Week 14 — Is the Fair Plan as Sure as It Sounds? A Bias Check on a Club Memo

Assignment 13 of the term — audit a planning memo for confirmation bias, anchoring, overconfidence, and availability, state the strongest objection fairly in standard form, and explain to someone new why a confident plan still needs checking.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based bias check. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned to put an argument in standard form under the principle of charity; this week you learned to catch confirmation bias with a disconfirming test, run an evidence audit, spot motivated reasoning and overconfidence, name the availability heuristic and anchoring, and use four debiasing habits. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Argument Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together on one short text.

The task

Your text is an illustrative memo from a student club's events lead, with no real club, school, vendor, or person behind it. The club's own setup log is printed after the memo.

"We should hold the spring fair outdoors on the quad. I searched 'benefits of outdoor events', 'why outdoor fairs draw crowds', 'outdoor fair success stories', and 'best outdoor fair ideas', and 12 of the 15 sources I found favor outdoor events. The tent vendor's price was 900 dollars and is now 720, so the tents are a bargain we can't pass up. Setup will take 2 hours; I'm certain of it. One member objects that our fair was rained out once and says we should never risk the weather again, but that's one story."

The club's setup log (illustrative): the last 4 outdoor setups took 5, 7, 8, and 4 hours. A second search, run with phrases about the drawbacks of outdoor fairs, is described in Problem 4.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic and quoting the sentences you use:

1. Of the 15 sources the events lead found, 12 favor outdoor events. What percentage of the sources found favor outdoor events?
2. The tent price was 900 dollars and is now 720 dollars. By what percent of the old price has the price dropped?
3. The club's last 4 outdoor setups took 5, 7, 8, and 4 hours. What is the average setup time, in hours?
4. Of the first 15 sources, 3 favor holding the fair indoors. A second search finds 12 more sources; 4 of them favor outdoor events and the rest favor indoors. How many of all the sources favor indoors?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: run an evidence audit on the memo's search, name the bias it shows, and say what the percentage can and cannot show when every search phrase asked for one side.
• Problem 2: name the anchor and the shortcut it triggers, and say what question the discount leaves open and how you would answer it.
• Problem 3: name the bias in "Setup will take 2 hours; I'm certain of it," compare the plan with the log, and name the debiasing habit that would have caught it.
• Problem 4: consider the opposite by writing the member's strongest objection in standard form, under the principle of charity, and saying where it goes on the map; say what the shortcut is in the member's own "rained out once" reason and what number would test it; say what the indoor count from both searches does and does not show; and then write the message to the friend described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has never studied logic reads the memo and asks, "Most of the sources agree, the tents are on sale, and the lead is certain about setup, so outdoors is the smart call, right?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words why the memo's confidence has not yet been earned, reports the percentage of sources that favor outdoor events and how those sources were found, and names one limit: the search asked for only one side, or the setup plan ignores the club's own record. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a phone-plan ad that says "Was 60 dollars a month, now 45 — our happiest customers say it's the best deal around." Model answer: "The 60 dollars is a starting number the company picked, so the 45 can feel cheap whether or not it is. The happy customers are ones the company chose to quote. Before switching, compare the plan with what other carriers charge for the same data. Until then, treat the ad as a claim to check, not as a bargain."

Use that pattern for the friend, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations, write each bias and habit out by its course name, write the objection in standard form, and quote the sentences you use when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you. A chatbot can lean one way too: if it tells you which side of the fair question is right, set that aside and keep to the bias check.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory critical thinking course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about bias in decision-making: confirmation bias and the disconfirming test, the evidence audit and considering the opposite, motivated reasoning and the same-standard test, overconfidence, the availability heuristic, anchoring, and the four debiasing habits (consider the opposite, look for the case that would disprove my view, write the prediction down first, and decide in advance what would change my mind). Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a citation, a website, or a quotation, never name a real person, school, company, news outlet, or product, and never use logic symbols. Take no side on whether the fair should be held outdoors or indoors. Do not teach ethical frameworks or steelmanning by name.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The text is an illustrative memo from a student club's events lead: "We should hold the spring fair outdoors on the quad. I searched 'benefits of outdoor events', 'why outdoor fairs draw crowds', 'outdoor fair success stories', and 'best outdoor fair ideas', and 12 of the 15 sources I found favor outdoor events. The tent vendor's price was 900 dollars and is now 720, so the tents are a bargain we can't pass up. Setup will take 2 hours; I'm certain of it. One member objects that our fair was rained out once and says we should never risk the weather again, but that's one story." The club's setup log (illustrative): the last 4 outdoor setups took 5, 7, 8, and 4 hours.
PROBLEM P1: Of the 15 sources the events lead found, 12 favor outdoor events. What percentage of the sources found favor outdoor events?
PROBLEM P2: The tent price was 900 dollars and is now 720 dollars. By what percent of the old price has the price dropped?
PROBLEM P3: The club's last 4 outdoor setups took 5, 7, 8, and 4 hours. What is the average setup time, in hours?
PROBLEM P4: Of the first 15 sources, 3 favor holding the fair indoors. A second search finds 12 more sources; 4 of them favor outdoor events and the rest favor indoors. How many of all the sources favor indoors?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, run an evidence audit on the memo's search, name the bias, and say what the percentage can and cannot show; for P2, name the anchor and the shortcut, and say what question the discount leaves open and how to answer it; for P3, name the bias in the certain 2-hour plan, compare it with the log, and name the debiasing habit that would have caught it; for P4, write the member's strongest objection in standard form under the principle of charity and place it on the map, name the shortcut in the member's own "rained out once" reason and the number that would test it, and say what the indoor count does and does not show. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend explaining why the memo's confidence has not been earned, reporting the percentage of sources that favor outdoor events and how they were found, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), bias evaluation (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing the evidence so it can be checked (16 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 2.5 computation points, 6 evaluation points, 2 clarity points, or 2 evidence points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the friend only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct percentage of sources that favor outdoor events, percent drop from the old tent price, average setup time, or count of all sources that favor indoors = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing reply or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
EVALUATION UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets every part named for that problem = 2; at least one part but not all = 1; none = 0. For P4, BOTH the objection in standard form placed on the map, together with the member's shortcut and its test and what the indoor count shows, AND a message to the friend that explains why the confidence is unearned, reports the percentage and how the sources were found, and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate evaluation = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, treating a count of sources as a verdict is not accurate, and treating a bias found in the memo as proof that outdoors is the wrong choice is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not an evaluation error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to critical thinking, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the friend with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
EVIDENCE UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps, with every quoted sentence matching the memo or the setup log as printed = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, step, or quotation, or a quotation that drifts from the text = 1; a bare figure or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. When I name a bias, ask me which sentence in the memo shows it, and when I write the objection in standard form, ask me whether its holders would accept my wording. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four computations and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned total; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the total for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations, quotations, and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four computations, their brief interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the argument map with the objection drawn as an arrow marked "against", with a short note that says each verdict in words; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

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.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 14 skills — running an evidence audit and naming confirmation bias, naming an anchor and checking a discount against prices elsewhere, catching overconfidence against a track record, naming the availability heuristic, stating the strongest objection fairly in standard form, and explaining to someone new why a confident plan still needs checking — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the memo and the setup log as printed. Write a second draft and add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and check any sentence it quotes against the memo as printed here. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com