Week 2 Discussion — What Did the Arguer Leave Unsaid? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Many everyday arguments skip a step the speaker takes for granted, and two careful readers can fill that gap in different ways. This week you learned to supply the missing premise, mark it, and choose it with the principle of charity, and real arguments rarely make that choice easy.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: A neighborhood newsletter says (illustrative): "The park should keep dogs out of the playground area. A dog knocked over a toddler near the swings this spring." Put the argument in standard form, supply the premise it leaves unsaid, and mark it. Then defend your choice: is your supplied premise the weakest one that closes the gap, or does the writer's wording show they hold something stronger? Say whether your premises are linked or independent.
Option B: Choose a short argument from your own life that leaves a premise unsaid: a group-chat message, a workplace email, a product ad, or a club notice (no politicians, parties, or campaigns, and no one's real name). Put it in standard form, supply and mark the missing premise, and defend your choice under the principle of charity. Say which other supplied premise a careful reader might choose instead.
There is no single right answer here. Different readers can supply different premises, and the real work is showing why yours is the fairest reading of what the arguer meant. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Write the argument in standard form: numbered premises, a "So," line, and the conclusion marked C, each line a complete sentence.
- Supply the missing premise, mark it "(supplied)", and explain why it is the fairest choice under the principle of charity.
- Say in one sentence whether the premises are linked or independent.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (standard form, unstated premise, supplied premise, principle of charity, argument map, linked premises, independent premises) correctly.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep real people's names and live political questions out of your examples. This week is about laying arguments out, not judging them.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: offer a different supplied premise and say what it changes, point out a supplied premise that says more than the arguer meant, or describe the classmate's map differently. "Nice post!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. P1: A dog knocked over a toddler near the swings this spring. So, C: The park should keep dogs out of the playground area. The gap is that one incident does not by itself say anything about a rule, so I supplied P2 (supplied): The park should keep dogs out of an area when they have put small children there at risk. I did not supply "all dogs are dangerous," because the writer never said it and it claims far more than the argument needs. P1 and P2 are linked: without P2 the incident is only a story, and without P1 the rule has nothing to apply to.
Notice how it lays the argument out line by line, marks the supplied premise, explains why a sweeping premise was set aside, and describes the map in words. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | The argument is laid out line by line, the missing premise is supplied and marked, the selected premise is defended by how much it claims, and the map is described in words | A reconstruction is given, but the added premise is unmarked, or the choice of premise is not defended | Missing, off-topic, or no reconstruction of the argument |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses standard form, supplied premise, principle of charity, and linked or independent precisely, and keeps charity apart from agreement | Uses a term loosely, or treats charity as agreeing with the writer | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that offer a different supplied premise or a different reading of a classmate's map | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com