Week 2 — Laying It Out: Standard Form, Supplied Premises, and Maps

Assignment 2 of the term — lay an argument out line by line, fill its gaps fairly, and draw how its parts connect, then explain the drawing to someone new to the subject.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based reconstruction. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 1 you found an argument's conclusion and stated reasons; this week you write those parts in standard form, supply what the arguer left unsaid, and map the result. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Argument Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on two short texts.

The task

Your first text is the running question's illustrative campus-newsletter passage, which has no real author: "The campus library should stay open around the clock during finals week. During finals week many students need a quiet, safe place to study late at night. The library is the only quiet, safe, well-lit study space on campus large enough to meet that need. Keeping the library open overnight for the five nights of finals week costs about 1,600 dollars in staff wages." In standard form it has 3 stated premises, 1 supplied premise, and 1 conclusion. Your second text is an illustrative email from a campus chess club, with no real club behind it: "The chess club should move its weekly meeting to the evening. Most members have afternoon labs. The student lounge is free in the evening. The club's volunteer coach can only come after work." Under it, a member objects, "Members who commute would have to travel home after dark," and the club president replies, "Members who commute can join by video call on the evenings they cannot stay."

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic and quoting the sentences you use:

1. In standard form, the running question has 3 stated premises and 1 supplied premise. How many premises does it have in all?
2. The running question has 4 premises and 1 conclusion. How many lines does its standard form have, not counting the line that reads So?
3. The overnight staffing cost behind P4 assumes 2 staff working 8 hours a night for 5 nights at 20 dollars an hour. What is that cost in dollars?
4. In the club email, 3 stated premises each support the conclusion on their own, and the map adds 1 objection and 1 reply. How many arrows does the map have in all?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: write the running question in standard form, with P1 to P4 and C on their own lines and the supplied premise marked "(supplied)", and explain why the supplied premise is not the newsletter writer's stated view.
• Problem 2: explain why the modest P3 is the weakest premise that closes the gap, and name the sweeping premise the principle of charity sets aside.
• Problem 3: say which premise the 1,600-dollar figure supports, and describe the running question's map in words, saying which premises are linked and where P4's arrow points.
• Problem 4: run the cover-up test on the club email's three premises to show they are independent, say in words where the objection's arrow and the reply's arrow point, then write the message to the club treasurer described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

The chess club's treasurer has never seen an argument map and asks, "Why does your drawing of our email have five arrows, and does that mean the evening plan is a good idea?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words what it means for reasons to stand on their own, says where the objection's arrow and the reply's arrow point, reports that the map has 5 arrows in all, and names one limit: a map shows how the reasons connect, not whether the argument is good. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible, and you do not need to take a side on when the club should meet.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker reading a farmers' market sign that says, "Shop here on weekends. The produce is picked that morning, and parking is free." Model answer: "The sign gives two reasons, and each one would still count even if the other were missing, so on a map each reason gets its own arrow pointing at the main claim. That makes 2 arrows. The drawing only shows how the reasons line up; it does not tell us whether the produce really is fresher, so we would still check before deciding."

Use that pattern for the chess club, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the treasurer before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations and quote the sentences you use when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you. If it leaves the supplied premise unmarked, supplies a sweeping premise such as "the campus must give students any space they ask for", or points the reply's arrow at the conclusion, say so and ask it why.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory critical thinking course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about putting arguments in standard form, supplying unstated premises under the principle of charity, and mapping linked and independent premises with objections and replies. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, or a quotation, never name a real person, company, or club, and never take a side on whether the library should stay open or when the club should meet. This week is about laying arguments out and mapping them, not judging them, so do not tell me whether either argument is good.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The texts: the running question's illustrative campus-newsletter passage, "The campus library should stay open around the clock during finals week. During finals week many students need a quiet, safe place to study late at night. The library is the only quiet, safe, well-lit study space on campus large enough to meet that need. Keeping the library open overnight for the five nights of finals week costs about 1,600 dollars in staff wages." In standard form it has 3 stated premises (P1, P2, and P4), 1 supplied premise (P3: The campus should provide study space students need during finals when it can do so at modest cost), and 1 conclusion. And an illustrative chess club email: "The chess club should move its weekly meeting to the evening. Most members have afternoon labs. The student lounge is free in the evening. The club's volunteer coach can only come after work." Under it, a member objects, "Members who commute would have to travel home after dark," and the club president replies, "Members who commute can join by video call on the evenings they cannot stay."
PROBLEM P1: In standard form, the running question has 3 stated premises and 1 supplied premise. How many premises does it have in all?
PROBLEM P2: The running question has 4 premises and 1 conclusion. How many lines does its standard form have, not counting the line that reads So?
PROBLEM P3: The overnight staffing cost behind P4 assumes 2 staff working 8 hours a night for 5 nights at 20 dollars an hour. What is that cost in dollars?
PROBLEM P4: In the club email, 3 stated premises each support the conclusion on their own, and the map adds 1 objection and 1 reply. How many arrows does the map have in all?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, write the running question in standard form with the supplied premise marked and explain why it is not the writer's stated view; for P2, explain why the modest P3 is the weakest premise that closes the gap and name the sweeping premise charity sets aside; for P3, say which premise the 1,600-dollar figure supports and describe the map in words; for P4, run the cover-up test on the club email's premises and say where the objection's and the reply's arrows point. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to the club treasurer explaining what it means for reasons to stand on their own, where the objection's and the reply's arrows point, that the map has 5 arrows, and one limit of a map. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), argument reconstruction (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing the evidence so it can be checked (16 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 2.5 computation points, 6 reconstruction points, 2 clarity points, or 2 evidence points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my treasurer message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct count or cost = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing answer or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
RECONSTRUCTION UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH the cover-up test with the objection and reply arrows placed AND a treasurer message that explains independent reasons, places the arrows, reports the count, and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reconstruction = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and a supplied premise left unmarked or quoted as the writer's own words is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reconstruction error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to critical thinking, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the treasurer message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
EVIDENCE UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps, with every quoted sentence matching the passage or the email as printed = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, step, or quotation, or a quotation that drifts from the text = 1; an answer alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the treasurer AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned total; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the total for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations, quotations, and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the treasurer — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two maps with a short note that says each map in words; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

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.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 2 skills — putting an argument in standard form, supplying and marking an unstated premise under the principle of charity, telling linked premises from independent premises, placing objections and replies on a map, and explaining all of it to someone new — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the treasurer. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the passage and the email as printed. Write a second draft and add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and check any sentence it quotes against the passage and the email as printed here. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com