Week 14 Argument Workshop: A Bias Check on a Hiking Club's Campsite Post

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A post can sound sure of itself because of how its writer searched, which number they saw first, or which story they remember best. This week you learned that confirmation bias tilts a search toward one side, that a disconfirming test is the one that could show you wrong, that anchoring and the availability heuristic are shortcuts that often work and sometimes mislead, that overconfidence ignores a track record, and that considering the opposite means stating the other side at full strength. In this workshop you lay out a short club post, check its numbers against an appendix, name the bias behind each confident sentence and the check that catches it, write the strongest objection in standard form and place it on the map, build a short argument of your own, 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 hiking-club post, do the reviews, the sale price, the flood story, and the drive time support the claim that the lakeside campsite is certain to give the better trip, and how should the club weigh the member's objection?

Workshop data: Seven sentences and an appendix from an illustrative hiking-club post about a campsite

Source: An illustrative hiking-club post, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4 with its appendix printed here; it comes from no real person, club, campground, or reviewer.

• Rows: 7 sentences, one row each in the sorting table, plus an appendix of 3 findings gathered by another club member
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the check to run
• Source text: the full post: Our hiking club should book the lakeside campsite for this year's trip instead of our usual site. I searched "lakeside campsite five-star reviews" and "best things about the lakeside campsite", and 9 of the 10 reviews I found were glowing. The campsite's booking page says a site was 75 dollars a night and is now 60, so this is a deal we can't pass up. A friend's tent flooded at our usual site one year, so that site is a disaster waiting to happen. The drive to the lake takes 2 hours; I'm sure of it. One member objects: the lakeside site costs more a night than our usual site, the drive is longer, and the club has not checked any reviews from people who disliked the lakeside site. Reviewers love it, it's on sale, and our usual site floods, so the lakeside campsite is certain to give us the better trip.
• Appendix: Appendix, gathered by another club member: a second search, using the phrases "lakeside campsite complaints" and "lakeside campsite problems", found 10 more reviews, 4 glowing and 6 negative. Two other campgrounds near the lake list a comparable site at 54 dollars and 62 dollars a night. The club's trip log shows the usual site flooded on 1 of the club's last 8 trips, and the club's last 3 drives to the lake region took 5, 2, and 5 hours.

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 post 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 post asks the club to do.
2. In the Role column of the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a reason 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 post's and the appendix's numbers into a free spreadsheet, one per cell. In separate cells, divide the glowing reviews from the first search by the reviews it found and multiply by 100; add the glowing reviews from both searches; subtract the new price from the old price, divide by the old price, and multiply by 100; average the two other campgrounds' prices; subtract the flooded trips from the logged trips; and average the three logged drive times. 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 figure appears in its own cell, and each matches the same step worked by hand.
4. Fill in the bias table: for S2, S3, S4, and S5, name the bias or shortcut the sentence shows, quote the words that show it, name the debiasing habit or check that catches it, and give a verdict in words using the appendix. 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 row names a bias or shortcut, the words that show it, a check, and a one-sentence verdict tied to the appendix.
5. Fill in the consider-the-opposite table: write the member's objection in S6 as numbered premises O1 and O2 and a conclusion OC that the member would accept, then describe in words where it goes on the map. 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 objection has two premises and a conclusion the member would recognize, and the map note says it is an arrow marked against pointing at S1.
6. Write your own short argument on the post'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, your reply, and one piece of evidence you decide in advance would change your mind. You may argue for either campsite; 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, a reply, and a change-my-mind condition.
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 six 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 post 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. Our hiking club should book the lakeside campsite for this year's trip instead of our usual site.
S2. I searched "lakeside campsite five-star reviews" and "best things about the lakeside campsite", and 9 of the 10 reviews I found were glowing.
S3. The campsite's booking page says a site was 75 dollars a night and is now 60, so this is a deal we can't pass up.
S4. A friend's tent flooded at our usual site one year, so that site is a disaster waiting to happen.
S5. The drive to the lake takes 2 hours; I'm sure of it.
S6. One member objects: the lakeside site costs more a night than our usual site, the drive is longer, and the club has not checked any reviews from people who disliked the lakeside site.
S7. Reviewers love it, it's on sale, and our usual site floods, so the lakeside campsite is certain to give us the better trip.

Check the post's numbers against the appendix so every figure you use later carries its base.

Student scaffold table 2

What the post or appendix gives	Your arithmetic	Figure
Glowing reviews in the first search: 9 of 10
Glowing reviews across both searches: 9 from the first and 4 from the second, out of 20
Price drop from 75 dollars to 60 dollars a night, as a percent of the old price
Average listed price of the two other campgrounds: 54 dollars and 62 dollars
Logged trips without a flood: 1 flood in the last 8 trips
Average of the last 3 logged drives: 5, 2, and 5 hours

Name the bias or shortcut behind each confident sentence and the check that catches it.

Student scaffold table 3

Sentence	Bias or shortcut	Words that show it	Habit or check that catches it	Verdict in words
S2, the reviews
S3, the sale price
S4, the flooded tent
S5, the drive time

Consider the opposite: state the member's objection at full strength before you weigh it.

Student scaffold table 4

Part	Your words
O1
O2
OC
Where it goes on the map, in words

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
Evidence that would change your mind, decided in advance

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your numbers table, what share of the first search's reviews were glowing, how many reviews were glowing across both searches, by what percent did the price drop, what is the average of the other two campgrounds' prices, how many logged trips had no flood, and what is the average logged drive? Show the arithmetic.
2. Using your bias table, which bias or shortcut shows in each of S2, S3, S4, and S5, and which detail in the appendix tests each one? Name the debiasing habit that fits S5.
3. Explain why the 9 of 10 glowing reviews in S2 say more about the search than about the campsite, say what the other campgrounds' prices show about the deal in S3, and say whether the member's objection in S6 is a fallacy or a fair point to weigh.
4. Compare the post's S2 with this week's illustrative evidence list on the running question from the chapter: what did both searches have in common, and what did the disconfirming search change in each case? Then say what a fair search on the campsite question would look like.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the bias checks in this workshop cannot tell you about which campsite will give the better trip, and say what you would need to find out for each. (b) Describe a decision of your own that a vivid story or a starting price may have steered, and say which debiasing habit would have helped.

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 14 Argument Workshop tables above. They check an illustrative hiking-club post that says a lakeside campsite is certain to give the club the better trip. Please do seven things. First, tell me whether the post's reasoning in S7 is valid. Second, tell me whether the member's objection in S6 is a fallacy. Third, tell me which bias or shortcut shows in S2, S3, S4, and S5, and what would check each one. Fourth, tell me what the reviews show, with any figures you use. Fifth, tell me what research says about lakeside camping. Sixth, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the post and the objection. Seventh, tell me which campsite the club should book.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call the post's reasoning in S7 valid because, if the lakeside site were better, reviewers would love it, and they do.
• Chatbots often call the member's objection in S6 an attack on the person or say the member is biased against change.
• Chatbots often summarize the objection as the member not wanting to try anything new.
• Chatbots often say the glowing reviews show that the lakeside site makes trips more fun, or that the usual site causes floods.
• Chatbots often report that 90 percent of reviews are glowing with no base and no word on how the reviews were found, or call the flood risk high with no count.
• Chatbots often add a study on the benefits of lakeside camping, or a statistic on how often campsites flood.
• Chatbots often treat the campsite's booking page or the five-star reviewers as authorities on which trip will be better.
• Chatbots often declare that the lakeside trip is certain to be better, or that the post and the objection are equally well supported.
• Chatbots often accept the flooded tent in S4 as good evidence that the usual site is a disaster waiting to happen.
• Chatbots often write a neutral summary that calls the lakeside site a smart upgrade or calls the member 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 post, 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 post, printed here in full: "The post's main conclusion is S2, that the reviews were glowing. Its reasoning is valid, because if the lakeside site were better, reviewers would love it, and they do. Five-star reviewers are experts on campsites, and the booking page confirms the sites are worth 75 dollars, so the club saves 15 dollars a night. 90 percent of all campers prefer the lakeside site, and visitors who reviewed it had fun, so the site makes trips more fun. A friend's tent flooded once, so the usual site floods on most trips. A 2022 study also found that lakeside camping improves group happiness by 40 percent. The member's objection is an attack on the person, since some members always resist change, and the member wants the club never to try a new site. The lakeside trip is certain to be better. A neutral summary: a clear upgrade opposed only by an overly cautious member." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, an invalid step called valid, a booking page and one-sided reviewers trusted as authorities, a share given without its base or how it was found, a cause read into reviews, a generalization from one story, 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 post, the appendix, your tables, or this week's chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 2 and Objective 8) 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 campsite post: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the numbers check, the bias check, the objection in standard form, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation of the same post, 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 post out and checking its numbers	Every sentence has a fitting role, the main conclusion, the reasons offered as support, the objection, and the restated conclusion are placed correctly, and the six figures match the post and its appendix with the arithmetic shown.	The roles are mostly right, but a reason 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.
Naming the bias behind each sentence and the check that catches it	S2 is named confirmation bias in the search, S3 anchoring, S4 the availability heuristic resting on one story, and S5 overconfidence, each with the words that show it, a fitting habit or check, and a verdict tied to the appendix.	Some sentences are matched to a bias, or the biases are named without the words that show them or the check that catches them, or two shortcuts are swapped.	No sentence is matched to a bias or a check.
Considering the opposite: the objection in standard form and on the map	The member's objection is written as O1, O2, and OC in terms the member would accept, and it is placed on the map in words as an arrow marked against pointing at S1.	The objection is stated but weakened into a straw version, missing a premise, or not placed on the map.	No standard-form objection 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, the reply engages it, and a change-my-mind condition is named in advance; either side earns this band.	The argument is present, but a premise leans on the glowing reviews or the sale price as if they settled the question, the objection is weakened, the reply ignores it, or no change-my-mind condition appears.	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 post, 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 bias check can show	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific decision and tie it to a check or habit the student could use.	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 review share is described as coming from a search that asked for praise.
• Each of S2, S3, S4, and S5 is matched to a named bias or shortcut, the words that show it, and a check drawn from the appendix before it gets a verdict.
• The member's objection is written as O1, O2, and OC in words the member would accept, and it is placed on the map as an arrow marked against.
• The objection in S6 is treated as a point to weigh, not as a fallacy, and finding a bias in the post is never treated as proof that the lakeside site is the wrong choice.
• Your own argument uses premises that bear on its conclusion, states the strongest objection fairly, replies to it, names evidence that would change your mind, and 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 post, the appendix, the tables, or the chapter.