Week 10 Argument Workshop: Testing a Memo That Says New Software Causes On-Time Projects

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A memo can line up two numbers, say that one thing causes another, and ask a whole company to act on it. Whether that deserves trust depends on what else differs between the groups being compared. This week you learned to tell a correlation from a causal claim, to check a pattern for a confounding factor, reverse causation, and coincidence, to hold one factor fixed and see whether a gap survives, to catch a cause inferred from timing alone, and to test a slippery slope one link at a time. In this workshop you lay out a short company memo, test its numbers by team experience, test its success story and its warning, 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 company memo, does the pattern in last year's projects show that the new software causes on-time delivery, and which of the memo's other reasons, a success story and a warning about what happens without the switch, bear on its conclusion?

Workshop data: Seven sentences and an appendix from an illustrative company memo about project-tracking software

Source: An illustrative company memo, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4 with its appendix printed here; it comes from no real person, company, team, or client.

• Rows: 7 sentences, one row each in the sorting table, plus an appendix of 80 projects summarized in 4 groups
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the check to run
• Source text: the full memo: Every team in the company should switch to the new project-tracking software next quarter. Last year, 22 of the 40 projects that used the software finished on time, against 14 of the 40 projects that did not. Most of the projects that used the software were run by veteran teams, who volunteered to try it first. The design team started using the software in the spring and won a major client that summer, so the software helped win the client. If we don't switch, deadlines will keep slipping, clients will leave, and the company will have to close. A team lead objects: switching would cost each team two weeks of training, and new teams would fall further behind while they learn. The numbers speak for themselves: the software causes on-time delivery.
• Appendix: Appendix to the memo, by team experience: veteran teams ran 32 projects, 24 with the software (18 on time) and 8 without it (6 on time); new teams ran 48 projects, 16 with the software (4 on time) and 32 without it (8 on time).

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 memo in the first table of Part 4 twice: once for what it proposes, and once sentence by sentence. Then read the appendix line printed beneath the dataset description in Part 2. 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 memo asks the company to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a reported pattern, a background fact, a supporting reason, a predicted chain, the objection, or a restated conclusion, and in the last column name the check you will run, 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. Type the appendix counts into a free spreadsheet, one per cell. In separate cells, divide on-time projects by projects and multiply by 100 for four groups: software projects overall, non-software projects overall, and then the same two groups inside veteran teams and inside new teams. Copy each result into the tally table. 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 of the six shares in the tally table appears in its own cell, and each matches the same step worked by hand.
4. Fill in the confounding table: compare the overall shares, then the shares inside veteran teams and inside new teams, and say in words whether the gap survives once team experience is held fixed. 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 table names the factor that was held fixed and says what happened to the gap inside each kind of team.
5. Fill in the reasons table for S4 and S5: for S4, list what else came before the client win and name the fallacy if there is one; for S5, list each link in the chain and say whether anything backs it. 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: S4 has at least two earlier factors listed, and S5 has each link written out before its verdict.
6. Write your own short argument on the memo's 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 or against switching; the side you take is your choice. 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 build table has a conclusion, two premises, a fair objection, and a reply.
7. Paste your completed tables into one approved chatbot, then paste the critique prompt from Part 6. Check each of its answers against your tables, quote at least two statements, and correct them with evidence. If you take the equivalent route, mark up the printed flawed analysis in Part 6 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: Your critique quotes at least two statements, corrects each with evidence, and names one thing that was right.

Fallback route

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

Work the six shares in the tally table by hand, with each division written out 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 memo comes first: give each of its seven sentences a role before you test anything.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Role in the argument	Check to run, if any
S1. Every team in the company should switch to the new project-tracking software next quarter.
S2. Last year, 22 of the 40 projects that used the software finished on time, against 14 of the 40 projects that did not.
S3. Most of the projects that used the software were run by veteran teams, who volunteered to try it first.
S4. The design team started using the software in the spring and won a major client that summer, so the software helped win the client.
S5. If we don't switch, deadlines will keep slipping, clients will leave, and the company will have to close.
S6. A team lead objects: switching would cost each team two weeks of training, and new teams would fall further behind while they learn.
S7. The numbers speak for themselves: the software causes on-time delivery.

Tally the on-time shares overall and inside each kind of team so you can test the memo's causal claim.

Student scaffold table 2

Group of projects	On time out of projects	Share on time, in percent
All projects with the software	22 of 40
All projects without the software	14 of 40
Veteran teams, with the software	18 of 24
Veteran teams, without the software	6 of 8
New teams, with the software	4 of 16
New teams, without the software	8 of 32

Hold team experience fixed and say what happens to the gap the memo points to.

Student scaffold table 3

Comparison	What you see	Verdict in words
Overall, with against without the software
Inside veteran teams
Inside new teams
The factor behind both, if any

Test the memo's other two reasons: list what else came first and check each link.

Student scaffold table 4

Sentence	What else came first, or the links in the chain	What backs it, if anything	Verdict in words
S4, the design team's client
S5, the warning about not switching

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 share of the projects with the software and of the projects without it finished on time, and what are the same two shares inside veteran teams and inside new teams? Show the arithmetic.
2. Hold team experience fixed. Inside veteran teams and inside new teams, does the gap between software and non-software projects survive? Name the confounding factor, use S3 to say why the software projects were mostly veteran projects, and say why S7 is wrong to read the overall pattern as a cause.
3. Name the fallacy in S4 and list at least two other things that also came before the client win. Then write out each link in S5's chain, say whether anything in the memo backs each link, and say whether S5 is a reasonable slippery slope or an unsupported one.
4. Describe a controlled comparison that would test S1's claim fairly, saying what you would hold fixed and how chance would decide which teams use the software. Then compare the memo's table with this week's hot-weather table from the chapter: what plays the role of hot weather here?
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the checks in this workshop cannot tell you about whether the company should switch, and say what you would need to find out for each. (b) Describe a claim you have seen that one thing causes another, at work, in an ad, or in a review, and say what hidden factor or backward arrow a fairer check would rule out.

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 10 Argument Workshop tables above. They test an illustrative company memo that says new project-tracking software causes on-time projects. Please do seven things. First, tell me whether S7 is right that the software causes on-time delivery, using the appendix's counts by team experience. Second, tell me whether the memo's reasoning is valid. Third, tell me whether the team lead's objection in S6 is a fallacy. Fourth, tell me how strong S4 and S5 are as reasons. Fifth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the memo and the objection. Sixth, compare the on-time shares for projects with and without the software, with any figures you use, and tell me what research says about project-tracking software. Seventh, tell me whether every team should switch.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the memo's reasoning valid because the on-time numbers favor the software, treating a pattern in last year's projects as a guarantee about next quarter.
• Chatbots often call the team lead's objection in S6 a slippery slope or say the team lead is resisting change.
• Chatbots often summarize the objection as opposition to new technology.
• Chatbots often agree with S7 that the software causes on-time delivery because projects that used it finished on time more often.
• Chatbots often report that the software makes projects more likely to finish on time by some amount without saying out of how many projects, or compare the two shares as if one were a change over time.
• Chatbots often add that studies show tracking software raises productivity by some percentage, or quote the design team's client.
• Chatbots often treat the memo as reliable because it comes from company leadership, or treat the design team's success as expert proof.
• Chatbots often declare that every team should certainly switch, or that the memo and the team lead are equally right.
• Chatbots often accept S4 as good evidence that the software helps win clients.
• Chatbots often write a neutral summary that calls the switch a smart upgrade or calls the objection resistance to change.

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 memo, the appendix, 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 memo, printed here in full: "The memo's main conclusion is S2, that software projects finished on time more often. Its reasoning is valid, because the software projects did better. The memo comes from company leadership, so its numbers prove the point, and the software makes projects 55 percent likely to finish on time. On-time delivery rose from 35 percent to 55 percent once teams adopted the software. S6 is a slippery slope from a team lead who resists new technology. The design team's client win proves the software wins clients, and since software projects did better, the software causes on-time delivery. Studies show tracking software raises productivity. Every team should certainly switch. A neutral summary: this forward-looking upgrade is opposed only by people afraid of change." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, a causal claim called valid, a memo trusted for who wrote it, a share given without its base, two groups read as a change over time, a fair objection called a fallacy, a straw version of the other side, one success story treated as evidence, a cause read into a correlation that vanishes by team experience, an invented study, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), cite the evidence from the memo, the appendix, your tables, or this week's chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 4 and Objective 5) 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 software memo: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the tally, the confounding check, the reasons test, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation of the same memo, 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 memo out and tallying its numbers	Every sentence has a fitting role, the main conclusion, the reported pattern, the objection, and the predicted chain are placed correctly, and the tally's six shares match the memo and its appendix with the arithmetic shown.	The roles are mostly right, but the reported pattern is treated as the conclusion, the objection is treated as support, or one or two shares are missing or miscomputed.	No sorting table or tally is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Holding team experience fixed and naming the rival	The overall shares are compared with the shares inside each kind of team, the gap is shown to vanish once experience is held fixed, team experience is named as the confounding factor with S3 used to explain why, and S7's causal reading is rejected for that reason.	The confounding factor is named or the within-team shares are compared, but the gap's disappearance is not tied to the verdict, or the overall pattern is still read as a cause.	No check of the memo's numbers by team experience is submitted.
Testing the timing claim and the chain	S4 is named after this, therefore because of this (post hoc) with at least two earlier factors listed, and S5's links are written out, checked for support, and judged an unsupported slippery slope because none is backed.	One of the two is handled fully, or both are named without the earlier factors or the link-by-link check.	No test of S4 or S5 is submitted.
Building and defending your own argument	Your conclusion and two premises each bear on the question, any figure you cite carries its base, 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 leans on the overall pattern as a cause or on the design-team story, 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 memo, the appendix, 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 causal checks can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific example 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 share in the tally table is shown with its base, the number of projects it comes from.
• The confounding table compares like with like inside each kind of team before it names a cause or rules one out.
• S4 has its earlier factors listed before its verdict, and S5 has each link written out and checked for support.
• The objection in S6 is stated fairly and treated as a cost to weigh, not as a fallacy.
• 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, survey figure, 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 memo, the appendix, the tables, or the chapter.