Week 12 Argument Workshop: Checking the Sources Behind a Club's Memory-Lamp Email

Part 1 — The Big Picture

An email can pile up a famous fan, a survey, a scientist, and a citation and ask a group to spend its money. Whether that deserves trust depends on where each piece came from and whether it has earned trust on the claim at hand. This week you learned to run four credibility questions on one claim at a time, to trace a claim to its primary source, to leave a page and see what independent sources say, to read a quotation against its full sentence, and to treat a chatbot's citation as unverified until you find it. In this workshop you lay out a short club email, check its numbers, run the four questions on each of its sources, trace its quotation and its citation, 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 study-club email, have the streamer, the lamp maker's survey, the news-site quotation, and the chatbot's citation earned trust on the claim that a memory lamp works, and does the treasurer's objection bear on the club's decision?

Workshop data: Seven sentences and an appendix from an illustrative study-club email about a memory lamp

Source: An illustrative study-club email, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4 with its appendix printed here; it comes from no real person, club, company, streamer, news site, scientist, or journal.

• Rows: 7 sentences, one row each in the sorting table, plus an appendix of 3 findings gathered by a club member
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the check to run
• Source text: the full email: The study club should spend its budget on memory lamps for the group study room. A popular gaming streamer with a huge following says the lamp doubled her memory. The lamp maker's website reports that 45 of the 60 buyers it surveyed said they remembered more. A news site quoted a sleep scientist saying "bright light can help alertness." I asked a chatbot, and it cited a journal article about memory lamps, with authors, a title, and a year. The club treasurer objects: 8 lamps at 35 dollars each would use most of the budget, and the club has not seen any test of the lamp that its maker did not run. With a famous fan, a survey, a scientist, and a citation behind it, the lamp is proven to work.
• Appendix: Appendix to the email, gathered by a club member: the news site's full sentence reads "Bright light can help alertness in the morning, but it does nothing proven for memory, and at night it can make sleep harder." A search of the journal the chatbot named, and of a library database, found no article with that title. Independent sources describe the lamp's website as run by the company that makes and sells the lamp.

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 email in the first table of Part 4 twice: once for what it proposes, and once sentence by sentence. Then read the appendix 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 email asks the club to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a source offered as support, 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 email's numbers into a free spreadsheet, one per cell. In separate cells, divide the buyers who said they remembered more by the buyers surveyed and multiply by 100, subtract to find the buyers who did not say so, multiply the number of lamps by the price of one lamp, and subtract the quoted words from the full sentence's words. Copy each figure into the numbers 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 four figures appears in its own cell, and each matches the same step worked by hand.
4. Fill in the source table: for the streamer, the maker's website, the news-site quotation, and the chatbot's citation, answer each of the four credibility questions for the claim that the lamp works, then give a verdict in words. 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 source has an entry under all four questions and a one-sentence verdict that names the question it turns on.
5. Fill in the trace table: for the quotation in S4, write the full sentence from the appendix and say what the cut left out; for the citation in S5, say where you would look for the article and what the appendix found. 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 quotation row names the missing part of the sentence, and the citation row says whether the article was found.
6. Write your own short argument on the email'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 buying the lamps; 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 replies 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 four figures in the numbers table by hand, with each step 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 email 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. The study club should spend its budget on memory lamps for the group study room.
S2. A popular gaming streamer with a huge following says the lamp doubled her memory.
S3. The lamp maker's website reports that 45 of the 60 buyers it surveyed said they remembered more.
S4. A news site quoted a sleep scientist saying "bright light can help alertness."
S5. I asked a chatbot, and it cited a journal article about memory lamps, with authors, a title, and a year.
S6. The club treasurer objects: 8 lamps at 35 dollars each would use most of the budget, and the club has not seen any test of the lamp that its maker did not run.
S7. With a famous fan, a survey, a scientist, and a citation behind it, the lamp is proven to work.

Check the email's numbers so every figure you use later carries its base.

Student scaffold table 2

What the email or appendix gives	Your arithmetic	Figure
Buyers surveyed by the maker who said they remembered more: 45 of 60
Buyers surveyed who did not say they remembered more
Cost of 8 lamps at 35 dollars each
Words in the news site's full sentence: 23; words quoted in S4: 5

Run the four credibility questions on each source, one claim at a time: does the lamp work?

Student scaffold table 3

Source	Relevant expertise in this field?	Track record of accuracy?	Independence from the outcome?	Evidence shown rather than asserted?	Verdict in words
S2, the streamer
S3, the maker's website and survey
S4, the news site's quotation
S5, the chatbot's citation

Trace the quotation and the citation back toward where they started.

Student scaffold table 4

Item	Where it came from	What the original says, or whether it was found	Verdict in words
S4, the quoted words
S5, the cited article

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 numbers table, what share of the buyers the maker surveyed said they remembered more, how many did not, what would 8 lamps cost, and how many of the news site's words did S4 leave out? Show the arithmetic.
2. Using your source table, which of the four credibility questions does each source fail for the claim that the lamp works, and which detail in the email or the appendix shows each failure? Name the fallacy in S2.
3. Explain how cutting the news site's sentence changes its meaning even though the quoted words are real, say what the appendix shows about the chatbot's citation and what that makes it, and say whether the treasurer's objection in S6 is a fallacy or a fair point to weigh.
4. Compare the lamp maker's website with this week's illustrative supplement sales page from the chapter: which credibility questions do both fail, and why? Then describe a source with relevant expertise and no stake in the sale whose test of the lamp would deserve the club's trust.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the source checks in this workshop cannot tell you about whether the lamp works, and say what you would need to find out for each. (b) Describe a source you have trusted on a claim outside its field, in an ad, a review, or a post, and say which of the four questions it would fail.

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 12 Argument Workshop tables above. They check the sources behind an illustrative study-club email that says a memory lamp is proven to work. Please do seven things. First, tell me whether the email's reasoning in S7 is valid. Second, tell me whether the treasurer's objection in S6 is a fallacy. Third, run the four credibility questions on the streamer, the lamp maker's website, the news-site quotation, and the chatbot's citation. Fourth, tell me what the maker's survey shows, with any figures you use. Fifth, tell me what research says about memory lamps. Sixth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the email and the objection. Seventh, tell me whether the club should buy the lamps.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the email's reasoning valid because, if the lamp worked, buyers would report remembering more, and they do.
• Chatbots often call the treasurer's objection an attack on the person or say the treasurer is against spending.
• Chatbots often summarize the objection as the treasurer not wanting the club to buy anything.
• Chatbots often say the survey shows the lamp improves memory because buyers who used it said they remembered more.
• Chatbots often report that most people remember more with the lamp, or give a percent with no base and no word on who was asked.
• Chatbots often repeat or invent a study on memory lamps, or quote the sleep scientist beyond the four quoted words.
• Chatbots often treat the streamer's endorsement or the maker's website as strong support because of the size of the following or the look of the site.
• Chatbots often declare that the lamp certainly works, or that the email and the treasurer are equally well supported.
• Chatbots often accept the streamer's story that the lamp doubled her memory as good evidence that it works for students.
• Chatbots often write a neutral summary that calls the lamp a science-backed purchase or calls the treasurer overly cautious.

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 email, 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 email, printed here in full: "The email's main conclusion is S3, that buyers remembered more. Its reasoning is valid, because if the lamp works, buyers would report remembering more, and they do. The streamer's endorsement settles it, since someone with that many followers would not back a bad product, and her memory doubled, so anyone's will. 75 percent of students remember more with the lamp, and buyers who used it remembered more, so the lamp causes better memory. The scientist agreed that bright light helps alertness, and the chatbot found a journal article that proves the lamp works. A 2021 study also found the lamp improves exam results by 30 percent. The treasurer's objection is an attack on the person, since treasurers always oppose spending, and the treasurer wants the club to have no equipment at all. The lamp is certain to help every member. A neutral summary: a smart, science-backed purchase opposed only by an overly cautious treasurer." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, an invalid step called valid, a source trusted for its fame, a generalization from one story, a share given without its base or its source, a cause read into a survey, a cut quotation read as agreement, a fabricated citation and an invented study, a fair objection called a fallacy, a straw version of the other side, false certainty, or a summary that takes a side), cite the evidence from the email, 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 7) 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 memory-lamp email: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the numbers check, the source check, the trace, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation of the same email, 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 email out and checking its numbers	Every sentence has a fitting role, the main conclusion, the sources offered as support, the objection, and the restated conclusion are placed correctly, and the four figures match the email and its appendix with the arithmetic shown.	The roles are mostly right, but a source is treated as the conclusion, the objection is treated as support, or one or two figures are missing or miscomputed.	No sorting table or numbers check is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Running the four credibility questions on each source	Each of the four sources is checked against all four questions for the claim that the lamp works, each failure is tied to a detail in the email or the appendix, and S2 is named the appeal to unqualified authority (ad verecundiam).	Some sources are checked against some questions, or the failures are named without the detail that shows them, or the fallacy in S2 is not named.	No source is checked against the four questions.
Tracing the quotation and the citation	The quotation in S4 is set beside its full sentence with the missing warning named, and the citation in S5 is called fabricated because the journal and a library database hold no such article.	One of the two is handled fully, or both are named without the full sentence or the search the appendix reports.	No trace 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 and its source, 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 streamer or the maker's survey as if they settled the question, 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 email, 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 a source check can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific source 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 figure in the numbers table is shown with its base and its source, and the survey's share is described as coming from buyers the maker chose to ask.
• Each source in the source table is checked against all four questions for the one claim that the lamp works before it gets a verdict.
• The quotation in S4 is compared with the full sentence, and the citation in S5 is treated as unverified until the article is found.
• The objection in S6 is stated fairly and treated as a point 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, citation, 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 email, the appendix, the tables, or the chapter.