Week 1 — Examining a Definition and a Translated Line

Assignment 1 of the term — examine a definition the way Socrates did, credit a translated line to the right people, and explain the work to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-sourced analysis. 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. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will work with two things from this week. The first is Q1, the one line the course quotes from Plato's Apology, Socrates' defense speech at his trial: "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett). Socrates wrote nothing that survives, so the English words are Jowett's. The second is the chapter's illustrative group project of 4 members, where D1, "fairness means everyone gets exactly the same," was tested with a counterexample. You will also run the Socratic method yourself on a fresh, illustrative definition: "a good leader is someone the team always agrees with."

Work these four problems, showing each count and the reasoning behind it:

1. Q1 is cited as Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett, with Socrates as its speaker. Counting 1 speaker, 1 author, and 1 translator, how many people stand between the trial and your English page?
2. The course names 6 branches of philosophy, and the chapter's three break-room questions touch 4 of them as a home or second branch. How many branches do the break-room questions leave untouched?
3. In the group project of 4 members, 1 member did none of the work, yet all 4 received the same credit. How many members did the work?
4. You will run 2 rounds of the Socratic method on the definition "a good leader is someone the team always agrees with," writing 1 definition and 1 counterexample in each round. How many definitions and counterexamples will your examination contain in all?

Beside each count, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: name the speaker, the author, and the translator of Q1, say whose English words are on the page, and rewrite the mistaken citation "Socrates wrote, 'the unexamined life is not worth living'" so it credits each person correctly.
• Problem 2: give the home branch and any second branch for each of the three break-room questions, and write one question of your own for each branch the break-room questions leave untouched.
• Problem 3: explain why the group-project case is a counterexample to D1 ("fairness means everyone gets exactly the same"), say whether it shows D1 is too broad or too narrow, and propose a revised definition of your own that differs from the chapter's D2.
• Problem 4: write both rounds (the definition, a counterexample, a revised definition, and a second counterexample), label each counterexample too broad or too narrow with a reason, and say why the examination ends with a sharper question rather than a settled definition.

Explain it to a non-expert

A younger cousin hears that you are taking philosophy and says, "Philosophy is all opinion, so there's nothing to check." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains in everyday words what philosophy examines and how, uses one example from your two rounds in Problem 4, and names one limit: a counterexample shows that a definition fails as stated, but it does not hand you the right definition, and the course settles no open question for you. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good message is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who says a fair weekend schedule is "one where everyone works the same number of weekends." Model answer: "We are not merely trading opinions here; we can test that idea with a case. Suppose one person has a second job every weekend and another asked for extra weekend hours. The rule treats them the same, but most of us would not call it fair, so the definition needs work. That case does not tell us the perfect rule, so we would still have to suggest a better one and test it too."

Use that pattern for your cousin, with your own wording and your own example.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four counts, the four brief interpretations, and your message to your cousin 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. Reply in your own words. Show each count and the reasoning behind it when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one count or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
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 the work for you. If it says Socrates wrote Q1, quotes the line without naming Jowett, or treats a counterexample as proof of the opposite definition, say so and ask it why.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about what philosophy is, the six branches, the trial of Socrates, Q1 and its translator, and the Socratic method. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a quotation, a date, a work, or a view and credit it to Socrates, Plato, or anyone else, and never give your own verdict on an open philosophical question. The only quotation in this assignment is Q1, word for word: "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett); Socrates wrote nothing that survives, so the English words are Jowett's.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Background: the six branches are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, political philosophy, and aesthetics. The chapter's break-room questions were "Did the person in bed 4 truly understand the consent form?" (epistemology, with an ethics side), "Does the new visiting rule treat families with justice?" (political philosophy, with an ethics side), and "Is the lobby painting art or decoration?" (aesthetics). In the illustrative group project, D1 was "fairness means everyone gets exactly the same."
PROBLEM P1: Q1 is cited as Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett, with Socrates as its speaker. Counting 1 speaker, 1 author, and 1 translator, how many people stand between the trial and your English page?
PROBLEM P2: The course names 6 branches of philosophy, and the chapter's three break-room questions touch 4 of them as a home or second branch. How many branches do the break-room questions leave untouched?
PROBLEM P3: In the group project of 4 members, 1 member did none of the work, yet all 4 received the same credit. How many members did the work?
PROBLEM P4: You will run 2 rounds of the Socratic method on the definition "a good leader is someone the team always agrees with," writing 1 definition and 1 counterexample in each round. How many definitions and counterexamples will your examination contain in all?
After the four counts, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, name the speaker, the author, and the translator of Q1, say whose English words are on the page, and rewrite the mistaken citation "Socrates wrote, 'the unexamined life is not worth living'" so it credits each person correctly; for P2, give the home branch and any second branch for each of the three break-room questions, and write one question of your own for each branch the break-room questions leave untouched; for P3, explain why the group-project case is a counterexample to D1 ("fairness means everyone gets exactly the same"), say whether it shows D1 is too broad or too narrow, and propose a revised definition of your own that differs from the chapter's D2; for P4, write both rounds (the definition, a counterexample, a revised definition, and a second counterexample), label each counterexample too broad or too narrow with a reason, and say why the examination ends with a sharper question rather than a settled definition. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a younger cousin who says philosophy is all opinion, explaining what philosophy examines and how, using one example from my Problem 4 rounds, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: accurate sourcing and attribution (20 points), Socratic analysis (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing the reasoning so it can be checked (16 points). For each of P1-P4, award 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 2.5 sourcing points, 6 analysis points, 2 clarity points, or 2 reasoning points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my cousin message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
SOURCING UNITS: A correct count with every cited name, work, and translator matching the record above = 2; the right values and operation with only a slip, or a correct count with one wrong attribution = 1; a missing count, or wrong values together with a wrong attribution = 0. Crediting Q1 to Socrates as its writer, or presenting the English as his own words, is a wrong attribution.
ANALYSIS UNITS: For each problem, an interpretation that supplies both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4 the two parts are the two labeled rounds and the cousin message. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and calling a counterexample proof of the opposite definition is not accurate. A counting slip alone is not an analysis error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to philosophy, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the cousin message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
REASONING UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps, with any quotation of Q1 matching the text above word for word = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, step, or quotation, or a quotation that drifts from the text = 1; a bare count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite a slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply 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. 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 all four counts and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the cousin AND revised at least one count or explanation 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 total; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the total for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts, citations, and reasoning]
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 with all four counts, their brief interpretations, and your message to your cousin — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or spoken aloud in a recording 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 1 skills — describing philosophy as examination by careful argument, naming the six branches, crediting Q1 to Plato's Apology in Benjamin Jowett's translation, running the Socratic method with counterexamples, and explaining all of it to someone new — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to your cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and check every citation of Q1 against the text as printed on this page. Write a second draft and add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one count or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, 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 counts, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and check any line it quotes against Q1 as printed here. 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