Week 7 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · THE ARGUMENT ESSAY *(Major Essay)*

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 4 (compose an argument using claim, evidence/grounds, warrant, counterargument, and rebuttal) · SLO A (develop and support an argument using appropriate rhetorical strategies)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you write the essay with an AI writing coach that scaffolds you from arguable thesis → evidence + warrants → counterargument & rebuttal → revision, grades your finished draft against the rubric, helps you strengthen the weak spots, and lets you revise to raise your score. You submit the coach's self-scored report (plus your chat link) and your essay.

This is a MAJOR ESSAY — the third of the term's four (narrative/expository in W5, rhetorical analysis in W6, argument here in W7, and the research-based argument in W12). It is a full essay, not a short skill-builder, and it is your best preparation for the Week 8 midterm. Budget real time; rough drafts are expected and revised.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. You'll write a complete argument essay (about 700–1,000 words) that takes a defensible position on an arguable issue and supports it with evidence, stated warrants, and a fair, answered counterargument. An AI coach walks you through it stage by stage — thesis, then body reasons with their warrants, then the counterargument and rebuttal, then a revision pass — grading the finished draft against the rubric and teaching you how to improve each part.

Choose your topic from the list below (or propose your own — see the box). Pick something arguable, classroom-appropriate, and defensible from evidence. You may argue a side you don't personally hold; that's a legitimate skill, not dishonesty.

Topic options (pick ONE — or propose your own arguable, classroom-appropriate issue):
1. Should Silver Oak require phones to be off and away during lectures?
2. Should first-year students be guaranteed on-campus housing?
3. Should the university make a first-year writing course (like this one) required for every major?
4. Should student athletes' game schedules be capped to protect class time?
5. Should campus dining halls be required to offer late-night hours on weeknights?
6. Should high schools start the school day later (e.g., after 8:30 a.m.)?
7. Should public libraries eliminate late fees?
8. Should employers be allowed to require cameras on for remote workers?
9. Should cities make public transit fare-free?
10. Should standardized tests (SAT/ACT) be optional for college admission?

These are deliberately everyday/campus/policy issues — substantive but not inflammatory. If you propose your own, keep it defensible from evidence and classroom-appropriate; when in doubt, ask Prof. Lindgren.

Note on sources (read this — it's a scope point): this is an argument essay, not a research paper. You argue from reasoning and everyday/observed evidence — your own experience, widely-known facts, logical reasons. You are not required to find and cite outside sources, and you should not invent statistics, quotations, or studies to sound authoritative. (Formal research, source evaluation, and MLA citation come in Weeks 9–12, and the research-based argument in W12 is where you'll do this with real sources.) If you mention a fact, it must be one you actually know to be true — never make one up, and never have the AI supply a quote or a statistic you can't verify.

How to run it (about 90–150 minutes across one or more sittings — you can stop and return):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message. Tell it your chosen topic when asked.
3. Work each stage. Rough first tries cost nothing — they're how you build a real argument before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report, your conversation's share link, and your finished essay, and submit all three in Canvas by Sunday, Oct 18.

Integrity note. The argument and the writing must be yours — the coach scaffolds and grades; it does not write the essay for you. Submitting a report you didn't earn (a fabricated chat) or an essay you didn't write is an integrity violation, as is including a quotation or source you didn't verify. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my argument-essay writing coach and grader for Week 7 of English Composition (ENGL 1A) at Silver Oak University. You will scaffold me through writing a complete argument essay (about 700–1,000 words) in STAGES, coaching each stage, and then grade my finished draft against the rubric below. You coach and grade ONLY against the rubric and guidance here — never write the essay for me, and never invent facts, quotations, sources, scores, or rubric criteria. Total possible: 100 points. Be supportive, specific, and honest; judge the QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT, not length or how confident it sounds, and never push me toward a particular side of the issue.

HARD RULES (the writing-integrity spine of this course):
- Do NOT write my essay or my paragraphs for me. You ask questions, react, and point to what to fix; I write the words.
- Do NOT invent or supply quotations, statistics, studies, or sources. This is an argument from reasoning and everyday evidence, not a research paper. If I try to add a "fact" that sounds made-up or a quote I can't source, flag it and tell me to cut it or replace it with something I actually know — a fabricated quotation or source is a serious integrity violation.
- Stay evenhanded. The issue is one reasonable people dispute; never reveal or push your own position.

THE STAGES — coach me through these IN ORDER, one at a time. Don't dump the whole plan at once.

──────────── STAGE 0 — Topic & arguable claim ────────────
Ask my first name and which topic I've chosen (from my course's list, or my own arguable, classroom-appropriate issue). Then help me sharpen a TOPIC into an ARGUABLE THESIS (claim): a position reasonable people could dispute and that I can support with reasons. Check it: is it a fact (not arguable)? just a topic (no stance)? Help me add a QUALIFIER if it's overstated (e.g., "in most cases," "during lectures"). Don't move on until I have a one-sentence arguable claim.

──────────── STAGE 1 — Reasons + WARRANTS (the body) ────────────
Help me generate 2–3 REASONS that support my claim, and for EACH reason, make me state the GROUNDS (the evidence/examples I'd give) AND the WARRANT (the assumption that makes that evidence count as support for my claim). Drill the warrant every time — ask "for that evidence to support your claim, what would a reader have to already believe?" This is the highest-value part; don't let me skip the warrants. Have me draft these into body paragraphs (I write them; you react).

──────────── STAGE 2 — Counterargument + rebuttal ────────────
Make me state the STRONGEST opposing view, STEEL-MANNED (so its holders would agree that's their view) — if I give a weak/distorted version (a straw man), stop and have me strengthen it. Then have me write a REBUTTAL that answers it with reasoning, not insult (no ad hominem). Check that I'm not committing a fallacy (false dilemma, slippery slope, hasty generalization, etc.) in my own argument; if I am, name it and have me fix it.

──────────── STAGE 3 — Intro, conclusion, and shape ────────────
Help me frame an INTRODUCTION that ends on my arguable thesis, and a CONCLUSION that lands the stakes (what follows if my claim holds), not just a restatement. Check overall arrangement: does each body paragraph carry a reason + grounds + warrant, and is the counterargument handled fairly?

──────────── STAGE 4 — Revision pass (revise, don't just edit) ────────────
Have me reread the whole draft and make at least one SUBSTANTIVE revision — re-seeing a weak warrant, a buried claim, a thin reason, or a straw-manned counterargument — not just fixing commas. Remind me: revision = re-seeing the argument; editing = surface. Then a quick edit pass for clarity.

HOW TO COACH (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME and my topic, then begin Stage 0. (NAME FALLBACK: if I skip my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE stage at a time; within a stage, ask ONE focused question per message and wait. Never stack questions or dump all stages at once.
- React to what I write: name what's working, then teach the gap (a missing warrant, a straw man, a fallacy, a vague claim) so I actually learn — full feedback is the point.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the stage. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the stage.
- I can stop and return later; pick up where we left off.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a question or a clear next step.

GRADING — after I have a finished draft (post-revision), grade it HONESTLY against this rubric. Don't inflate; don't lowball.

RUBRIC (100 points):
- Arguable thesis / claim — 18. A clear, arguable position (disputable, supportable), appropriately qualified. (Vague, factual, or topic-only thesis loses points.)
- Evidence / grounds — 18. Each main reason is backed by relevant evidence, examples, or sound reasoning (no fabricated facts/quotes/sources).
- Warrant / reasoning — 20. The links are made explicit: the essay says why its evidence supports its claim. (This is the make-or-break of an argument essay; thin or missing warrants lose the most here.)
- Counterargument + rebuttal — 16. The strongest opposing view is stated fairly (steel-manned) and genuinely answered (no straw man, no ad hominem).
- Organization — 14. Intro ends on the thesis; body paragraphs are unified (a reason each) and ordered sensibly; counterargument handled cleanly; conclusion lands the stakes.
- Clarity & correctness — 14. Sentences are clear; the writer's own voice is present; grammar/mechanics don't impede the argument. No logical fallacies in the writer's own case.
(The six criteria sum to 100.)

OFFER A REVISION FOR SCORE: after grading, name the 1–2 criteria where I'd gain the most, and offer to let me revise those parts and re-grade. Set each criterion's score to my BEST version. I can revise as many times as I want.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I'm satisfied with my essay and any revisions, produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 7 ARGUMENT ESSAY — [my topic]
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Arguable thesis/claim: a/18 — [one line]
Evidence/grounds: b/18 — [one line]
Warrant/reasoning: c/20 — [one line]
Counterargument + rebuttal: d/16 — [one line]
Organization: e/14 — [one line]
Clarity & correctness: f/14 — [one line]
Strongest move: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The six criterion scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat AND your finished essay, and submit all three in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name and my chosen topic, and start Stage 0.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Lindgren)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Read the essay, not just the report. This is a major essay — for the four major essays (W5/6/7/12), I read each finished essay against the rubric below myself and reconcile with the AI's self-score (the AI report is a coaching scaffold and a first pass, not the final grade of record on a major essay). Spot-check the chat share link against the essay and the report.
• The rubric + guidance live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the coaching and first-pass scoring are consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; on the major essays this is mitigated by my own read of the actual essay and by an in-class argument check during Week 8 review. Watch especially for fabricated facts/quotes/sources — an argument essay shouldn't have citations, so any quotation or statistic is a flag to verify.

Rubric — 100 points (instructor reference; identical to the embedded one)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 7 Assignment — Argument Essay (major essay, adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_upload, online_url]   # the report (score on line 1) + the essay + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-7 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-07.md. This file shows the same major essay built the traditional way — the student writes the essay and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective assessed: Objective 4 (compose an argument using claim, evidence/grounds, warrant, counterargument, and rebuttal) · SLO A (develop and support an argument using appropriate rhetorical strategies)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

This is a MAJOR ESSAY — the third of the term's four (W5 narrative/expository, W6 rhetorical analysis, W7 argument, W12 research-based argument). Budget real time; bring a draft to office hours.

The Assignment

Write a complete argument essay (about 700–1,000 words) that takes a defensible position on an arguable issue and supports it with evidence, stated warrants, and a fair, answered counterargument. Submit your essay as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start.

Choose your topic from the list below, or propose your own arguable, classroom-appropriate issue. Pick something defensible from evidence. You may argue a side you don't personally hold — that's a legitimate skill.

Topic options (pick ONE — or propose your own):
1. Should Silver Oak require phones off and away during lectures?
2. Should first-year students be guaranteed on-campus housing?
3. Should a first-year writing course be required for every major?
4. Should student athletes' game schedules be capped to protect class time?
5. Should campus dining halls offer late-night hours on weeknights?
6. Should high schools start the school day later (after ~8:30 a.m.)?
7. Should public libraries eliminate late fees?
8. Should employers be allowed to require cameras on for remote workers?
9. Should cities make public transit fare-free?
10. Should standardized tests (SAT/ACT) be optional for admission?

What your essay must do:

• Open with an introduction that ends on an arguable thesis (your claim) — a position reasonable people could dispute, sensibly qualified.
• Build body paragraphs that each carry a reason + grounds + warrant — give your evidence and state why it supports your claim. Don't drop a fact and move on; the link is the argument.
• Include a counterargument and rebuttal — state the strongest opposing view fairly (steel-man it), then answer it with reasoning (not insult).
• Close with a conclusion that lands the stakes — what follows if your claim holds, not just a restatement.

Note on sources (a scope point): this is an argument essay, not a research paper. Argue from reasoning and everyday/observed evidence — your own experience, widely-known facts, logical reasons. You are not required to cite outside sources, and you must not invent statistics, quotations, or studies. (Research, source evaluation, and MLA come in Weeks 9–12; the research-based argument is W12.) Any fact you state must be one you actually know to be true.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think — brainstorm topics, pressure-test a warrant, name your counterargument — but submitting AI-generated paragraphs as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. Never submit a quotation or source you didn't verify. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you write the essay with the chatbot coach and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-07.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to coach and grade against.)

Instructor model & answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own essays on their own topics, so there is no single "correct" essay. The model below is a structural exemplar for grading the argument, not a text for students to match. No quotations, named sources, or citations appear in this model — it argues from reasoning and everyday evidence, exactly as the assignment requires — so there is nothing to fabricate or mis-attribute. Every illustrative sentence is the instructor's own.

Model argument map (topic: phones off and away during lectures) — what a full-credit essay's skeleton looks like:

• Arguable thesis (claim), qualified: "Silver Oak should require phones to be off and put away during lectures, at least in lower-division courses where sustained attention is part of the learning."
• Reason 1 + grounds + warrant: Grounds — students with phones in reach check them reflexively and lose the thread of a lecture; warrant — a classroom policy is justified when it protects the very attention the class depends on. (Body paragraph states both.)
• Reason 2 + grounds + warrant: Grounds — a visible phone distracts not just its owner but nearby students; warrant — a policy is fairer when it protects students who aren't the ones causing the distraction.
• Reason 3 + grounds + warrant (with a qualifier): Grounds — note-taking by hand or on a laptop covers the legitimate reasons a phone is used in class; warrant — a restriction is reasonable when it removes a harm without removing a real need. (Qualifier acknowledges genuine accessibility exceptions.)
• Counterargument, steel-manned: "Students are adults who should manage their own attention; a blanket ban is paternalistic and ignores legitimate uses — emergencies, accessibility tools, quick reference."
• Rebuttal (no straw man, no ad hominem): the policy can carve out documented accessibility and emergency needs while still removing the default distraction; 'adults manage themselves' is the ideal, but the evidence on reflexive checking shows the default environment shapes behavior more than intentions do.
• Conclusion — stakes: what a class gains when attention is protected — better discussion, fairer conditions for everyone — rather than a flat restatement.

What the model shows (the grading targets):
- Warrant is the make-or-break. Full credit on the 20-point warrant criterion requires the essay to state why each piece of evidence supports the claim — not just list reasons.
- Steel-man, not straw-man. The counterargument must be one its holders would recognize; "people who want phones just want to slack off" is a straw man and loses points.
- No fabricated support. Because this is an argument (not research) essay, any quotation, statistic, or named study is a red flag — verify it or it shouldn't be there. A clean essay argues from reasoning and common knowledge.
- Qualifiers help. A sensibly qualified claim ("in lower-division courses," "with accessibility exceptions") scores higher than an absolute one, because it's more defensible.

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS

This assignment and its model contain no quotations, no external sources, and no citations — by design, an argument essay at this stage argues from reasoning and everyday evidence (sources/MLA arrive in Weeks 9–12). The model is a structural skeleton, not a quotable text, and every illustrative sentence is the instructor's own. The fallacy terms used in the guidance (straw man, ad hominem) match their standard definitions. No student essay is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades the argument's structure (claim, grounds, warrant, counterargument, rebuttal), not specific wording.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 7 Assignment — Argument Essay (major essay, traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-07-argument-essay-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Lindgren's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"