Week 7 Argument Workshop: Testing the Reasons in a Letter About a Tool-Lending Shed

Part 1 — The Big Picture

An argument can fail even when every sentence in it is true, because a reason can miss the point: it can attack the person who disagrees, answer a view nobody holds, or lean on a famous name from the wrong field. This week you learned to run the relevance test, to tell a fair point about testimony from an attack on the person, to map the real objection before you answer it, and to check an appeal to authority. In this workshop you lay out a short letter proposing a tool-lending shed, test each reason for relevance, place the real objection on a map, 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 proposing a neighborhood tool-lending shed, which sentences give reasons that bear on the proposal, and which attack a person, answer a view nobody stated, or lean on an authority from the wrong field?

Workshop data: Eight sentences from an illustrative letter proposing a neighborhood tool-lending shed

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

• Rows: 8 sentences, one row each in the sorting table
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the reason to test
• Source text: the full letter: Our neighborhood should open a tool-lending shed in the empty lot beside the community garden. Members would pay 10 dollars a year, and the shed would stock about 30 tools. When we asked around the block, 34 of the 40 households said they would borrow a tool at least once a year. The council member who opposes the shed can't even keep her own yard tidy, so her objection doesn't count. The hardware-store owner says the shed is a bad idea, but he sells tools, so we can ignore his reasons. Opponents want every family to buy a lawn mower it will use twice a year. A famous chef on a cooking show says sharing tools builds community, so the shed will bring us together. One neighbor objects: tools in a shared shed can break or go missing, and someone would have to pay for repairs and replacements.

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 proposes, 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 neighborhood 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 reason 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, exactly one is labelled the objection, and every row has a role.
3. Fill in the relevance table: for sentences 4 to 7, write what the premise is about, ask whether it would bear on the conclusion if it were true, and name the fallacy or say that the reason is fair. 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 sentence has its relevance question answered in words before it is labelled.
4. Fill in the map table: describe in words the conclusion box, the support boxes, and the objection in sentence 8 as an arrow marked against, and say where the claim in sentence 6 would land. 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: The objection's arrow points at a claim that is on the map, and the claim in sentence 6 is shown to have no box to hit.
5. 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; record the count. In another cell, divide the 34 households by the 40 households and multiply by 100; in the next cell, multiply the 34 households by the 10-dollar yearly fee; in a third cell, take the 34 households away from the 40. 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 count matches the rows you labelled by hand, and the percentage, the yearly fees, and the households who would not borrow each appear in their own cells.
6. Write your own short argument on the same question in the build table: a conclusion, two premises that each bear on it, the strongest objection someone could raise stated as its holders would state it, 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: Each premise passes the relevance test, the objection is stated as fairly as its best defender would state it, and the reply engages it.
7. Paste your completed tables into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, then check its answer against the letter, your tables, and this week's chapter, or complete the equivalent route's marked-up analysis instead. 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 quoted at least two of the chatbot's statements, or of the printed analysis, and corrected each with evidence.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available.

Count the labelled sentences by hand, write the count in the tally table, and work the percentage, the yearly fees, and the households who would not borrow with the steps shown on paper. 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	Reason to test, if any
S1. Our neighborhood should open a tool-lending shed in the empty lot beside the community garden.
S2. Members would pay 10 dollars a year, and the shed would stock about 30 tools.
S3. When we asked around the block, 34 of the 40 households said they would borrow a tool at least once a year.
S4. The council member who opposes the shed can't even keep her own yard tidy, so her objection doesn't count.
S5. The hardware-store owner says the shed is a bad idea, but he sells tools, so we can ignore his reasons.
S6. Opponents want every family to buy a lawn mower it will use twice a year.
S7. A famous chef on a cooking show says sharing tools builds community, so the shed will bring us together.
S8. One neighbor objects: tools in a shared shed can break or go missing, and someone would have to pay for repairs and replacements.

Run the relevance test on each tested sentence before you label it.

Student scaffold table 2

Sentence	What the premise is about	Would it bear on the conclusion if true?	Label: named fallacy or fair reason
S4
S5
S6
S7

Describe the letter's map in words so the objection lands where it belongs.

Student scaffold table 3

Part of the map	What it says	Arrow, and what it points at
Conclusion box
Support boxes
Objection in S8
Claim in S6

Tally what you found so you can check your tables.

Student scaffold table 4

Count	Your number
Sentences that commit a named fallacy
Percentage of the households asked who would borrow
Yearly fees if those households join
Households asked who would not borrow

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
The strongest objection, stated fairly
Your reply

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your tally table, what percentage of the households asked said they would borrow a tool, how many dollars a year would those households pay in fees, and how many households asked would not borrow? How many sentences commit a named fallacy? Show the arithmetic.
2. Run the relevance test on sentences 4 and 5. For each, say what the premise is about, whether it would bear on the conclusion if it were true, and which version of the attack on the person it is. Then say what the store owner's sales could fairly be a reason to do.
3. Compare sentence 6 with sentence 8. State the objection in sentence 8 as fairly as its holder would, describe in words where it sits on the letter's map, and explain why sentence 6 is a straw man that leaves the real objection unanswered.
4. Run the three checks for an appeal to authority on the chef in sentence 7 and say which one fails. Then compare it with one appeal from this week's chapter that passes all three checks, and say what makes the difference.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the relevance checks in this workshop cannot tell you about whether the shed is a good idea, and say what you would need to find out for each. (b) Describe a reply you have heard, in a meeting, a group chat, or a review, that answered a person instead of their reasons, and rewrite it so it answers the reasons.

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 7 Argument Workshop tables above. They test an illustrative letter to a neighborhood newsletter that proposes a tool-lending shed. Please do six things. First, tell me whether sentences 4 and 5 are good reasons against the council member and the store owner, and name any fallacy. Second, tell me whether sentence 6 fairly states what opponents think, and whether sentence 8 commits a fallacy. Third, tell me whether the chef in sentence 7 is a good authority on whether the shed will bring the neighborhood together. Fourth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and the objection. Fifth, tell me what the households' answers in sentence 3 show, with any percentage you use, and what research says about tool-lending programs. Sixth, tell me whether the neighborhood should open the shed.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the letter's reasoning valid as a whole because its conclusion sounds sensible, treating a conclusion they agree with as proof that every step connects.
• Chatbots often call sentence 8 an attack on the person or a fallacy of fear, or treat noting the store owner's sales as fair and the council member's yard as fair alike.
• Chatbots often accept sentence 6 as a fair summary of the opposition, or summarize the objecting neighbor as someone who is against sharing.
• Chatbots often claim that the shed will cause neighbors to grow closer, or that the households' willingness to borrow was caused by the chef's comment.
• Chatbots often report that the shed has support from a large percent of the neighborhood without naming the base, or turn the answers into a change over time the letter never gives.
• Chatbots often add that research shows tool libraries cut household spending or strengthen neighborhoods, or quote the council member, who is never quoted in the letter.
• Chatbots often treat the famous chef as a reasonable authority because the chef is well known and sounds warm about sharing.
• Chatbots often declare that the shed is the right choice because most households would borrow, or that the letter and the objecting neighbor are equally right.
• Chatbots often turn the neighbor's worry into a claim that shared tools always get broken, or the chef's remark into a rule that sharing always builds community.
• Chatbots often write a neutral summary that calls the shed a wonderful community project or calls the objection fear of change, borrowing one side's framing.

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 most households would borrow. The letter's reasoning is valid because its conclusion is sensible. Sentence 4 is fair, since someone with a messy yard has no standing to judge a shed, and sentence 8 is an attack on the letter writer by a neighbor who is against sharing. Sentence 6 sums up the opponents well. The chef in sentence 7 is a trusted public figure, so the shed will bring people together. Most of the neighborhood supports the shed, research shows tool libraries save families money, and the shed will cause neighbors to grow closer. Since one neighbor worries about breakage, shared tools always break. The shed is certainly the right choice. A neutral summary: this wonderful community project is opposed only by people afraid of change." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, a sensible conclusion read as proof of valid reasoning, an attack on the person accepted, a fair objection called an attack on the person, a straw version of the other side accepted, an authority outside the field accepted, a percentage with no base, an invented study, a cause read into willingness to borrow, a sweeping claim from one worry, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), 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 2 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 tool-shed letter: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the relevance tests, the map, 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 mapping the objection	Every sentence has a fitting role, the main conclusion, the objection, and the figure reports are placed correctly, and the map describes the objection in sentence 8 as an arrow marked against pointing at a claim on the map while the claim in sentence 6 has no box to hit.	The roles are mostly right, but the objection is treated as support, the map leaves out the arrow's target, or sentence 6 is placed on the map as if someone held it.	No sorting or map table is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Running the relevance test on the attacks on the person	Sentences 4 and 5 each have the relevance question answered in words, sentence 4 is named the attack on the person and sentence 5 the circumstantial attack, and the store owner's sales are treated as a reason to check his reasons, not to ignore them.	The fallacies are named, but the relevance question is skipped, the two versions are swapped, or the fair point about testimony is missing.	No relevance test of sentences 4 or 5 is submitted.
Catching the straw man and weighing the authority	Sentence 6 is named a straw man with the real objection from sentence 8 stated fairly beside it, and sentence 7 is run through the three checks with the failing one named.	One of the two is handled fully, or both are named without the fair restatement or the checks.	No test of sentences 6 or 7 is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises each pass the relevance test, 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 premise does not bear on the conclusion, 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 relevance checks can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific reply 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, exactly one is labelled the main conclusion, and exactly one is labelled the objection.
• Every tested sentence has the relevance question answered in words before it is labelled.
• Each fallacy verdict names what the premise is about and why it does not bear on the conclusion, and a fallacy is kept separate from a false premise.
• A fact about a person is treated as a reason to weigh testimony, never as a refutation, and fair criticism is not called an attack on the person.
• The objection in sentence 8 is stated fairly and placed on the map as an arrow marked against before any reply is judged.
• Your own argument uses premises that bear on its conclusion, 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.