Week 5 Argument Workshop: Testing a Post About Food Trucks at a Weekend Market

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Rules and proposals about groups are everywhere: who may hold a space, which vendors pass an inspection, what some shoppers want. This week you learned to rewrite those claims into four exact forms, to name the three terms of a categorical syllogism, and to test it with three overlapping circles described in words. In this workshop you lay out a short post about food trucks at a weekend market, find the four inferences inside it, rewrite and test each one, build a short syllogism 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 post asking a weekend market to open spaces to food trucks, which of the four inferences hold up under the Venn test or a careful reading of "some", and which region or reading shows the difference?

Workshop data: Ten sentences from an illustrative message-board post about food trucks at a weekend market

Source: An illustrative post on a neighborhood association's message board, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it comes from no real person, market, association, or business.

• Rows: 10 sentences, one row each in the sorting table
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the inference it belongs to
• Source text: the full post: The weekend market should open three spaces in its parking lot to food trucks. All food trucks on the applicant list are licensed food vendors. All licensed food vendors pass a yearly health inspection. So all food trucks on the applicant list pass a yearly health inspection. Some shoppers at the market are parents with young children. Some parents with young children want a quick hot lunch. So some shoppers at the market want a quick hot lunch. One member objects: only vendors who grow or make what they sell may hold a space, and no food truck grows or makes what it sells, so no food truck may hold a space. Another member adds: some trucks on the list sell desserts, so some trucks on the list do not sell desserts. Each truck would pay a 25-dollar weekend fee, and 8 trucks are on the applicant list.

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 post 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 post asks the market to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a premise, the conclusion of a smaller inference, the objection, or a cost detail, and in the last column name the inference it belongs to, if any. 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 main conclusion, and every row has a role.
3. Fill in the forms table: rewrite each inference's sentences into the four categorical forms, such as "All S are P" or "Some S are not P", rewriting any "only" claim first, and name the middle term where there is one. 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 inference has its claims rewritten into the four forms, with the group after "only" placed in the predicate.
4. Type each inference's verdict into a free spreadsheet, one row per inference, and use the spreadsheet's counting function to count the cells that say valid and the cells that say invalid; record the counts. In another cell, write a formula that multiplies the 8 trucks by the 25-dollar weekend fee. 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 weekend fee total appears in its own cell.
5. Fill in the testing table: for each of the three syllogisms, describe a three-circle Venn diagram in words, region by region, shading the All and No premises first and then placing each X; for sentence 9, say what "some" does and does not promise. Give each verdict in one plain 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: Each syllogism has its shaded regions and X marks named, and each verdict names the region that decides it.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two premises that make a valid categorical syllogism, its middle term, 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 syllogism is valid by the Venn test, 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 valid inferences and the ones that do not follow in your testing table by hand, write the counts in the tally table, and multiply the 8 trucks by the 25-dollar weekend fee 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 post comes first: give each of its ten sentences a role before you test anything.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Role in the argument	Inference it belongs to, if any
S1. The weekend market should open three spaces in its parking lot to food trucks.
S2. All food trucks on the applicant list are licensed food vendors.
S3. All licensed food vendors pass a yearly health inspection.
S4. So all food trucks on the applicant list pass a yearly health inspection.
S5. Some shoppers at the market are parents with young children.
S6. Some parents with young children want a quick hot lunch.
S7. So some shoppers at the market want a quick hot lunch.
S8. One member objects: only vendors who grow or make what they sell may hold a space, and no food truck grows or makes what it sells, so no food truck may hold a space.
S9. Another member adds: some trucks on the list sell desserts, so some trucks on the list do not sell desserts.
S10. Each truck would pay a 25-dollar weekend fee, and 8 trucks are on the applicant list.

Rewrite each inference's claims into the four categorical forms before you test it.

Student scaffold table 2

Inference	Sentences	Claims in categorical form	Middle term, if any
Inference A	S2 to S4
Inference B	S5 to S7
Inference C	S8
Inference D	S9

Test each inference, describing every diagram region by region.

Student scaffold table 3

Inference	What you shaded, where each X went, or what some promises	Verdict in words
Inference A
Inference B
Inference C
Inference D

Tally what you found so you can check your tables.

Student scaffold table 4

Count	Your number
Sentences in the post
Inferences tested
Valid inferences
Inferences that do not follow
Sentences outside the four inferences
Weekend fees from every truck on the list, in dollars

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

Student scaffold table 5

Part	Your words
Your conclusion
Your first premise
Your second premise
Your middle term
The strongest objection
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, how many inferences did you test, how many are valid and how many do not follow, and how many sentences sit outside the four inferences? Show the arithmetic, including the weekend fees from every truck on the list.
2. In Inference B, where does the X for each premise go, and why does each one sit on a line rather than inside a single region? Say whether either X lands in the shopper-and-hot-lunch overlap.
3. Describe the Venn diagram for Inference C region by region after you rewrite its "only" claim, give the verdict, and say whether the objection is sound as well as valid, given what a food truck does with the food it sells.
4. Explain why Inference D does not follow, using what "some" means in this course, and compare it with the coffee-shop allergy card in the chapter.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the Venn test cannot tell you about whether the market should open spaces to food trucks, and say what you would need to check for each. (b) Describe a sign or rule from your own life that uses "all", "no", "some", or "only" and that someone read backward, and say what case would have shown the backward reading was wrong.

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 5 Argument Workshop tables above. They test an illustrative post on a neighborhood association's message board that asks the weekend market to open spaces to food trucks. Please do six things. First, rewrite each of the four inferences in the post (sentences 2 to 4, sentences 5 to 7, sentence 8, and sentence 9) into the four categorical forms and say whether each one is valid, describing any Venn diagram you use region by region. Second, tell me whether sentences 5 to 7 are valid because their conclusion is probably true, and whether sentence 9 follows because "some" means "not all". Third, tell me whether the post commits any fallacy, and whether the member's objection in sentence 8 is an attack on the person who wrote the post. Fourth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the post and of the objection. Fifth, tell me what share of shoppers want food trucks and what experts or studies say about food trucks at markets. Sixth, tell me whether the trucks' inspections prove that they will make the market busier.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call sentences 5 to 7 valid because the conclusion sounds likely, or read the objection's "only" backward and then call a mangled version valid or invalid for the wrong reason.
• Chatbots often stick an informal fallacy label on the objection in sentence 8, or call the member's objection a personal attack on the post's writer.
• Chatbots often sum up the objecting member as someone who "hates food trucks".
• Chatbots often say that because the trucks pass inspections, they will make the market busier or bring in more shoppers.
• Chatbots often announce that the trucks would "raise the market's income by 20 percent" with no starting income given.
• Chatbots often cite "a survey" of shoppers or quote a market manager who never appears in the post.
• Chatbots often add that "market experts agree food trucks boost sales" to strengthen the post.
• Chatbots often declare that the market "definitely should" add trucks because one syllogism is valid, or that the post and the objection are "equally right".
• Chatbots often turn "some parents want a quick hot lunch" into a claim that most shoppers want food trucks.
• Chatbots often write a "neutral" summary that calls the trucks "a welcome upgrade" or calls the objecting member "stuck in the past".

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 post, 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 post, printed here in full: "The post's main conclusion is sentence 4, that the trucks pass a yearly health inspection. All four inferences are valid. Sentences 5 to 7 are valid because many parents really do want a quick lunch, and sentence 9 follows because some trucks selling desserts means the rest do not. The member in sentence 8 is attacking the person who wrote the post, and that member hates food trucks. Because the trucks pass inspections, they will make the market busier, and since some parents want a quick lunch, most shoppers want food trucks. Market experts agree food trucks boost sales, a survey found shoppers love them, and the trucks would raise the market's income by 20 percent. Since every premise sounds true, the market will certainly do better. A neutral summary: this is a welcome upgrade that members stuck in the past keep blocking, so the market should definitely say yes." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, an invalid syllogism called valid, some read as not all, any criticism called an attack on the person, a straw version of the other side, a cause read into an inspection, a sweeping claim from one some, an unnamed expert, an invented survey or statistic, a percentage with no base, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), cite the evidence from the post, 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 food-truck post: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the forms, the tests, the tally, and your own syllogism), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation of the same post, 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 post out and rewriting its claims	Every sentence has a fitting role, the four inferences are named with their sentences, the main conclusion, the objection, and the cost detail are placed correctly, and each claim is rewritten into one of the four forms with the group after only in the predicate.	The inferences are found, but a role is misplaced, an only claim is rewritten backward, or the objection is treated as support.	No sorting or forms table is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Confirming the valid syllogisms with Venn diagrams	Inferences A and C are each tested with a diagram described region by region, each is called valid because the conclusion's region is already shaded, and validity is kept separate from whether the premises are true.	The valid inferences are called valid, but a diagram is missing or misdescribed, the X is placed before the shading, or valid is confused with true.	No test of the valid inferences is submitted.
Showing where the others fail	Inference B is shown invalid because both X marks sit on lines and none is forced into the shopper-and-hot-lunch overlap, and Inference D is shown not to follow because some means at least one.	Inferences B and D are said not to follow, but the diagram or the reading of some is missing, or some is read as some but not all.	No test of Inferences B or D is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises are categorical claims that make a syllogism valid by the Venn test, the middle term is named, 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 syllogism is present, but it is invalid or its middle term is misnamed, 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 post, 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 the Venn test 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 main conclusion.
• Every inference has its claims rewritten into the four categorical forms, with any "only" claim rewritten before it is tested.
• Each syllogism's Venn diagram is described region by region, with the All and No premises shaded before any X is placed.
• Each verdict names the region or the reading of "some" that decides it, and validity is kept separate from whether the premises are true.
• Your own syllogism is valid by the Venn test, names its middle term, states the strongest objection fairly, and replies to it, 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 post, the tables, or the chapter.