentence 4 is found with its own premise and conclusion.	The main conclusion is found, but a stated reason is missing or wrong, or the smaller argument is not found.	The map is missing, or a reason is labelled as the main conclusion.
Testing argument against explanation	The doubt test is run on sentences 3 and 5 with the audience named, the because in sentence 5 is identified as introducing an explanation, and the tally counts add to 8.	The doubt test is run on only one sentence, or the because is treated as a premise indicator, or a count is off.	No doubt test or tally appears.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two reasons are claims that fit together, the strongest objection is stated as fairly as its best defender would state it, and the reply engages it; either side earns this band.	The argument is present, but a reason does not support the conclusion, the objection is weakened into a straw version, or the reply ignores it.	No argument of your own is submitted.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least two statements are quoted and corrected with evidence from the letter, the tables, or the chapter, and one correct statement is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one error is caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflection on what finding an argument can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific message and tie it to a check the student could run.	The reflection is answered but stays general or names nothing to check.	No reflection is submitted.

Quality Gate

• Every sentence in the sorting table has a yes or no and a role, and exactly one is labelled the main conclusion.
• The two tally counts add up to 8, one for each sentence.
• Every cell of the map table quotes words that appear in the letter.
• Your own argument has a conclusion, two reasons, a fairly stated objection, and a reply, and it takes either side without penalty.
• No statistic, study, expert, or quotation is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two statements with evidence from the letter, the tables, or the chapter.