Week 6 Argument Workshop: Testing the Words in a Letter About a Concert Series

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Arguments are built from words, and words can do quiet work: a fuzzy word can hide a weak premise, one word can change its meaning halfway through, a feature can slide from the parts to the whole, and a soft or harsh phrase can carry a verdict before any reason appears. This week you learned to sort definitions, tell vague from ambiguous, and catch equivocation, composition, and division. In this workshop you lay out a short letter about moving a concert series, test its key words line by line, 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 town to move its summer concert series to the riverfront lot, which sentences connect their words to the conclusion fairly, and which lean on a shifting word, a part-whole slide, a fuzzy term, or slanted wording?

Workshop data: Eight sentences from an illustrative letter about moving a town's summer concert series

Source: An illustrative letter to a town newsletter, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it comes from no real person, town, council, newsletter, or band.

• Rows: 8 sentences, one row each in the sorting table
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the word or move to test
• Source text: the full letter: The town's summer concert series should move from the town park to the riverfront lot. On concert nights the park is crowded, and its 120 parking spaces fill an hour before the music starts. The riverfront lot has 12 rows of 25 parking spaces each. Every band booked for the series is a crowd-pleaser, so the series as a whole will please every crowd that comes. The riverfront lot is open on weekend evenings, and the council says it is open to new ideas, so the council should welcome the move. A real music lover doesn't mind a short walk from the parking lot to the stage. The council's notice calls the plan "a modest relocation," while one neighbor calls it "dumping the concerts in a parking lot." One neighbor objects: the riverfront has no shade and no restrooms, so older listeners and families with small children may stay home.

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 town to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a supporting reason, a report of figures, or the objection, and in the last column name the word or the move you will test, 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 word-test table: for each key word or move, write what it means in each place it appears, say whether it is vague, ambiguous, a shifting word, a part-whole slide, a persuasive definition, or slanted wording, and give a plain rewrite or a precising definition. 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 tested word has its meaning written beside each use, and every slanted phrase has a neutral rewrite.
4. Type each sentence's label into a free spreadsheet, one row per sentence, and use the spreadsheet's counting function to count the sentences you labelled with a named fallacy and the phrases you labelled as slanted; record the counts. In another cell, write a formula that multiplies the 12 rows by the 25 spaces in each row, and in the next cell, a formula that takes away the park's 120 spaces from that product. 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 both parking figures appear in their own cells.
5. Fill in the verdict table: for sentences 4 and 5, give a verdict in one plain sentence that names the fallacy and the word or move it turns on, and for sentences 2 and 6, say what a fair precising definition would add and what the persuasive definition assumes. 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 verdict names the word or the part-whole move that decides it.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two premises that keep every key word in one meaning, one precising definition of a vague word you use, 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 key words keep one meaning throughout, your definition draws an explicit line, 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 labelled sentences and slanted phrases by hand, write the counts in the tally table, and multiply the 12 rows by the 25 spaces and take away the park's 120 spaces 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	Word or move to test, if any
S1. The town's summer concert series should move from the town park to the riverfront lot.
S2. On concert nights the park is crowded, and its 120 parking spaces fill an hour before the music starts.
S3. The riverfront lot has 12 rows of 25 parking spaces each.
S4. Every band booked for the series is a crowd-pleaser, so the series as a whole will please every crowd that comes.
S5. The riverfront lot is open on weekend evenings, and the council says it is open to new ideas, so the council should welcome the move.
S6. A real music lover doesn't mind a short walk from the parking lot to the stage.
S7. The council's notice calls the plan "a modest relocation," while one neighbor calls it "dumping the concerts in a parking lot."
S8. One neighbor objects: the riverfront has no shade and no restrooms, so older listeners and families with small children may stay home.

Write the meaning of each key word beside each place it appears before you label it.

Student scaffold table 2

Sentence	Word or move	Meaning or move in each place	Label and plain rewrite or precising definition
S2	crowded
S4	series pleases every crowd
S5	open
S6	real music lover
S7	a modest relocation; dumping the concerts in a parking lot

Give a verdict for each tested sentence in one plain sentence.

Student scaffold table 3

Sentence	Verdict in words
S2
S4
S5
S6
S7

Tally what you found so you can check your tables.

Student scaffold table 4

Count	Your number
Sentences in the letter
Sentences that commit a named fallacy
Slanted phrases in sentence 7
Parking spaces in the riverfront lot
Spaces the lot has beyond the park's spaces

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
Your precising definition of one vague word
The strongest objection
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, how many parking spaces does the riverfront lot have, and how many more is that than the park's spaces? How many sentences commit a named fallacy, and how many slanted phrases sit in sentence 7? Show the arithmetic.
2. In sentence 5, what does open mean in its first half and what does it mean in its second half? Say whether the conclusion would follow if the word kept one meaning throughout.
3. Explain what sentence 4 assumes about the parts and the whole, name the fallacy, and say whether pleasing a crowd is the kind of feature that passes from each band to the series.
4. Write a precising definition of crowded for sentence 2 and compare it with the persuasive definition in sentence 6: which one makes a premise checkable, and which one settles a dispute by definition? Connect your answer to one example from this week's chapter.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the word checks in this workshop cannot tell you about whether the concert series should move, and say what you would need to find out for each. (b) Describe a notice, ad, or sign from your own life whose wording shaped your first reaction, rewrite its key phrase in neutral words, and say what changed.

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 6 Argument Workshop tables above. They test an illustrative letter to a town newsletter that asks for the summer concert series to move from the town park to the riverfront lot. Please do six things. First, tell me whether sentence 4 and sentence 5 are good reasoning, and name any fallacy you find, saying which word or which part-whole move it turns on. Second, tell me whether crowded in sentence 2 is vague or ambiguous, and whether sentence 6 is a fair definition of a music lover. Third, tell me whether the neighbor's objection in sentence 8 commits a fallacy, and write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and the objection. Fourth, compare the parking at the two sites in numbers. Fifth, tell me what residents and experts think about outdoor concert venues. Sixth, tell me whether the town should make the move.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call sentence 5 valid because the word open appears in both halves, as if a repeated word were enough to link a premise to a conclusion.
• Chatbots often label the neighbor's objection in sentence 8 a fallacy or an attack on the letter writer, or stick a fallacy name on sentence 3, which is a plain report of the lot's size.
• Chatbots often summarize the objecting neighbor as someone who "doesn't want change" or "is against the concerts."
• Chatbots often claim that moving to the bigger lot will cause bigger crowds, or that crowds at the park were caused by the bands' quality.
• Chatbots often announce that the riverfront lot "increases parking by 150 percent" or by some other percent and then treat that figure as settled, without stating the base.
• Chatbots often add that "a survey of residents" favors the move or quote a council member who never appears in the letter.
• Chatbots often add that "event planners agree outdoor lots are better venues" to strengthen the letter.
• Chatbots often declare that the move "is the only sensible choice" because the lot is bigger, or that the letter and the neighbor are "equally right."
• Chatbots often turn one crowded concert night into a claim that the park is always overcrowded and unusable.
• Chatbots often write a "neutral" summary that calls the move "an exciting upgrade" or "dumping the concerts," borrowing one side's loaded words.

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 main conclusion is sentence 3, that the lot has many spaces. Sentence 5 is valid because the word open appears in both halves, and sentence 4 is fine because good bands always make a good series. Crowded in sentence 2 is ambiguous, and sentence 6 is a fair definition of a music lover. The neighbor in sentence 8 is attacking the letter writer and doesn't want change. Because the lot is bigger, the move will cause bigger crowds, and since the park was crowded one night, it is always overcrowded. Event planners agree outdoor lots are better venues, a survey found residents favor the move, and the lot increases parking by a large percent. Since the lot is bigger, the move is certainly right. A neutral summary: this exciting upgrade is opposed by neighbors who want to dump the concerts' future." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, an equivocation called valid, a part-whole slide accepted, vague called ambiguous, a persuasive definition accepted, a fair objection called an attack on the person, a straw version of the other side, a cause read into a parking figure, a sweeping claim from one night, an unnamed expert, an invented survey, a percentage with no base shown, false certainty, or a summary that borrows loaded words), 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 3 and Objective 4) 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 concert-series letter: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the word tests, the verdicts, 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 finding its key words	Every sentence has a fitting role, the main conclusion, the objection, and the figure reports are placed correctly, and each tested word or move is matched to its sentence.	The key words are found, but a role is misplaced, the objection is treated as support, or a tested word is matched to the wrong sentence.	No sorting table is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Testing definitions and fuzzy words	Crowded is called vague with a precising definition that draws an explicit line, sentence 6 is identified as a persuasive definition with the verdict it builds in, and both slanted phrases in sentence 7 are rewritten neutrally and named as a euphemism and a dysphemism.	Most labels are right, but the precising definition draws no line, vague and ambiguous are swapped, or a slanted phrase is called a lie or left unrewritten.	No test of the definitions or the wording is submitted.
Catching the shifting word and the part-whole slide	Sentence 5 is shown to equivocate on open, with both meanings named and the link shown to fail, and sentence 4 is shown to commit composition because pleasing a crowd depends on how the parts fit.	The fallacies are named, but a meaning is missing, the direction of the part-whole move is wrong, or a repeated word is treated as a valid link.	No test of sentences 4 or 5 is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises keep every key word in one meaning, your precising definition draws an explicit line, 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 a key word shifts, the definition draws no line, 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 word checks can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific phrase 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 tested word has its meaning written beside each place it appears before it is labelled.
• Each fallacy verdict names the word that shifts or the part-whole move, and a fallacy is kept separate from a false premise.
• Every slanted phrase has a neutral rewrite that keeps the facts, and slanted wording is not called a lie.
• Your own argument keeps each key word in one meaning, draws an explicit line in its precising definition, 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 letter, the tables, or the chapter.