Week 7 — Your Argument Essay: Claim, Grounds, and the Warrant Between Them

Assignment 7 of the term — audit a chatbot's argument for invented grounds, straw men, and fallacies, then map and write an argument essay of your own with a stated warrant, an honest qualifier, and a steel-manned counterargument you answer.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first draft into a revised argument essay. 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 4 you built an arguable, specific thesis and saved the third point of your essay map for the counterargument; in Week 6 you explained how someone else's text persuades. This week you build your own case and answer the other side. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Writing Studio practise the same moves from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together in a full essay.

The task

You will argue from your own reasoning and from evidence you have observed yourself. This essay uses no outside sources: finding, judging, and citing sources is the work of the research weeks. The course takes no side on any topic below, and you may argue whichever side you can support, including a side you do not hold.

Part A — audit a chatbot's argument. A student asked a chatbot to "write a strong argument for a four-day class schedule." Here is the kind of argument a chatbot might return. It was written for this course to contain mistakes; it is not a real chatbot's output, and it is attributed to no one:

1. "The college should move to a four-day class schedule."
2. "A recent national study found that four-day schedules raise grades by a large margin."
3. "Many students commute long distances, and a four-day week would save them a full day of travel each week."
4. "People who oppose the change only want to keep things the way they have always been."
5. "Everyone I have talked to supports the idea, so it must be the right call."
6. "If the college keeps five days, soon classes will run six days a week and students will burn out."
7. "Saving a day of travel matters because a class schedule should fit the lives of the students it serves."
8. "This is a brilliant, airtight argument that no reasonable person could reject."

Work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. The illustrative chatbot argument in Part A has 8 sentences; 1 invents a study, 1 builds a straw man, 2 commit other named fallacies, and 1 praises itself without pointing to anything. How many of its sentences can stay as they are?

Then label every sentence with its Toulmin part (claim, grounds, or warrant) or with the flaw it carries: a source you cannot find, a straw man, a named fallacy (say which one, by definition), or hollow praise. For each flawed sentence, write one repair: cut the invented study and say what kind of observed evidence could replace it; rewrite the straw man as a steel man that a supporter of the five-day schedule would accept; and say what each fallacy would need instead.

Part B — your argument essay. Choose one topic: a four-day class schedule, a campus parking or transit change, the dining hall's hours, a community library's hours, a workplace's meeting policy, or the use of AI in the writing classroom. Then work this problem:

1. Your argument map names 1 claim, 2 grounds, 2 warrants (one for each of the grounds), 1 counterargument, and 1 rebuttal. How many labelled parts must your map show?

Write that map first, with each part labelled C, G, W, CA, or R. Your claim must pass the two-part test from Week 4 and carry one honest qualifier, such as "by default", "in most cases", or "for evening students". Each of the grounds must be something you know or have observed; do not invent a statistic or a study. Then draft an argument essay of 750–1,000 words built on the map. State your thesis at the end of the introduction or explain why you placed it elsewhere. Give each of the grounds its own body paragraph, with an explanation that states its warrant. In a separate paragraph, steel-man the strongest objection, concede what it gets right, and answer the rest with a rebuttal. End with a conclusion that answers "so what?" for your reader. Lead with logos; use ethos and pathos to support the reasoning, not to replace it.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative who manages a small restaurant wants to convince the owner to stay open an hour later and says, "I'll show them the sales numbers and that should be enough." Write a 3–5 sentence message that tells them, in everyday words, what your work this week shows about why evidence needs a stated reason it matters, and why answering the owner's biggest worry helps. Name one honest limit of the advice — for example, that an owner who already agrees may need only the numbers. Explain any term your relative might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a neighbor asking a building board for a bike rack who says, "Lots of people ride bikes here." Model answer: "Tell the board why that matters: people who ride are locking bikes to the stair railings, which blocks the exit, and a rack would keep the stairs clear. Then answer what the board will worry about, like cost, by pointing out that a small rack fits in the unused corner by the mailboxes. Saying the reason out loud and answering the worry is what turns a fact into a case. If the board already wants a rack, a quick note may be enough."

Use that pattern for your relative, with your own explanation of what you learned this week.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which warrant in your essay changed most after feedback, and what made you see that the first version was really another piece of evidence?
• (b) How did your counterargument paragraph change after feedback, and how would a reader who holds the other side now react to it?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, your Part B map and essay, and your message to your relative 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. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one part of your map or your essay, even if your first attempt was strong, and then answer reflection option (a) or (b).
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 your argument for you, and it must never hand you a study or a statistic to use as evidence.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful writing coach for a first-year college writing course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about building an argument with a claim, grounds, a warrant, a qualifier, a counterargument, and a rebuttal. Do not write my labels, my repairs, my argument map, my essay, my message, or my reflection for me, do not "improve" my sentences into smooth generic wording, do not supply any study, statistic, or source as evidence, and do not invent work I did not show. Take no side on any topic I write about, and never use a real public figure as an example.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The illustrative chatbot argument I am auditing, written for my course to contain mistakes and attributed to no one: (1) The college should move to a four-day class schedule. (2) A recent national study found that four-day schedules raise grades by a large margin. (3) Many students commute long distances, and a four-day week would save them a full day of travel each week. (4) People who oppose the change only want to keep things the way they have always been. (5) Everyone I have talked to supports the idea, so it must be the right call. (6) If the college keeps five days, soon classes will run six days a week and students will burn out. (7) Saving a day of travel matters because a class schedule should fit the lives of the students it serves. (8) This is a brilliant, airtight argument that no reasonable person could reject.
PROBLEM P1: The illustrative chatbot argument in Part A has 8 sentences; 1 invents a study, 1 builds a straw man, 2 commit other named fallacies, and 1 praises itself without pointing to anything. How many of its sentences can stay as they are?
PROBLEM P2: Your argument map names 1 claim, 2 grounds, 2 warrants (one for each of the grounds), 1 counterargument, and 1 rebuttal. How many labelled parts must your map show?
For P1 I must also label all 8 sentences with a Toulmin part or a flaw, name each fallacy by definition, and write one repair for each flawed sentence, including a steel-man version of the straw man. For P2 I must also write a labelled argument map on one topic from my list (a four-day class schedule, a campus parking or transit change, the dining hall's hours, a community library's hours, a workplace's meeting policy, or the use of AI in the writing classroom) with a claim that passes the two-part test and carries a qualifier, grounds I know or observed, a warrant for each of the grounds, a steel-manned counterargument, and a rebuttal; then an argument essay of 750-1,000 words built on that map, with a separate counterargument paragraph that concedes what the objection gets right and answers the rest; then a 3-5 sentence message to a relative in everyday words that names one limit. After revising, I answer reflection option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.
The course meanings I must use: an argument is a claim backed by reasons and evidence and made to a reader who could disagree; the grounds are the evidence and reasons an argument points to; the warrant is the usually unstated assumption that links the grounds to the claim; a qualifier sets how far a claim reaches; a counterargument is the strongest objection a fair reader would raise; steel-manning states it in words its holders would accept, while a straw man weakens it; a concession grants the part that is right; a rebuttal answers the rest; a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Chatbot argument audit (P1): 25 if I give the count without error, label all 8 sentences with a part or a flaw, name each fallacy by its definition, and repair every flawed sentence, including a steel man the other side would accept; 15 if the count and labels are right but one repair is missing or the steel man is still weak; 8 if at least four labels are right but others are wrong or the count is off; 0 if no sentence is labelled. Argument map and reasoning (P2): 30 if I give the part count without error and a labelled map whose claim passes the two-part test with a qualifier, whose grounds are things I know or observed, and whose two warrants each state a principle that links its grounds to the claim, and my essay gives each of the grounds a body paragraph that states its warrant; 20 if the map and essay are complete but one warrant is restated evidence or the qualifier is missing; 10 if a claim and grounds are present but no warrant is stated anywhere or a grounds sentence relies on an invented statistic; 0 if no map or essay. Counterargument and rebuttal (P2): 20 if my essay states the strongest objection in words its holders would accept, concedes what it gets right, and answers the rest with a reason; 12 if the objection is fair but the concession or the rebuttal is missing or thin; 5 if the objection is a straw man; 0 if no counterargument appears. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 10 if the message to my relative uses everyday words, explains why evidence needs a stated reason and why answering the owner's worry helps, and names a limit; 5 if it can be followed but omits the limit or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change prompted by feedback plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. When I label a warrant, ask me whether it is a principle or another fact about the world. When I state the other side, ask whether someone who holds that view would recognize it. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work, and take no side on any public question.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer 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. If I cite a statistic or a study, ask where it can be found and remind me that this essay argues from what I know or observed. 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 both problems with their labels, repairs, argument map, essay, and message AND revised at least one part 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 score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my labels, repairs, map, essay, and message]
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: the Part A labels and repairs with your count, your labelled argument map, your argument essay, your message to your relative, and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; 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 7 skills — auditing an argument for invented grounds, straw men, and fallacies, mapping a claim, its grounds, and the warrant between them, scoping a claim with a qualifier, answering a steel-manned counterargument, and explaining the move to someone outside the course — for comparable time and effort, about two hours, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, your Part B map and essay, the message to your relative, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: write C, G, W, CA, or R beside every sentence in your map, mark each W "principle" or "fact" and rewrite any that is a fact, read your counterargument paragraph as someone who holds that view would and mark it "would recognize" or "would not", and underline the sentence that answers "so what?". Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the check that prompted it, 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 labels, the repairs, the map, the essay, the message, the revision, and the reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to choose your side for you. Do not invent statistics, studies, or quotations; describe what you have seen yourself, and save sources for the research weeks. 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