Week 7 — Reasons That Miss: Testing Relevance in a Letter and an Ad

Assignment 7 of the term — catch reasons that miss the point, state an objection fairly and place it on a map, weigh an appeal to authority, and explain to someone new why a famous name and a taste test are not evidence about memory.

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 2 you learned to put an argument in standard form and to map an objection as an arrow marked "against"; this week you learned to ask whether each reason bears on the conclusion at all. 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 letter to a town newsletter, with no real town or person behind it: "The town pool should stay open 2 extra hours each evening this summer. Each extra evening needs 3 lifeguards for those 2 hours, paid 19 dollars an hour. We can ignore the parks director's warning about the budget; he has never even swum a lap. The director says the extra hours would use money set aside for repairing the pool's pumps, but opponents want the town's kids stuck indoors all summer."

Your second text is an illustrative ad for a study drink, with no real product behind it: "Our study drink sharpens your memory: a famous singer swears by it! At a campus tasting, 42 of 60 students said they liked the taste. Don't be the one who fails a final because you skipped it."

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

1. The letter says each extra evening needs 3 lifeguards for 2 extra hours. How many lifeguard hours does each extra evening need?
2. Using the lifeguard hours from Problem 1, how many dollars does each extra evening cost at 19 dollars an hour?
3. The ad says 42 of 60 students at the tasting said they liked the taste. What percentage of the students said they liked it?
4. Of the same 60 students, how many did not say they liked the taste?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name the fallacy in the letter's third sentence, run the relevance test on it (if that premise were true, would it bear on the conclusion?), and name the director's real reason for the warning.
• Problem 2: name the fallacy in the words "opponents want the town's kids stuck indoors all summer," state the director's real objection fairly in one sentence, and describe in words where that objection sits on an argument map of the letter and where the distorted version would land.
• Problem 3: name the fallacy in "a famous singer swears by it," run the three checks for an appeal to authority and say which one fails, and say whether the tasting percentage you found bears on whether the drink sharpens memory.
• Problem 4: name the appeal in the ad's last sentence and say what it offers in place of evidence, then write the message to the friend described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has never studied logic sees the ad and asks, "A famous singer drinks it and most students liked it, so it must help on exams, right?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words why neither the singer nor the tasting shows that the drink sharpens memory, reports the percentage you found and how many students did not say they liked the taste, and names one limit: the ad offers no evidence about memory at all, so whether the drink helps is still unknown. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a shoe ad that says "A star basketball player wears these, so they'll make you faster." Model answer: "The player knows basketball, not how shoes affect speed, so wearing them isn't evidence they make anyone faster. If the player is paid to wear them, that is one more reason to look for an independent test. Before you buy, look for a comparison of runners in these shoes and runners in other shoes."

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

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the friend 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 fallacy name and the director's real objection 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 calls the letter's third sentence a straw man, or calls every appeal to an expert a fallacy, 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 the fallacies of relevance: the attack on the person, the straw man, the appeal to unqualified authority, and the appeal to fear, along with stating an objection fairly and placing it on an argument map. 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, town, school, company, or product, and never use logic symbols. Do not teach any fallacy of presumption, the slippery slope, or the after-this fallacy.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The texts: an illustrative letter to a town newsletter, "The town pool should stay open 2 extra hours each evening this summer. Each extra evening needs 3 lifeguards for those 2 hours, paid 19 dollars an hour. We can ignore the parks director's warning about the budget; he has never even swum a lap. The director says the extra hours would use money set aside for repairing the pool's pumps, but opponents want the town's kids stuck indoors all summer." And an illustrative study-drink ad, "Our study drink sharpens your memory: a famous singer swears by it! At a campus tasting, 42 of 60 students said they liked the taste. Don't be the one who fails a final because you skipped it."
PROBLEM P1: The letter says each extra evening needs 3 lifeguards for 2 extra hours. How many lifeguard hours does each extra evening need?
PROBLEM P2: Using the lifeguard hours from Problem 1, how many dollars does each extra evening cost at 19 dollars an hour?
PROBLEM P3: The ad says 42 of 60 students at the tasting said they liked the taste. What percentage of the students said they liked it?
PROBLEM P4: Of the same 60 students, how many did not say they liked the taste?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, name the fallacy in the letter's third sentence, run the relevance test on it, and name the director's real reason; for P2, name the fallacy in "opponents want the town's kids stuck indoors all summer," state the director's real objection fairly, and describe in words where it sits on an argument map of the letter; for P3, name the fallacy in "a famous singer swears by it," run the three checks for an appeal to authority, and say whether the tasting percentage bears on the memory claim; for P4, name the appeal in the ad's last sentence and say what it offers in place of evidence. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend explaining why neither the singer nor the tasting shows the drink sharpens memory, reporting the percentage and the number of students who did not say they liked the taste, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), relevance 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 message to the friend only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct lifeguard hours figure, cost of an extra evening, percentage, or count of students = 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 appeal named with what it offers in place of evidence AND a message to the friend that explains why neither the singer nor the tasting shows the drink sharpens memory, 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 letter's third sentence a straw man 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 message to the friend 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 letter or the ad 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 name a fallacy, ask me what the premise would have to say to bear on the conclusion, and when I state the director's objection, ask me whether the director would accept my wording. 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 friend 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 friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the letter's argument map that shows the conclusion, the director's real objection as an arrow marked against, and the distorted version off the map, with a short note that says each 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 7 skills — naming the attack on the person, the straw man, the appeal to unqualified authority, and the appeal to fear, running the relevance test, stating an objection fairly and placing it on an argument map, and explaining to someone new why a famous name is not evidence — 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 friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the letter and the ad 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 letter and the ad 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