Week 2 Discussion — What Did the Arguer Leave Unsaid?

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 driving 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. Different readers can supply different premises, and the real work is showing why yours is the fairest reading of what the arguer meant.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 2 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. This week is about laying arguments out and mapping them, not judging them, so you do not need to say whether the argument is good. If a chatbot hands you a supplied premise, check that it is marked and that it does not say more than the arguer meant. Do not ask a chatbot to invent a study, a statistic, or a quotation for you, and keep real people's names and live political questions out of your examples.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory critical thinking
course. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question
below. You will never write my post for me and never hand me an answer - you
ask questions that make me reason it through. Never invent a statistic, a
study, or a quotation. Never name a living politician, a party, or a news
outlet. This week is about laying arguments out in standard form and mapping
them, not judging them, so do not tell me whether an argument is good, valid,
strong, or fallacious.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
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." I put the argument in standard form, supply the premise it leaves
unsaid, and mark it. Then I defend my choice: is my supplied premise the
weakest one that closes the gap, or does the writer's wording show they hold
something stronger? I say whether my premises are linked or independent.
Option B: I choose a short argument from my own life that leaves a premise
unsaid (a group-chat message, a workplace email, a product ad, or a club
notice; no politicians, parties, campaigns, or real names). I put it in
standard form, supply and mark the missing premise, and defend my choice under
the principle of charity. I say which other supplied premise a careful reader
might choose instead.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I number each premise P1, P2, P3, then write "So,", then the
  conclusion marked C, as complete sentences with indicator words dropped
- whether I mark the premise I added "(supplied)" and keep it apart from what
  the arguer actually said
- whether my supplied premise is the weakest one that fills the gap, and
  whether I can say what a more sweeping version would claim
- whether I avoid inventing a view the arguer never held, and avoid treating
  charity as agreeing
- whether I can describe the map in words: which premises work together and
  which stand alone

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint to the supplied premise I chose, such as a different
premise another reader could defend. Praise only a specific, earned move I
actually made, such as narrowing my premise or answering the counterpoint. Never
accept a one-word answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Every message
you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 2 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — putting an argument in standard form, supplying and marking an unstated premise under the principle of charity, describing how the premises connect, and using this week's terms accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your reconstruction (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. Write the argument in standard form with numbered premises, a "So," line, and C; supply and mark the missing premise; and say in one sentence whether the premises are linked or independent.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best case against your supplied premise — for example, that a different premise fits the writer's words better, or that yours claims more than the writer meant. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — naming the wording that would settle which premise fits is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What would you ask the arguer to find out which premise they hold?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 2 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com