Week 3 — Guarantee or Good Bet: Testing Deductive and Inductive Links

Assignment 3 of the term — sort each link by what it promises, test it with the tool that fits, and explain the difference between proof and a good bet 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 evaluation. 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 2 you put the running question in standard form and drew its map; this week you test each link of that map for what it promises and how well it keeps the promise. 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 argument, 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 P1, P2, P3 (supplied: "The campus should provide study space students need during finals when it can do so at modest cost"), P4, and C. Its map has 2 support links: P1, P2, and P3 work together to support C, and P4 supports P3's "modest cost" condition. The cost condition is the claim "Keeping the library open overnight during finals week costs a modest amount."

Your second text is an illustrative note from an apartment building's front desk, with no real building behind it: "Of the last 20 packages marked delivered for the third floor, 18 were found on the lobby shelf." Below the note, a resident reasons: "My package was marked delivered this morning, so it is on the lobby shelf."

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

1. The running question's P4 says overnight staffing costs 1,600 dollars for 5 nights. What does it cost a night, in dollars?
2. P4's staffing plan assumes 2 staff working 8 hours a night for 5 nights. How many staff hours is that in all?
3. The front-desk log says 18 of the last 20 packages marked delivered were found on the lobby shelf. What percentage of those packages were found on the shelf?
4. Of the same 20 logged packages, how many were not found on the lobby shelf?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: say which link in the running question's map the cost a night bears on, and explain why the link from P4 to the cost condition is inductive by describing one case in which P4 is true while "the cost is modest" is false.
• Problem 2: show that the link from P1, P2, and P3 to C is not valid as it stands by describing a case in which those three premises are true and C is false, then explain why the link is valid once the cost condition is granted.
• Problem 3: sort the resident's argument as deductive or inductive from its wording, say how strong it is in degrees, and say what would make it cogent.
• Problem 4: explain why the packages not found on the shelf show that the resident's argument is not valid, then write the message to the resident's roommate described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

The resident's roommate has never studied logic and asks, "The log shows almost every package ends up on the shelf. Doesn't that prove this one is down there?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words the difference between an argument that guarantees its conclusion and one that only makes it likely, reports the percentage you found and how many packages were not on the shelf, and names one limit: even a strong argument with true premises can be wrong this time. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker reading a weather app that says rain is likely this afternoon. Model answer: "The app is making a good bet, not a promise. Its reasons make rain likely, so taking an umbrella is sensible, but nothing about a forecast rules out a dry afternoon. If it stays dry, the forecast was not illogical; it was a strong argument that missed this time."

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

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the roommate 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 calls the resident's argument valid because the shelf record sounds high, or calls the link from P4 to the cost condition a guarantee, 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 sorting arguments as deductive or inductive, testing deductive links for validity with a counterexample, and rating inductive links for strength and cogency. 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 building, and never take a side on whether the library should stay open. Do not name any conditional pattern or any fallacy.

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 argument, "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 P1, P2, P3 (supplied: The campus should provide study space students need during finals when it can do so at modest cost), P4, and C, and its map has 2 support links: P1, P2, and P3 to C, and P4 to P3's modest cost condition. The cost condition is the claim: Keeping the library open overnight during finals week costs a modest amount. And an illustrative front-desk note: "Of the last 20 packages marked delivered for the third floor, 18 were found on the lobby shelf." A resident reasons: "My package was marked delivered this morning, so it is on the lobby shelf."
PROBLEM P1: The running question's P4 says overnight staffing costs 1,600 dollars for 5 nights. What does it cost a night, in dollars?
PROBLEM P2: P4's staffing plan assumes 2 staff working 8 hours a night for 5 nights. How many staff hours is that in all?
PROBLEM P3: The front-desk log says 18 of the last 20 packages marked delivered were found on the lobby shelf. What percentage of those packages were found on the shelf?
PROBLEM P4: Of the same 20 logged packages, how many were not found on the lobby shelf?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, say which link the cost a night bears on and show why the link from P4 to the cost condition is inductive with a case where P4 is true and the cost is not modest; for P2, show the link from P1, P2, and P3 to C is not valid as it stands with a case where those premises are true and C is false, and explain why it is valid once the cost condition is granted; for P3, sort the resident's argument from its wording, rate its strength, and say what would make it cogent; for P4, explain why the packages not on the shelf show the resident's argument is not valid. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to the resident's roommate explaining the difference between guaranteeing and making likely, reporting the percentage and the number not on the shelf, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), argument evaluation (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 evaluation points, 2 clarity points, or 2 evidence points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my roommate message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct cost, count, or percentage = 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.
EVALUATION 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 an explanation of why the packages not on the shelf show the argument is not valid AND a roommate message that explains guaranteeing versus making likely, reports the percentage and 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 evaluation = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and calling a strong inductive argument valid is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not an evaluation 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 roommate 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 argument or the note 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 roommate 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 roommate — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the running question's map with each link marked deductive or inductive and a short note that says the 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 3 skills — sorting an argument as deductive or inductive, testing a deductive link for validity with a counterexample, rating an inductive link's strength and saying when it is cogent, and explaining the difference 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 roommate. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the argument and the note 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 argument and the note 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