Week 13 Discussion — How Much Does a Passed Test Prove? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A prediction comes true, and it feels like the case is closed. But a passed test can be read as proof only by affirming the consequent, and how much a pass should raise your confidence is a real judgment call, which is why the course keys the forms and leaves the weighing 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 roommate guesses that a kitchen smoke alarm chirps because its battery is low, puts in a new battery, and the chirping stops. "So the battery was low," the roommate says. First name the form of that reasoning and say whether it is valid. Then argue how much the passed test should raise your confidence in the battery hypothesis: name at least one rival explanation, say what further test would separate the rivals, and say what outcome of that test would count against the battery. You are weighing how much support the test gives, not ruling on the alarm itself.

Option B: Choose one claim about how something works that you have met in an ad, a product page, an app, a workplace, or a household routine (no politicians, parties, campaigns, election polls, news outlets, vaccines, religious claims, or anyone's real name). Say what the claim predicts and what possible observation could count against it, say what it was compared with (a control group, a placebo, blinding, or nothing), name one rival explanation, and argue how much support the claim has so far and what fair test it would need.

There is no single right answer about how much one passed test should count. What the course settles is the form: a failed prediction counts against a hypothesis by modus tollens, a valid form, and a passed prediction read as proof affirms the consequent, an invalid one. 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 form of the roommate's reasoning, say whether it is valid, name at least one rival explanation, describe a further test that could come out against the battery hypothesis, and say how much the passed test should raise your confidence. For Option B, describe the claim in your own words, say what it predicts and what possible observation could count against it, say what it was compared with, name a rival explanation, and say how much support the claim has so far.
• Say in one sentence what fair test would settle more: a further prediction that could fail, a control group, a placebo, or blinding.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (hypothesis, prediction, testable claim, falsifiability, modus tollens, affirming the consequent, control group, placebo, blinding, inference to the best explanation) 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 or religious 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 rival explanation they did not consider, or propose a further test that could come out against their hypothesis. "Nice post!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A. The roommate reasons: if the battery is low, then a new battery will stop the chirping; it stopped; so the battery was low. That affirms the consequent, so it is not valid, though the pass still gives some inductive support. A rival explanation is that taking the alarm down reset it. To separate the two, I would put the old battery back in: if the chirping returns, the battery hypothesis gains support, and if it stays quiet, the reset looks more likely.

Notice how it names the form, keeps "supports" apart from "proves", names a rival, and describes a test that could come out against the hypothesis. 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.

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