Week 12 · Writing Studio

Week 12 Writing Studio: Make Three Sources Serve One Claim

English Composition Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned to tell an argument from a report, to put sources in conversation, to bring every source in with the four-part integration move, to cite each paraphrase, and to answer the other side with real evidence. In this Writing Studio you work with three short, illustrative excerpts about a workplace's meeting policy. You start from a paragraph that only reports what the sources say, and you turn it into a paragraph that argues: your claim first, each source doing a named job, one quotation framed with all four parts, the other side's best evidence answered, and your own sentence last. Then you review your work against a checklist, ask a chatbot for feedback without letting it rewrite you, and catch the mistakes a chatbot makes when it adds sources and citations. The same moves help a nurse make the case for a new shift handoff, a club treasurer argue for a budget change, and anyone who writes from sources keep their own claim in charge.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Can you turn a paragraph that lists three sources into one that argues a single claim, with every source integrated, the strongest objection answered, and your own voice leading from the first sentence to the last?

Workshop data: Meeting-policy source excerpts (illustrative, three excerpts)

Source: Three short illustrative excerpts written for this Writing Studio and attributed to no one: a staff survey (treat it as page 2), an operations memo (page 5), and a trade-magazine column (page 11), on whether a company should keep two afternoons a week free of meetings. They are printed in full in the Part 4 source table.

Rows: 3 excerpts, one per row of the Part 4 source table (that table has 3 rows)
Topic: whether a small company should keep two afternoons a week free of meetings
Pages: the survey on page 2, the memo on page 5, and the column on page 11, for in-text page references

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach
Your word processor's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison

Ways of working

draft-and-revise-a-paragraph-against-a-rubric
peer-review-with-a-checklist
source-integration-and-citation-check

Procedure

Read the three excerpts in the Part 4 source table twice, then write one sentence of your own that states the claim you will argue about meeting-free afternoons. Check: A one-sentence claim written before you look at the report paragraph.
In your document, fill in the source-job table: for each excerpt, say whether it agrees with, extends, or complicates your claim, and what job it will do in your paragraph. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: Every row of the source-job table has a relationship and a job.
Read the report paragraph in the paragraph table, then write your own argument paragraph: open with your claim, integrate one quotation with all four parts, paraphrase the other two sources with credit, answer the memo's objection, and end on your own sentence. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: A first-draft argument paragraph with a claim in its first sentence.
Search your draft for every quoted phrase and confirm each one appears word for word in the printed excerpts, with the right page in parentheses after it. Tool: Your word processor's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison. Check: Every quotation in the draft is found in an excerpt and carries its page.
Review your draft with the checklist table in Part 4, then revise it and keep both versions. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: The checklist is filled in and at least one change is visible between the two versions.
Paste the three excerpts and your revised paragraph into one approved chatbot with the prompt in Part 6, read its feedback on the first half, and act on one piece of it in your own words. Tool: A word processor; a citation tool or style guide used critically (the MLA Handbook, the Purdue OWL, or a citation generator whose output is checked against the MLA rules); and one approved chatbot used as a writing coach. Check: One change in your paragraph that you can trace to a specific piece of feedback.
Fill in the critique table in Part 4 for the second half of the chatbot's answer, searching the printed excerpts for every word it quotes and checking any works-cited entry it adds against the MLA rules in a style guide. Tool: Your word processor's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac) or a careful word-for-word comparison. Check: Each failure you report names what the tool said and your correction.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you have no word processor or its search command does not work.

Copy the three excerpts and the report paragraph by hand or into any plain text editor, fill in every table on paper, check each quotation against the printed excerpts word by word, and complete every analysis question, the coach moment, and the critique step. Submit a photo or scan of the handwritten pages, or a typed transcript of them, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Read the three sources you will work with; quote only words that appear here, with the page given.

Student scaffold table 1
Source	Page	Excerpt
Staff survey	2	Of the staff who answered, most said they finish their hardest tasks before lunch, and many said afternoon meetings break up the only long stretch of quiet time they get.
Operations memo	5	When one team tried keeping two afternoons a week free of meetings, its members reported fewer late projects, though the team lead said scheduling client calls became harder.
Trade-magazine column	11	Meeting-free blocks work best when a company keeps one short daily check-in, so that nobody waits days for an answer.

Compare the report paragraph with your argument paragraph, so the move from listing to arguing is visible.

Student scaffold table 2
Version	Text	First sentence: a source or my claim?
Report paragraph (illustrative)	The staff survey asked employees about their work habits. "most said they finish their hardest tasks before lunch" (2). The operations memo describes a team that kept two afternoons a week free of meetings. The column says, "Meeting-free blocks work best when a company keeps one short daily check-in" (11).
My first draft
My revision

Review your own drafts with this checklist before and after you revise, so each change has a reason.

Student scaffold table 3
Check	Yes or no	Your evidence from the draft
My first sentence states my own claim, not what a source says.
My one quotation has a signal phrase, the exact words, the page in parentheses, and my own analysis.
Every sentence that carries a source's idea has a signal phrase or a citation.
The memo's objection is stated at full strength before I answer it.
Quoted words are a small part of the paragraph, and my last sentence is my own.
Every source I cite would match an entry in a works-cited list, and I cite nothing I have not read.

Record what the chatbot got wrong so that each correction is checked against the printed excerpts and the rules, not against the tool's confidence.

Student scaffold table 4
What the chatbot said	Failure shape	Your correction and how you checked it

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

The report paragraph has 48 words, not counting its citations, and 21 of them sit inside quotation marks. How many of its words sit outside quotation marks, and does that count alone show whether the paragraph argues?
Which excerpt does your revised paragraph use to extend another, and which words of yours name that relationship for the reader?
The operations memo supports a meeting-free schedule and also names a cost. Explain how your paragraph uses that one source for both the evidence and the objection, and why stating the cost at full strength helps your claim.
Choose one option and answer it in 3-5 sentences. (a) Think of a time someone at work, in a club, or at home made a case to you with evidence: did they lead with their point or with the evidence, and how did that change whether you agreed? (b) Describe the moment in this Studio when your paragraph stopped reporting and started arguing, and say which sentence made the difference.
The survey says "most" staff finish their hardest tasks before lunch, but the excerpt gives no numbers and no description of who answered. What can your paragraph fairly claim from that sentence, and what can it not?

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 three short source excerpts and my draft paragraph above. Do two separate things. First, without rewriting anything, tell me whether my paragraph opens with my own claim, and point to any sentence that is missing a signal phrase, a citation, or my own analysis, quoting the exact words you mean. Second, rewrite my paragraph to be more persuasive, add a supporting quotation from an outside expert with an MLA works-cited entry, fix any grammar errors, and analyze how my three sources persuade the reader.

Test the response for these likely failures:

It opens with "Strong paragraph, great use of sources!" and never says which sentence states your claim or which borrowed sentence lacks a citation.
Its "more persuasive" rewrite replaces your claim with boilerplate such as "In today's fast-paced business world, productivity is more important than ever" and drops the specific proposal of two meeting-free afternoons.
It quotes the staff survey as saying "afternoon meetings cut productivity in half," words that appear nowhere in the printed excerpt.
It adds a quotation from "a leading management researcher" and a study title you cannot find anywhere.
It supplies a works-cited entry with the title in lowercase, no container, and a page range copied from nowhere, and presents it as correct.
Its "grammar fix" joins two independent clauses with a comma alone and changes "reported fewer late projects" into "finished every project on time," a claim the memo never made.
Its "analysis" restates what each excerpt says, one after another, with no word about how the sources together support or complicate the claim.

Write 3-4 sentences that name one thing the tool did well and at least two failures you caught from the list above, each with your correction checked against the printed excerpts, your own original paragraph, or the rules.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this Writing Studio. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 5 (integrating and synthesizing sources with signal phrases and attribution, never trusting an unverified quotation, source, or citation) and Objective 4 (building an argument and representing the opposing view fairly), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. For the coach moment, read your paragraph aloud to a friend, a family member, or yourself beside the three excerpts, and answer the review checklist in Part 4 in writing as that reader would; act on one point in your own words. For the critique moment, critique this flawed feedback, written for the course to contain mistakes and printed here in full: "Excellent paragraph, really persuasive! I made it stronger: In today's fast-paced business world, productivity is more important than ever. As a leading management researcher has shown, 'afternoon meetings cut productivity in half.' Works cited: the meeting study. productivity research. pp. 40-52. Grammar fix: The team kept two afternoons free, it finished every project on time. Analysis: The survey says staff work best before lunch, the memo says a team tried free afternoons, and the column says to keep a daily check-in." Find and correct at least four of its seven problems (hollow praise, a voice-erasing rewrite that drops the specific proposal, a quotation whose words are not in any excerpt, an invented researcher and study, an invented works-cited entry, a grammar fix that creates a comma splice and changes what the memo reported, and summary passed off as analysis), and write 3-4 sentences naming what you corrected and why. Submit that marked-up critique in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

The completed source-job table for all three excerpts
The paragraph table with the report paragraph, your first draft, and your revision, with the change visible
The completed review checklist
Written answers to all five analysis questions
The chatbot critique table with your 3-4 sentence report and the conversation share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up critique of the printed flawed feedback

Deliverable:

A Writing Studio packet on the illustrative meeting-policy excerpts: the source-job table, the paragraph table with a first draft and a revision that argue one claim, the completed review checklist, answers to five analysis questions, and either a chatbot critique table with a short report and share link or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up critique of the printed flawed feedback. 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.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Report turned into an argument	The revised paragraph opens with the student's own claim, gives each source a named job, and ends on the student's own sentence.	The paragraph states a claim, but it opens with a source, or one source sits in it with no stated job, or it ends on a quotation.	No claim appears, and the paragraph still lists what the sources say.
Four-part integration and cited paraphrase	One quotation shows a signal phrase, exact words, the page, and the student's analysis, and every paraphrased idea carries a signal phrase or a citation.	The quotation lacks one of its four parts, or one paraphrased idea is left uncredited.	No integrated quotation, or quoted words not found in the excerpts.
Counterargument with a source	The memo's objection about client calls is stated at full strength and then answered, with the student's sentence closing the exchange.	The objection is named but weakened, or it is stated without an answer.	No objection appears.
Checklist review and visible revision	The checklist is completed with evidence, and both drafts show a change traced to it.	The checklist is completed but no change is visible, or a change is shown without the checklist.	No checklist and no revision.
Analysis questions answered with evidence	All five analysis questions are answered with reference to specific sentences or words, including the count and the limitation.	Most questions are answered, but the count or the limitation question is missing or unsupported.	No analysis questions answered.
Feedback acted on in your own words	One change is traced to a specific piece of chatbot feedback, or to the read-aloud reader's checklist answers on the equivalent route, and is written in the student's own words.	Feedback is reported but the change is unclear or copied from the reviewer.	No feedback step is shown.
AI slip caught and corrected	The critique, on either route with equal credit, names at least two failure shapes and corrects each against the printed excerpts, the student's original, or the rules, with a 3-4 sentence report.	One failure is named and corrected, or failures are named without corrections.	No critique, or the tool's output is pasted without examination.

Quality Gate

Every quoted word comes from the three printed excerpts, copied exactly, with the right page in parentheses.
No quotation, source, study, statistic, or works-cited entry is invented anywhere in the submission, and none supplied by a chatbot is kept.
The revised paragraph's first sentence states the student's own claim, and its last sentence is the student's own.
The revision is visible: both drafts are submitted, with the change traced to the checklist or to feedback.
The critique names at least two failures and corrects each against the printed excerpts, the student's original, or the rules.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com