Week 2 Argument Workshop: Mapping a Letter About a Tool-Lending Library

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Real arguments arrive as paragraphs, not as tidy lists, and they almost always leave a step unsaid. This week you learned to write an argument in standard form, to supply the premise the arguer took for granted and mark it, to choose that premise with the principle of charity, and to draw a map that shows which reasons work together, which stand alone, and where an objection and its reply attach. In this workshop you lay out a short letter about a tool-lending library, supply its missing premise, map it in words, 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 center to open a tool-lending library, what does the argument look like in standard form, which premise does it leave unsaid, and how do its premises, its objection, and its reply connect on a map?

Workshop data: Eight sentences from an illustrative letter about a tool-lending library

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, community center, club, or newsletter.

• Rows: 8 sentences, one row each in the sorting table
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and its line in standard form
• Source text: the full letter: The community center should open a tool-lending library. Most households on our street use a ladder or a power drill only a few times a year. The center already has an empty storage room by the front door. Volunteers from the garden club have offered to run checkouts on weekend mornings at no charge. Sharing tools would also keep extra ladders and drills out of the landfill. Some neighbors worry that borrowed tools will come back broken. A small deposit, returned when a tool comes back in good shape, would cover repairs. Come to the open house and sign up.

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 one sentence what the letter asks the community center to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the conclusion, a stated premise, the objection, the reply, or not part of the argument. 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 conclusion, and every row has a role.
3. Type your Role column into a free spreadsheet, one row per sentence, and count the stated premises with a formula such as =COUNTIF(B2:B9,"stated premise"); record the count 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 tally of stated premises matches the rows you labelled by hand.
4. Fill in the standard-form table: copy each stated premise in the letter's own words onto a numbered line, write the premise the letter leaves unsaid on its own line marked (supplied), and put the conclusion last, marked C. 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 stated line quotes the letter, exactly one line carries the (supplied) mark, and the conclusion sits on the last line.
5. Fill in the map table: for each premise, the objection, and the reply, say in words which box its arrow points at, whether it is linked with other premises or stands on its own, and whether its arrow is marked against. 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 names an arrow target, and the reply's arrow points at the objection, not at the conclusion.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two premises, any premise you are taking for granted marked (supplied), 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 premise is 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 stated premises in your Role column by hand, write the count in the tally table, and add the supplied premise and the conclusion with the addition shown. 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: give each of its eight sentences a role before you build standard form.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Role in the argument	Line in standard form, if any
S1. The community center should open a tool-lending library.
S2. Most households on our street use a ladder or a power drill only a few times a year.
S3. The center already has an empty storage room by the front door.
S4. Volunteers from the garden club have offered to run checkouts on weekend mornings at no charge.
S5. Sharing tools would also keep extra ladders and drills out of the landfill.
S6. Some neighbors worry that borrowed tools will come back broken.
S7. A small deposit, returned when a tool comes back in good shape, would cover repairs.
S8. Come to the open house and sign up.

Tally the roles so you can check the size of your standard form before you write it.

Student scaffold table 2

Count	Your number
Stated premises
Supplied premises
Conclusions
Lines in standard form, not counting So

Write the letter in standard form, quoting the letter for every stated line.

Student scaffold table 3

Line	Words
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
So,	So,
C

Describe the map in words, one row for each box that has an arrow.

Student scaffold table 4

Box	Its arrow points at	Linked, independent, or against
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Objection (sentence 6)
Reply (sentence 7)

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

Student scaffold table 5

Part	Your words
Your conclusion
Your first premise
Your second premise
A premise you are taking for granted, marked (supplied)
The strongest objection
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, how many stated premises does the letter have, and how many lines will its standard form have once you add your supplied premise and the conclusion? Show the addition.
2. Which sentences of the letter did you leave off the premise and conclusion lines, and where does each of them belong instead?
3. Explain why your supplied premise is the weakest one that connects the stated premises to the conclusion, and name a more sweeping premise that the principle of charity tells you to set aside.
4. Describe the whole map in words: which premises are linked, which premise stands on its own, which premise supports another premise rather than the conclusion, and where the objection's and the reply's arrows point. Then count the arrows.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things that laying the letter out and mapping it cannot tell you about whether the center should open the library, and say what you would need to check for each. (b) Describe an argument from your own life that left a step unsaid, write that step as a supplied premise, and say whether a more sweeping version would have been unfair to the person who made it.

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 2 Argument Workshop tables above. They lay out an illustrative letter to a neighborhood newsletter that asks the community center to open a tool-lending library. Please do six things. First, put the letter in standard form, with numbered premises, a line reading So, and the conclusion marked C, and supply any premise the letter leaves unsaid. Second, say which premises work together and which support the conclusion on their own, and where the objection and the reply belong on a map. Third, tell me whether the letter's argument is valid and whether it commits any fallacy. Fourth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and of the worried neighbors' view. Fifth, tell me how much money the library would save each family and what experts or studies say about tool libraries. Sixth, tell me whether the worry about broken tools proves that most neighbors oppose the plan.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the reconstructed letter "valid" or "logically sound" as soon as the supplied premise is in place, as if filling a gap proved the conclusion.
• Chatbots often stick a fallacy name on the letter, or call the neighbors' worry about broken tools a personal attack on the letter writer.
• Chatbots often sum up the worried neighbors as "people who do not want anyone to share anything."
• Chatbots often claim that the empty storage room is the reason households rarely use their tools, linking two facts that sit side by side in the letter.
• Chatbots often announce that the library would cut tool spending "by 80 percent" or shrink landfill waste by some percent, with no starting amount at all.
• Chatbots often cite "a study" showing that tool libraries save each family a set amount, or quote a garden-club volunteer who never appears in the letter.
• Chatbots often add that "urban planners agree every neighborhood should share tools" to strengthen the letter.
• Chatbots often declare that the center "definitely should" open the library once the argument is mapped, or that both sides are "equally right."
• Chatbots often turn "some neighbors worry" into "everyone on the street expects tools to be ruined."
• Chatbots often write a "neutral" summary that calls the plan "a smart, obvious win" or calls the worried neighbors "negative."

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: "The letter's conclusion is sentence 5, that sharing tools keeps ladders and drills out of the landfill. In standard form, sentence 6 is a premise, and the supplied premise is that the community center must provide any service residents ask for, no matter what it costs, which is what the writer believes. All the premises are independent, and the reply in sentence 7 aims straight at the conclusion. The argument is valid because its premises are true, and the worried neighbors are attacking the writer. The neighbors hate sharing. Because one borrowed saw once came back broken, every tool will come back broken. Experts agree tool libraries work, a study found they save families hundreds of dollars, and the library would cut tool spending by 80 percent. A neutral summary: this is a smart plan that negative neighbors keep blocking, so the center should definitely open it, and the empty storage room is why households rarely use their tools." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong conclusion, an objection listed as a premise, a sweeping supplied premise presented as the writer's view, linked premises drawn as independent, a reply aimed at the conclusion, 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, a summary that takes a side, or a cause read into two nearby facts), 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 2 — analyze an argument by putting it in standard form, supplying unstated premises under the principle of charity, and mapping how its premises, objections, and replies connect, described in 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 five 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 tool-library letter: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the tally, standard form, the map, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's reconstruction 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
Laying the letter out in standard form	Every sentence has a fitting role, the four stated premises are quoted on numbered lines, the conclusion sits last marked C, and sentences 6 to 8 are kept off the premise lines with their roles named.	Standard form is attempted, but a premise is missing or reworded beyond recognition, the conclusion is misplaced, or the objection is listed as a premise.	No standard form is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Supplying the missing premise with charity	One premise is written out and marked (supplied), it connects the stated premises to the conclusion while claiming no more than the letter needs, and a sweeping alternative is named and set aside.	A premise is supplied but left unmarked, claims more than the letter needs, or is not compared with any alternative.	No supplied premise appears, or the supplied premise is presented as the letter writer's own words.
Describing the map in words	The map table and question 4 say which premises are linked, which stands alone, which supports another premise, and that the objection's arrow points at the conclusion while the reply's arrow points at the objection; the arrow count is shown.	The map is described, but linked premises are drawn as independent, the reply is aimed at the conclusion, or the arrow count is off.	No map or map description is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises are claims that fit together, the premise you take for granted is marked (supplied), 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 premise does not support the conclusion, the supplied premise is unmarked, 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 a map can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific unsaid step 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 role, and exactly one is labelled the conclusion.
• Every stated line of standard form quotes the letter, and exactly one line is marked (supplied).
• The supplied premise connects the stated premises to the conclusion without adding a view the letter never expresses.
• Every box in the map table names its arrow's target, and the reply's arrow points at the objection.
• Your own argument has a conclusion, two premises, a marked supplied premise, 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.