Week 6 — Words Doing the Work: Testing Wording, Shifts, and Fuzzy Terms

Assignment 6 of the term — rewrite slanted wording in neutral words, catch a feature that slides between parts and a whole, make a vague word precise, and explain what a word does and does not tell you 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 3 you learned that a sound argument is valid with every premise true; this week you learned that you cannot check a premise while its key word is fuzzy or slanted. 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 an illustrative job ad for a café, with no real café behind it: "Join our fast-paced team! Hours are flexible. Each shift is 6 hours, and new staff work 4 shifts a week at 15 dollars an hour. Every barista on our team has won a latte-art award, so our café serves the best coffee in the city."

Your second text is an illustrative neighborhood newsletter, with no real neighborhood behind it: "Our neighborhood is generous: 48 of our 120 households gave to the park fund. Our association is the most active in the city, so every one of our members must be an active volunteer."

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

1. The ad says each shift is 6 hours and new staff work 4 shifts a week. How many hours a week does a new staff member work?
2. Using the weekly hours from Problem 1, how many dollars does a new staff member earn in a week at 15 dollars an hour?
3. The newsletter says 48 of its 120 households gave to the park fund. What percentage of the households gave?
4. Of the same 120 households, how many did not give to the park fund?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: rewrite "fast-paced" and "flexible" in plain, neutral words, name the device each phrase uses, and say what verdict each one carries.
• Problem 2: name the fallacy in the ad's last sentence, and explain whether the feature it moves is the kind that passes between the parts and the whole.
• Problem 3: say whether "generous" is vague or ambiguous, write a precising definition of "generous" for this newsletter, and say whether the percentage you found meets your definition.
• Problem 4: name the fallacy in the newsletter's last sentence and explain which way the feature moves, then write the message to the neighbor described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

A neighbor who has never studied logic reads the newsletter and asks, "It says we're generous, so nearly everyone gave, right?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words why "generous" is a fuzzy word, reports the percentage you found and how many households did not give, and names one limit: the word "generous" carries a judgment that the figures alone do not settle. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a gym ad that says "Our gym is never crowded." Model answer: "'Crowded' is a fuzzy word with no exact line, so the ad can sound true to the owner and false to you. It also does not say which hours it means; a quiet morning and a packed evening can both happen. Before you join, visit at the hour you would really go."

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

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the neighbor 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, write each neutral rewrite and definition out in full, 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 labels the newsletter's last sentence composition, or calls "generous" ambiguous, 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 loaded language, euphemism, and dysphemism; the fallacies of composition and division; vague versus ambiguous words; and precising definitions. 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, school, company, café, or neighborhood, and never use logic symbols. Do not teach any fallacy of relevance or of presumption.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The texts: an illustrative café job ad, "Join our fast-paced team! Hours are flexible. Each shift is 6 hours, and new staff work 4 shifts a week at 15 dollars an hour. Every barista on our team has won a latte-art award, so our café serves the best coffee in the city." And an illustrative neighborhood newsletter, "Our neighborhood is generous: 48 of our 120 households gave to the park fund. Our association is the most active in the city, so every one of our members must be an active volunteer."
PROBLEM P1: The ad says each shift is 6 hours and new staff work 4 shifts a week. How many hours a week does a new staff member work?
PROBLEM P2: Using the weekly hours from Problem 1, how many dollars does a new staff member earn in a week at 15 dollars an hour?
PROBLEM P3: The newsletter says 48 of its 120 households gave to the park fund. What percentage of the households gave?
PROBLEM P4: Of the same 120 households, how many did not give to the park fund?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, rewrite "fast-paced" and "flexible" in neutral words, name the device each uses, and say what verdict each carries; for P2, name the fallacy in the ad's last sentence and explain whether the feature it moves passes between the parts and the whole; for P3, say whether "generous" is vague or ambiguous, write a precising definition of "generous" for the newsletter, and say whether the percentage meets it; for P4, name the fallacy in the newsletter's last sentence and say which way the feature moves. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to the neighbor explaining why "generous" is a fuzzy word, reporting the percentage and the number of households that did not give, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), wording and reasoning 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 neighbor message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct weekly hours figure, weekly pay, percentage, or household count = 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 every part named for that problem = 2; at least one part but not all = 1; none = 0. For P4, BOTH the fallacy named with the direction of the move AND a neighbor message that explains why "generous" is fuzzy, 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 the newsletter's last sentence composition 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 neighbor 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 ad or the newsletter 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. When I rewrite a phrase or write a definition, ask me which facts my rewrite keeps and where my definition draws its line, and why. 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 neighbor 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 neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled two-column sketch that sets each original phrase beside its neutral rewrite with a short note that says the verdict 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 6 skills — rewriting loaded wording in neutral words, naming euphemisms, catching composition and division, telling a vague word from an ambiguous one, writing a precising definition, and explaining a fuzzy word 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 neighbor. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the ad and the newsletter 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 ad and the newsletter 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