Week 5 Discussion — What Did "All" Promise? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A sentence about groups can be read more than one way, and the reading you choose can change whether an argument holds. This week you learned the four categorical forms, the Venn test, and the modern reading of "all", and some everyday sentences leave room for two careful readers to disagree about what was meant.

Your discussion 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 community garden posts a sign (illustrative): "All trespassers after dark will be fined." A neighbor reasons: "All trespassers after dark will be fined. All trespassers after dark will be reported. So some people who will be reported will be fined." Test the neighbor's argument with a Venn diagram on the modern reading and say what the diagram shows. Then argue which reading of "all", the modern one or the traditional one, better fits what the sign's writer and the neighbor most likely meant, and name the one added premise that would make the argument valid on both readings.

Option B: Choose a sentence from your own life that sorts things into groups with "all", "no", "some", or "only": a club or team rule, a store or app policy, a recipe card, or a workplace notice (no politicians, parties, or campaigns, and no one's real name). Rewrite it into one of the four categorical forms, name its subject term and predicate term, and say one thing it does not say. Then argue whether your rewrite captures what the writer most likely meant, for example whether a "some" in that context was meant as "some but not all".

There is no single right answer here about what a writer meant. What the Venn test shows on a given reading is settled; the real work is defending your reading of the words and running the test on it. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• Rewrite each sentence into one of the four categorical forms, with the subject term and the predicate term named.
• For Option A, describe the Venn diagram region by region on the modern reading, say what it shows, and name the added premise that would make the argument valid on both readings. For Option B, say one thing your sentence does not say.
• Say in one sentence which reading you think the writer most likely meant, and what would settle it.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (categorical form, subject term, predicate term, middle term, Venn diagram, shaded, modern reading, traditional reading) correctly.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep real people's names and live political questions out of your examples.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: defend the other reading of a classmate's "all" or "some", check whether their diagram shades and places each X where the premises say, or point out where a rewrite flipped the subject and the predicate. "Nice post!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A. The three terms are trespassers after dark, people who will be fined, and people who will be reported. On the modern reading, the two premises shade the parts of the trespasser circle outside the fined circle and outside the reported circle, and they place no X anywhere. The conclusion needs an X in the reported-and-fined overlap, so the diagram leaves it unsettled. Still, I think the neighbor took it for granted that someone trespasses, which is the traditional reading. Adding "Some people trespass after dark" would put an X in the trespasser circle and settle it on both readings.

Notice how it names the terms first, describes each shaded region in words, says what the diagram does and does not settle, and then separates what the words say from what the speaker most likely meant. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com