Week 11 Discussion — Fair Number or Misleading Number? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A number can be true and still leave a reader with the wrong picture. Whether a writer should lead with the percent or the percentage points, the relative risk or the absolute one, is a real judgment call, and reasonable people make it differently, which is why the course keys the arithmetic and leaves the judgment to discussion.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: An illustrative campus post reads: "Support for overnight hours jumped 20 percent in one year, so the library should open around the clock." The random sample behind it found 50 percent in favor last year and 60 percent this year. First name the post's premise and its conclusion. Then argue whether "jumped 20 percent" is a fair way to report the change or a misleading one, what a fairer sentence would say, and whether the number, read correctly, gives real support to the conclusion. You are judging how the number is used, not whether the library should stay open.
Option B: Choose one number you have met in an ad, a product page, an app notification, a workplace report, or a health headline (no politicians, parties, campaigns, election polls, news outlets, vaccines, or anyone's real name). Say what conclusion the number is offered to support, run this week's four questions on it (points or percent, relative or absolute and out of what base, how many of the positives, and where the axis starts and what the window leaves out), and argue whether the number is presented fairly or in a way that misleads.
There is no single right answer here about which number a writer should lead with. What the course settles is the arithmetic: a rise from 50 percent to 60 percent is 10 percentage points and a 20 percent increase, and a fair report gives both. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, name the post's premise and conclusion, work the change from 50 percent to 60 percent both ways, say whether "jumped 20 percent" is fair or misleading, and write a fairer sentence. For Option B, describe the number in your own words, name the conclusion it supports, run the four questions, and say whether the presentation is fair.
- Say in one sentence what the presentation leaves out: the percentage points, the base, the count of positives, or the full axis or time window.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (percentage points, percent change, absolute risk, relative risk, base rate, false positive, natural frequencies, truncated axis, stretched scale, cherry-picked time window) correctly.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep real people's names, election polls, vaccines, and live political questions out of your examples.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: offer the strongest case against a classmate's judgment, name a missing number they did not ask for, or rewrite their example's number so it reports both ways. "Nice post!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. The premise is that support jumped 20 percent, and the conclusion is that the library should open around the clock. Support went from 50 percent to 60 percent, which is 10 percentage points and a 20 percent increase, so the post's number is true but tells only half. A fairer sentence would say support rose 10 percentage points, from 50 percent to 60 percent. Read that way, the number shows growing support, but it does not by itself show that overnight hours are worth their cost.
Notice how it names the premise and conclusion, works the change both ways, and judges the presentation without taking a side on the library. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | The conclusion the number supports is named, the number is worked or checked both ways, and the judgment on its presentation is said in words with the reason it turns on | A judgment appears, but the number is checked only one way or the conclusion it supports is not named | Missing, off-topic, or no judgment |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses percentage points, percent change, relative risk, absolute risk, base rate, false positive, or truncated axis precisely, and keeps a true number apart from a misleading presentation | Uses a term loosely, or swaps percent and percentage points without noticing | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that press a classmate's judgment with a strong counterpoint, name a missing number, or rewrite a number so it reports both ways | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com