Week 3 Discussion — A Guarantee or a Good Bet?

Hook

Plenty of everyday arguments sound airtight until someone asks whether they were meant to prove their conclusion or only to make it likely. This week you learned to sort that promise and to run the test that fits it, and real passages often leave room for two careful readers to sort them differently.

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 bakery owner tells a new employee (illustrative): "Every time we've put cinnamon rolls in the front window, they've sold out by noon. So the batch in the window will sell out by noon." Is this argument deductive or inductive? Defend your reading from its wording, then run the test that fits it: build a counterexample if you read it as deductive, or rate its strength and say what would make it cogent if you read it as inductive. Say what single change in the wording would settle the label.

Option B: Choose a short argument from your own life that sounded convincing: a coach's prediction, a coworker's reasoning about a schedule, a product review, or a friend's advice (no politicians, parties, or campaigns, and no one's real name). Sort it as deductive or inductive, run the test that fits it, and say whether it is valid and sound, or strong and cogent. Then say what one added premise would change your verdict.

There is no single right answer. Careful readers can sort a borderline passage differently, and the real work is defending your reading and running the right test on it.

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 3 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. If a chatbot calls an argument valid because its conclusion sounds true, or calls a strong prediction valid, check that against this week's definitions. 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. Do not name any conditional pattern or any fallacy; this week is
about sorting arguments as deductive or inductive and testing them for
validity, soundness, strength, and cogency.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: A bakery owner tells a new employee (illustrative): "Every time
we've put cinnamon rolls in the front window, they've sold out by noon. So
the batch in the window will sell out by noon." Is this argument deductive or
inductive? I defend my reading from its wording, then run the test that fits
it: build a counterexample if I read it as deductive, or rate its strength
and say what would make it cogent if I read it as inductive. I say what
single change in the wording would settle the label.
Option B: I choose a short argument from my own life that sounded convincing
(a coach's prediction, a coworker's reasoning about a schedule, a product
review, or a friend's advice; no politicians, parties, campaigns, or real
names). I sort it as deductive or inductive, run the test that fits it, and
say whether it is valid and sound, or strong and cogent. Then I say what one
added premise would change my verdict.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I sort the argument by what its premises are meant to do rather
  than by whether its conclusion turned out true
- whether I keep valid apart from true, and sound apart from valid
- whether I treat strength as a matter of degree and keep cogent apart from
  valid
- whether any counterexample I build has every premise true and the
  conclusion false
- whether I can name the wording or the added premise that would change my
  verdict

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 my reading, such as the other label a careful
reader could defend or a case that would change my verdict. Praise only a
specific, earned move I actually made, such as narrowing my claim 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 3 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 — sorting an argument as deductive or inductive, running the test that fits it, keeping valid apart from true and strong apart from cogent, 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 reading and your test (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. Sort the argument as deductive or inductive, defend that reading from its wording, and run the test that fits: a counterexample, or a strength rating with what would make it cogent.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best case against your reading — for example, that the other label fits the wording better, or that your counterexample changes the argument's pattern. 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 or the added premise that would settle the question is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What would you ask the arguer, or what fact would you look up, to firm up your verdict?

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 3 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