Week 15 — Split It Fairly? Building the Case in a Garden's Grant Dispute

Assignment 14 of the term — the last one: take apart a moral argument about splitting a shared grant, separate its value premise from its factual premises, argue both sides from each framework, steelman the side you reject, choose the test that fits each claim, and explain the dispute to someone new.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-supported argument. 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 and supply an unstated premise, and in Week 7 you learned to spot a straw man; this week you learned to separate a value premise from a factual premise, to use three ethical frameworks as tools, and to steelman the other side. 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, and where you choose among every test the course has taught. This is the last assignment of the course. The cumulative final in Week 16 draws on every week, and its study guide, practice exam, and exam-prep tutorial are posted with it; the choose-the-test move in Problem 4 is the same move the final asks for, so use your work here when you review.

The task

Your text is an illustrative message from one member of a neighborhood community garden to the five other members, with no real garden, person, or grant-maker behind it: "Our garden's 480-dollar grant should be split by hours volunteered, not equally. The sign-in sheet shows the six of us worked 18, 12, 12, 6, 6, and 6 hours this season. People who did more of the work deserve more of the money. Last season, when we split the grant equally, fewer people signed in to volunteer, so equal shares make people lazy. Splitting equally would reward people who barely showed up." Another member replies in one line: "You only want to keep the money for yourself."

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

1. The garden's 480-dollar grant is shared by 6 members. If it is split equally, how many dollars does each member receive?
2. The sign-in sheet shows 18, 12, 12, 6, 6, and 6 hours. If the 480-dollar grant is split by hours volunteered, how many dollars does the member who logged 18 hours receive?
3. How many dollars more does the member who logged 18 hours receive under the split by hours than under the equal split?
4. How many dollars less does each member who logged 6 hours receive under the split by hours than under the equal split?

Beside each figure, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: put the first member's argument in standard form, with each premise on its own numbered line and the conclusion after "So,"; supply the unstated value premise if the argument needs one and mark it (supplied); and label each premise value or factual.
• Problem 2: say which question in the dispute is a value question and which is a factual question, name the record that could settle the factual one, and say what the arithmetic decides and what it does not decide.
• Problem 3: give one reason for the split by hours and one reason for the equal split from each of the three frameworks (consequence-based, duty-based, and character-based), name one framework's standard objection, and say in one sentence why no framework settles the dispute by itself.
• Problem 4: name what is wrong with the one-line reply as an answer to the argument, write a steelman of the equal-split side in terms its holders would accept, and reply to it; choose the test from the course synthesis that fits the claim "equal shares make people lazy" and explain why one plausible alternative test fits it less well; name where your own position is weakest; and then write the message to the new member described below.

Explain it to a non-expert

A new member joins the garden and asks, "Which split is fair? Can't the numbers tell us?" Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words what each split gives the member with the most hours and the members with the fewest, which part of the dispute is about values and which part is about a fact, and one limit: the sign-in sheet records only the hours people signed in for, so it may miss work done without signing in. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good message is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a four-person band arguing about how to split its pay for a show. Model message: "If the band splits the pay evenly, everyone gets the same; if it splits by songs each person wrote, the main songwriter gets more. The math only tells us what each rule gives, not which rule is fair; that part is a question about what the band values, like teamwork or credit for writing. Whether the songwriter really wrote most of the songs is a fact the band can check. One limit: counting songs ignores who spent the most hours rehearsing."

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

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four figures, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the new member 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. Reply in your own words. Show calculations, write each term out in full, 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. If it tells you which split is fair, or treats one framework as the one that settles the dispute, say so and ask it why.

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 reasoning with values: standard form and the supplied premise, value premises and factual premises, value disagreements and factual disagreements, the consequence-based, duty-based, and character-based frameworks presented evenhandedly, steelmanning, and choosing the test that fits each kind of claim. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a survey figure, or a quotation, never name a real person, city, school, company, or product, never use logic symbols, never pick a side for me on how the grant should be split, and never name one framework as the one to follow.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Your text is an illustrative message from one member of a neighborhood community garden to the five other members, with no real garden, person, or grant-maker behind it: "Our garden's 480-dollar grant should be split by hours volunteered, not equally. The sign-in sheet shows the six of us worked 18, 12, 12, 6, 6, and 6 hours this season. People who did more of the work deserve more of the money. Last season, when we split the grant equally, fewer people signed in to volunteer, so equal shares make people lazy. Splitting equally would reward people who barely showed up." Another member replies in one line: "You only want to keep the money for yourself."
PROBLEM P1: The garden's 480-dollar grant is shared by 6 members. If it is split equally, how many dollars does each member receive?
PROBLEM P2: The sign-in sheet shows 18, 12, 12, 6, 6, and 6 hours. If the 480-dollar grant is split by hours volunteered, how many dollars does the member who logged 18 hours receive?
PROBLEM P3: How many dollars more does the member who logged 18 hours receive under the split by hours than under the equal split?
PROBLEM P4: How many dollars less does each member who logged 6 hours receive under the split by hours than under the equal split?
After the four figures, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, put the first member's argument in standard form, supply the unstated value premise and mark it (supplied), and label each premise value or factual; for P2, name the value question and the factual question, name the record that could settle the factual one, and say what the arithmetic decides and does not decide; for P3, give one reason for each split from each of the three frameworks, name one framework's standard objection, and say why no framework settles the dispute by itself; for P4, name what is wrong with the one-line reply as an answer to the argument, steelman the equal-split side and reply to it, choose the test that fits "equal shares make people lazy" and say why one plausible alternative fits less well, and name where my own position is weakest. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a new member that reports what each split gives the member with the most hours and the members with the fewest, separates the value part of the dispute from the factual part, and names one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), value-reasoning 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 new member only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct equal share, share by hours for the member who logged 18 hours, gap between that share and the equal share, or gap between the equal share and the share for each member who logged 6 hours = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing figure 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 reply diagnosed, a steelman with a reply, the laziness claim matched to a fitting test with an alternative weighed, and the weakest point named AND a message to the new member that reports what each split gives, separates value from fact, 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, and declaring one side or one framework the settled winner 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 new member 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 garden message as printed = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, step, or quotation, or a quotation that drifts from the text = 1; a final figure alone 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 sort a premise, ask me whether it says what is or what ought to be, and when I steelman the other side, 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 figures and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the new member 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 figures, their brief interpretations, and your message to the new member — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled argument map that sets the split-by-hours argument beside the equal-split argument and marks each value premise and factual premise, with a short note that says your judgment 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 15 skills — putting a moral argument in standard form with its value premise supplied, telling a value question from a factual question, arguing both sides from each of the three frameworks, steelmanning the side you reject, choosing the test that fits a claim, and explaining a dispute to someone new — 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 new member. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every quoted sentence against the garden message 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 garden message 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