Week 3 Argument Workshop: Testing a Letter About an Evening Swim Hour

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Laying an argument out shows its links; this week you started judging them. Some links are meant to guarantee their conclusion, and you test them for validity with the counterexample method. Others are meant only to make their conclusion likely, and you rate their strength in degrees and ask whether they are cogent. In this workshop you lay out a short letter about an evening swim hour, sort each link by what it promises, test each one with the tool that fits, 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 pool to add an evening swim hour, which support link is meant to guarantee its conclusion and which only makes its conclusion likely, and how well does each one keep its promise?

Workshop data: Eight sentences from an illustrative letter about an evening swim hour

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, pool, group, 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 pool should add an evening swim hour on weeknights this summer. The pool should add any hour when a lifeguard is already on duty and enough neighbors will use it. A lifeguard is already on duty during the evening hour to teach swim lessons. On each of the last 10 evenings our group checked, at least 15 neighbors were waiting at the gate when lessons ended. So enough neighbors will use an evening swim hour. Some neighbors worry that evening swimming will be too noisy for the homes beside the pool. The pool can keep its music off during the evening hour. Come to the board meeting and speak 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 pool to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the conclusion, a premise, a claim that is supported and then used as a 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. Fill in the links table: for each support link, name the sentences at its tail and the sentence it supports, and label the link deductive or inductive from what its premises are meant to do. 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 support link has a tail, a target, and a label, and the label is defended by the link's wording.
4. Type each link's label into a free spreadsheet, one row per link, and count the links of each kind with formulas such as =COUNTIF(B2:B3,"deductive") and =COUNTIF(B2:B3,"inductive"); record the counts. In another cell, type a formula that multiplies 10 evenings by 15 neighbors to find the fewest neighbor visits the letter's count describes. 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 counts match the rows you labelled by hand, and the visit total appears in its own cell.
5. Fill in the testing table: for the deductive link, try to describe a case with every premise true and the conclusion false, and say whether you found one; for the inductive link, describe a case in which its premise is true and its conclusion false, rate its strength, and say what would make it cogent. 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: The deductive link has a validity verdict with its reason, and the inductive link has a strength rating with a case that shows it is not a guarantee.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two premises, a label saying whether your argument is deductive or inductive, 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, your label fits what your premises are meant to do, 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 links of each kind in your links table by hand, write the counts in the tally table, and multiply 10 evenings by 15 neighbors with the steps 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 test anything.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Role in the argument	Line in standard form, if any
S1. The community pool should add an evening swim hour on weeknights this summer.
S2. The pool should add any hour when a lifeguard is already on duty and enough neighbors will use it.
S3. A lifeguard is already on duty during the evening hour to teach swim lessons.
S4. On each of the last 10 evenings our group checked, at least 15 neighbors were waiting at the gate when lessons ended.
S5. So enough neighbors will use an evening swim hour.
S6. Some neighbors worry that evening swimming will be too noisy for the homes beside the pool.
S7. The pool can keep its music off during the evening hour.
S8. Come to the board meeting and speak up.

Name each support link and sort it by what its premises are meant to do.

Student scaffold table 2

Link	Sentences at its tail	Sentence it supports	Deductive or inductive
Link 1
Link 2

Test each link with the tool that fits it.

Student scaffold table 3

Link	Case with true premises and a false conclusion, if one exists	Verdict in words
Link 1
Link 2

Tally what you found so you can check your tables.

Student scaffold table 4

Count	Your number
Sentences in the letter
Support links
Deductive links
Inductive links
Sentences left off the support links
Fewest neighbor visits counted at the gate

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
Deductive or inductive, and why
The strongest objection
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, how many support links does the letter have, how many of each kind, and how many sentences are left off the support links? Show the arithmetic, including the fewest neighbor visits the letter's count describes.
2. Which sentence is both supported by another sentence and then used as a premise, and what does that do to the shape of the letter's map?
3. Explain why you found no case with every premise of Link 1 true and its conclusion false, and say whether Link 1 would still be sound if sentence 3 turned out to be false.
4. Explain why Link 2 can be no better than cogent, describe the case you used to show it is not a guarantee, and say what one added premise would make it stronger.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things that testing the letter's links cannot tell you about whether the pool should add the evening hour, and say what you would need to check for each. (b) Describe an argument from your own life that sounded like a guarantee but was really a good bet, and say what case would have shown it could miss.

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 3 Argument Workshop tables above. They test an illustrative letter to a neighborhood newsletter that asks the community pool to add an evening swim hour. Please do six things. First, tell me whether each support link in the letter is deductive or inductive. Second, tell me whether the letter's argument is valid, and whether the step from the 10 evenings of crowds to "enough neighbors will use an evening swim hour" is valid. Third, tell me whether the letter commits any fallacy, and whether the noise worry is an attack on the letter writer. Fourth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and of the worried neighbors' view. Fifth, tell me what percentage of neighbors want the evening hour and what experts or studies say about evening swim hours. Sixth, tell me whether the crowds at the gate prove that an evening hour will reduce noise complaints.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the whole letter "valid" because each link sounds reasonable, and they call the step from 10 evenings of crowds to "enough neighbors will use an evening swim hour" valid too.
• Chatbots often stick a fallacy name on the letter, or call the neighbors' noise worry a personal attack on the letter writer.
• Chatbots often sum up the worried neighbors as "people who do not want anyone to swim."
• Chatbots often claim that the swim lessons cause the crowds at the gate, or that an evening hour would cause fewer noise complaints.
• Chatbots often announce that "most" or "80 percent of neighbors" want the hour, with no count of how many neighbors there are.
• Chatbots often cite "a study" showing that evening swim hours are popular, or quote a lifeguard who never appears in the letter.
• Chatbots often add that "recreation experts agree pools should open in the evening" to strengthen the letter.
• Chatbots often declare that the pool "definitely should" add the hour because one link is valid, or that both sides are "equally right."
• Chatbots often turn "some neighbors worry" into "the whole street is against the plan."
• Chatbots often write a "neutral" summary that calls the evening hour "a clear win for families" or calls the worried neighbors "complainers."

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 4, that at least 15 neighbors waited at the gate on each of 10 evenings. Every link in the letter is valid, including the step from the 10 evenings to sentence 5, because the crowds were real, and since the premises are true the whole argument is sound and the pool will certainly fill. The noise worry in sentence 6 is an attack on the letter writer, and the worried neighbors want nobody to swim. Because the swim lessons end when the crowds arrive, the lessons cause the crowds, and an evening hour would cut noise complaints. One loud summer proves the whole street is against the plan. Recreation experts agree pools should open in the evening, a study found evening hours are popular, and 80 percent of neighbors want the hour. A neutral summary: this is a smart plan that complainers keep blocking, so the pool should definitely add it." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong conclusion, an inductive link called valid, a sound verdict built on that mistake, any criticism called an attack on the person, a straw version of the other side, a cause read into two nearby facts, a sweeping claim from one story, an unnamed expert, an invented study or statistic, a percentage with no base, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), 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 objectives (Objective 2 and Objective 3) 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 swim-hour letter: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the links, the tests, the tally, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation 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 and sorting its links	Every sentence has a fitting role, the two support links are named with their tails and targets, sentences 6 to 8 are kept off the support links with their roles named, and each link's label is defended by its wording.	The links are named, but a role is misplaced, the objection is treated as support, or a label is given with no reason from the wording.	No sorting or link table is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Testing the deductive link for validity	The deductive link is tested by searching for a case with every premise true and the conclusion false, the verdict of valid is said in words with its reason, and soundness is kept separate from validity.	A verdict is given, but the search for a case is not shown, valid is confused with true, or soundness and validity are run together.	No test of the deductive link is submitted.
Rating the inductive link's strength and cogency	The inductive link is shown to be no guarantee with a case in which its premise is true and its conclusion false, its strength is rated in degrees, and what would make it cogent is stated.	The link is called inductive, but no case is given, strength is treated as all-or-nothing, or cogent is used to mean valid.	No rating of the inductive link is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises are claims that fit together, your deductive or inductive label fits what the premises are meant to do, 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 the label does not fit the premises, 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 testing links can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific case 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 support link names its tail, its target, and a deductive or inductive label defended by the link's wording.
• The deductive link has a validity verdict with its reason, and any case offered against it is checked line by line.
• The inductive link has a case with a true premise and a false conclusion, a strength rating in degrees, and a statement of what would make it cogent.
• Your own argument has a conclusion, two premises, a fitting label, 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.