Week 12 Discussion — Whose Argument Is It? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A research paper can quote five experts and still say nothing of its own. This week you learned to tell an argument from a report, to put sources in conversation, to bring each one in with the four-part integration move, and to answer the other side with real evidence, all on the running draft about phone-free lecture sections and its four real sources.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: When does a source stop supporting a writer's claim and start replacing it? Take one paragraph from the running draft or from your own research draft, argue whether it works as an argument or as a report, and name the one change that would make it argue. Use the four-part integration move and the balance of voices.

Option B: Should a research-based argument give the other side its best evidence? The running draft cites Beland and Murphy's finding that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected, a finding opponents could use against it. Argue whether including evidence like that strengthens or weakens a research-based argument, and say when, if ever, a writer could fairly leave it out.

There is no single right answer. Careful writers disagree about how much a source should carry, and about whether a fair hearing for the other side ever goes too far. Argue the case you can actually support with a specific paragraph or example.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• Name the paragraph or the piece of evidence you are working with, so a reader knows what you are looking at. Quote or cite a source only after you have opened it and found the words.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (report, research-based argument, synthesis moves, four-part integration move, dropped quotation, balance of voices) correctly.
• Take a position and support it with a reason or an example.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: name which of the four parts a classmate's example is missing, point to the sentence where their paragraph turns from report to argument, or offer the strongest objection they did not consider. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like (illustrative, written for this course):

I chose Option B. I think a research-based argument should include the other side's best evidence, even when it comes from the writer's own source. The running draft admits that higher-achieving students were largely unaffected, and then uses that same finding to show the rule's cost is small. Leaving it out would not make the finding go away; a reader who opens the study would find it and stop trusting the draft. Someone could argue that a writer owes the other side a fair statement but not free ammunition. I would answer that the evidence is already public, and naming it first lets the writer decide what it means.

Notice how it states a position, points to specific evidence, names a fair counterpoint, and answers it. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com