Week 15 Argument Workshop: Should a Community Gym Go to a Free Youth League?

Part 1 — The Big Picture

An argument about what a group ought to do can hide a value premise, lean on a cause it never shows, quote a figure without its base, and treat the other side as a cartoon. This week you learned to separate a value premise from a factual premise, to argue both sides from each of three ethical frameworks, to steelman the side you reject, and to match each kind of claim with the test that fits it. In this workshop you lay out a short community-center letter, test each of its claims with the right tool from the whole course, build and defend an argument of your own with its strongest objection and a reply, and then catch a chatbot making the slips the course warns about.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In an illustrative community-center letter, which claims are value claims and which are factual, which test fits each one, and how strong is the best argument you can build for your own answer once the other side is stated at its strongest?

Workshop data: Seven sentences and an appendix from an illustrative community-center letter

Source: An illustrative letter to a community-center newsletter, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4 with its appendix printed here; it comes from no real person, center, neighborhood, or foundation.

• Rows: 7 sentences, one row each in the sorting table, plus an appendix describing a survey of 60 member families in two springs, summarized in a table of 3 rows
• Columns: sentence, role in the argument, and the test that fits it
• Source text: the full letter: The community center should give its gym to a free youth basketball league on weekday evenings instead of renting it to adult groups. Last year the center ran a free youth league for one season, and fewer windows were broken in the neighborhood, so the league keeps kids out of trouble. The adult groups pay 240 dollars a week in rent, and the center could ask a local foundation for a grant to replace it. A board member who coaches the league says every child who played last season brought home better grades. A neighbor objects: the rent pays for the center's evening staff, and without it the center may have to close one evening a week for everyone. Anyone who disagrees with the league does not care about kids. A community center owes its first duty to its youngest members.
• Appendix: Appendix to the letter: the center asked the same 60 member families each spring whether they wanted a free youth league on weekday evenings. Last spring 36 of the 60 families said yes; this spring 45 of the 60 said yes. The center has 300 member families.

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 letter in the first table of Part 4 twice: once for what it proposes, and once sentence by sentence. Then read the appendix line 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 letter asks the community center to do.
2. In the sorting table, label each sentence as the main conclusion, a value premise, a factual premise, a causal claim, testimony, the objection, or an attack on a motive, and in the last column name the test from the course that fits it. 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 and a test.
3. Type the two survey counts into a free spreadsheet, one per cell. In separate cells, divide each spring's count of yes replies by the 60 families and multiply by 100; subtract last spring's share from this spring's; then divide that difference by last spring's share and multiply by 100. Copy each figure into the survey 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 share in the survey table matches the same step worked by hand, and the change appears both in percentage points and as a percent change.
4. Fill in the frameworks table: for each of the three frameworks, write one reason it gives for the youth league and one reason it gives for keeping the rentals. 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 cell holds a reason, and each framework has a reason on both sides.
5. Fill in the steelman table: copy the straw version of the other side from S6, write the neighbor's objection in S5 at its strongest, in terms its holders would accept, and write your reply to that strongest version. 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 steelman names what the rent pays for and what losing it could cost everyone, and your reply engages that point.
6. Write your own short argument on the letter's question in the build table: a conclusion, a value premise, a factual premise, the strongest objection stated fairly, your reply, and the premise where your argument is weakest. You may argue for or against the letter; 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 every row filled, with the value premise and the factual premise kept separate.
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 every share and both forms of the change in the survey table by hand, with each division, multiplication, and subtraction 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 letter comes first: give each of its seven sentences a role and name the test that fits it before you weigh anything.

Student scaffold table 1

Sentence	Role in the argument	Test that fits it
S1. The community center should give its gym to a free youth basketball league on weekday evenings instead of renting it to adult groups.
S2. Last year the center ran a free youth league for one season, and fewer windows were broken in the neighborhood, so the league keeps kids out of trouble.
S3. The adult groups pay 240 dollars a week in rent, and the center could ask a local foundation for a grant to replace it.
S4. A board member who coaches the league says every child who played last season brought home better grades.
S5. A neighbor objects: the rent pays for the center's evening staff, and without it the center may have to close one evening a week for everyone.
S6. Anyone who disagrees with the league does not care about kids.
S7. A community center owes its first duty to its youngest members.

Work the family survey from the appendix so you can report the change both ways.

Student scaffold table 2

Spring	Families asked	Families who said yes	Share who said yes, in percent
Last spring	60
This spring	60
Change, in percentage points and as a percent change from last spring

Let each framework speak for both sides before you weigh anything.

Student scaffold table 3

Framework	A reason for the youth league	A reason for keeping the rentals
Consequence-based
Duty-based
Character-based

Answer the strongest version of the other side, not the straw version.

Student scaffold table 4

Part	Your words
The straw version in S6
The neighbor's objection at its strongest
Your reply to the strongest version

Build your own short argument on the same question and defend it.

Student scaffold table 5

Part	Your words
Your conclusion
Your value premise
Your factual premise
The strongest objection, stated fairly
Your reply
Where your argument is weakest

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your survey table, give the share of families who said yes last spring and this spring, the change in percentage points, and the percent change from last spring. Show the arithmetic.
2. Using your sorting table, name the letter's value premise and its factual premises, and say in one plain sentence whether the dispute between the letter and the neighbor turns more on a value premise or on a factual premise.
3. Explain why S2's step from fewer broken windows to "the league keeps kids out of trouble" is not valid, naming the form, and say which test from the course fits S2 and which fits S4, with a reason for each.
4. Using your frameworks and steelman tables, explain why no single framework settles this question, and say how your reply answers the neighbor's objection at its strongest rather than the straw version in S6.
5. Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences. (a) Name two things the family survey cannot tell you about whether the gym should go to the league, and say what further evidence would help with each. (b) Describe a decision a group you belong to has argued about, and say which part of that argument was a value question and which part was a factual question that evidence could settle.

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 15 Argument Workshop tables above. They work through an illustrative community-center letter arguing that the center's gym should go to a free youth basketball league on weekday evenings instead of being rented to adult groups. Please do eight things. First, tell me whether the reasoning in S2 is valid. Second, tell me how much the family survey in the appendix changed from last spring to this spring. Third, tell me whether the neighbor's objection in S5 is a fallacy. Fourth, tell me what S4 shows about the league. Fifth, summarize the neighbor's side in one sentence. Sixth, tell me what research says about youth sports and neighborhood trouble. Seventh, write a neutral one-paragraph summary of the letter and the objection. Eighth, tell me which side is right.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call S2 valid, reasoning that if the league keeps kids out of trouble, fewer windows break; fewer windows broke; so the league keeps kids out of trouble.
• Chatbots often call the neighbor's objection in S5 a slippery slope or an attack on the league's supporters.
• Chatbots often summarize the neighbor's side as being against kids or against the league.
• Chatbots often accept that the league caused the drop in broken windows because the drop came during the league's season.
• Chatbots often say support for the league rose 15 percent, or give a percent change without saying what it is a change from.
• Chatbots often add that studies show youth sports cut neighborhood crime, with an invented percentage.
• Chatbots often trust S4 because a board member and coach said it.
• Chatbots often declare which side is right, or say the two sides are equally right about every factual claim.
• Chatbots often treat the coach's report about every child's grades as strong evidence that the league raises grades.
• Chatbots often write a neutral summary that calls the league an obvious win for kids, or calls the neighbor penny-pinching.

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 letter, 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 letter, printed here in full: "The letter's main conclusion is S2, that the league keeps kids out of trouble. Its reasoning is valid: if the league works, fewer windows break; fewer broke; so the league works. Support for the league rose 15 percent between the two springs. Since fewer windows broke during the league's season, the league caused the drop. The coach says every child's grades went up, so the evidence is overwhelming, and a board member would know. Studies show youth leagues cut neighborhood vandalism in half. The neighbor's objection in S5 is a slippery slope, and the neighbor must not care about kids. Both sides are equally right about every fact. A neutral summary: a generous plan for children is opposed by a penny-pincher." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the wrong main conclusion, affirming the consequent called valid, a percentage-point change written as a percent, a cause read into a pattern, one coach's report treated as a test, an authority with a stake trusted without records, an invented study, a fair objection called a fallacy and turned into a straw version, false balance about the facts, or a summary that takes a side), cite the evidence from the letter, 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 9) 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 community-center letter: five completed tables (the sentence sort, the family survey, the frameworks, the steelman, and your own argument), written answers to five analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's evaluation of the same letter, 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 letter out and sorting value from fact	Every sentence has a fitting role and test, the main conclusion, the value premise in S7, the factual premise in S3, the causal claim, the testimony, the objection, and the attack on a motive are placed correctly, and the premises offered for S1 are named.	The roles are mostly right, but a value premise is labelled factual or the reverse, the objection is treated as support, or the tests are missing.	No sorting table is recorded, or it is copied from a chatbot without any checking.
Reading the survey change	Both shares are worked from their counts out of 60, and the change is given in percentage points and as a percent change from last spring, each with its arithmetic shown.	The shares are worked, but the change is given only one way, or a percentage-point change is written as a percent.	No survey table is submitted.
Testing the claims with the fitting tools	S2 is named as affirming the consequent and matched to the confounding check, S4 is matched to a check of the testimony and its source, and each match is given a reason.	The form is named or the tests are matched, but not both, or a match is given without a reason.	No test of S2 or S4 is submitted.
Using the frameworks evenhandedly	Each framework gives a reason on both sides, and the answer explains why no framework settles the question by itself.	Reasons are given for one side only under one or more frameworks, or one framework is treated as the answer.	No frameworks table is submitted.
Steelmanning and building your own argument	The neighbor's objection is stated as its best defender would state it and answered, and your own argument keeps a value premise and a factual premise separate, states the strongest objection fairly, replies to it, and names its weakest point; either side earns this band.	The argument is present, but the objection is weakened into a straw version, the value and factual premises are blurred, or the weakest point is not named.	No steelman and no argument of your own are 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 letter, 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 value and fact	The chosen reflection option is answered in 3–4 sentences that name a specific limit or a specific decision and separate its value part from its factual part.	The reflection is answered but stays general or does not separate value from fact.	No reflection is submitted.

Quality Gate

• Every sentence in the sorting table has a role and a test, exactly one is labelled the main conclusion, and exactly one is labelled the objection.
• Each share in the survey table is worked from its own count out of 60, and the change is given in percentage points and as a percent change from last spring.
• Each framework gives a reason on both sides, and no framework is treated as settling the question.
• The neighbor's objection is stated at its strongest and treated as a fair objection, not as a fallacy.
• Your own argument keeps its value premise and factual premise separate, states the strongest objection fairly, replies to it, names its weakest point, and takes either side without penalty.
• No statistic, study, survey figure, 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 letter, the appendix, the tables, or the chapter.