Week 2 — Shape First: Keying and Testing Arguments

Assignment 2 of the term — put arguments in standard form, key them for validity, break an invalid form with a counterexample, read an argument charitably, and explain the difference between valid and true to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. 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. Last week you learned what philosophy is and the Socratic habit of testing a definition with a counterexample. This week you learned how arguments work: standard form, validity and soundness, the valid and invalid forms, counterexamples, inductive strength, thought experiments, and reading charitably. 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 use Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative), from this week's chapter. Its premises are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses. The course keys its arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. You will also use two everyday arguments written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — reconstruct and key four arguments. Here are the four arguments:

1. Dataset B, argument 3: "If an act maximizes happiness, it is right. If it is right, we ought to do it. So if an act maximizes happiness, we ought to do it."
2. Dataset B, argument 8: "If a machine understands Chinese, it can answer questions in Chinese. This machine answers questions in Chinese. So it understands Chinese."
3. A ferry dispatcher: "If the wind is above the safe limit, the ferry is cancelled. The ferry is cancelled. So the wind is above the safe limit."
4. A pharmacy clerk: "Either the prescription was sent to this store or it was sent to the downtown store. It was not sent to this store. So it was sent to the downtown store."

For each one, write it in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So"), say what P, Q, and R stand for, name its form, and say whether it is valid or invalid, with a one-sentence reason that uses the definition of validity. Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative), holds 10 arguments, and 6 of them are keyed valid. How many are keyed invalid?

Part B — test and read charitably. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Of the 6 valid arguments in Dataset B, 2 are modus ponens. How many of the valid arguments use one of the other valid forms?

Then do three things:

• Counterexample. Build a counterexample to the form of the ferry dispatcher's argument: keep the exact form, use everyday content anyone can check, and show that the premises are true and the conclusion false. End with one plain sentence saying what the counterexample shows.
• Charitable reading. At a community garden meeting, a volunteer says, "We should stop holding the weekend workdays, because hardly anyone comes." Restate the volunteer's argument in its strongest form, in standard form, with any premise you add marked "(added)".
• Objection and reply. Give the strongest objection you can to one premise of your charitable version, then a reply from the volunteer's side. End with one plain sentence naming where the two sides disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A roommate who has never taken philosophy reads argument 3 of Dataset B and says, "That argument is valid, so it must be true." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what valid means, why a valid argument can still have a false premise, and one honest limit of what a validity check can tell anyone. Explain any term your roommate might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who asks why a sales forecast built on three strong months is not a guarantee. Model answer: "The forecast is a good bet, not a promise. Philosophers call it an inductive argument: past months make the next month likely, but they cannot lock it in. The more months, and the more typical they were, the stronger the bet gets. One limit: even a strong bet can lose if something new happens, like a store closing nearby."

Use that pattern for your message to your roommate, with your own explanation of valid and true.

Reflect on your revision

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

• (a) Which change made one of your reconstructions or form names more exact, and which definition showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your counterexample or your charitable reading stronger, and what had you missed at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your roommate 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. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one reconstruction, form name, counterexample, or part of your charitable reading, 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 reconstructions, your counterexample, or your message for you. If it calls a valid argument sound without checking the premises, or credits a puzzle or a view to a philosopher, check that against Chapter 2 before you use it.

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 this week's argument skills: standard form, validity and soundness, the valid forms (modus ponens, denying the consequent, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, the categorical syllogism), the invalid forms (denying the antecedent, reasoning from the consequent back to the antecedent, the invalid categorical pattern), counterexamples to a form, and reading an argument charitably. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on an open philosophical question.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: four arguments from my course. (1) Dataset B, argument 3 (illustrative): "If an act maximizes happiness, it is right. If it is right, we ought to do it. So if an act maximizes happiness, we ought to do it." (2) Dataset B, argument 8 (illustrative): "If a machine understands Chinese, it can answer questions in Chinese. This machine answers questions in Chinese. So it understands Chinese." (3) A ferry dispatcher: "If the wind is above the safe limit, the ferry is cancelled. The ferry is cancelled. So the wind is above the safe limit." (4) A pharmacy clerk: "Either the prescription was sent to this store or it was sent to the downtown store. It was not sent to this store. So it was sent to the downtown store." I write each in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So"), say what P, Q, and R stand for, name the form, and say valid or invalid with a reason from the definition of validity. Part B: a counterexample to the ferry dispatcher's form; a charitable standard-form reading of a community garden volunteer's remark, "We should stop holding the weekend workdays, because hardly anyone comes," with any added premise marked "(added)"; and the strongest objection to one premise with a reply from the volunteer's side, ending in one plain sentence naming the disagreement.
PROBLEM P1: Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative), holds 10 arguments, and 6 of them are keyed valid. How many are keyed invalid?
PROBLEM P2: Of the 6 valid arguments in Dataset B, 2 are modus ponens. How many of the valid arguments use one of the other valid forms?
For P1 I must also reconstruct and key all four arguments. For P2 I must also give the counterexample, the charitable reading, and the objection and reply; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a roommate who thinks a valid argument must be true. After revising, I answer reflection option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Argument reconstruction (P1): 30 if all four arguments are in standard form with P, Q, and R identified, each form named and keyed valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, and the count of invalid arguments worked; 20 if all four are keyed with the count right but one or two reasons are missing or one reconstruction drops a premise, or three of four are named and keyed with reasons; 10 if at least two are named and keyed with reasons but others are misnamed or miskeyed or the count is off; 0 otherwise. Counterexample and charitable evaluation (P2): 35 if the counterexample keeps the exact form with checkably true premises and a false conclusion, the charitable reading is in standard form with the added premise marked and states the remark at its strongest, the objection and reply are both stated at their strongest and end in a plain sentence, and the count of other valid forms is worked; 25 if one of those parts is missing; 15 if two or more parts are missing or the counterexample changes the form; 0 if no accurate test or reading. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 20 if the message is in everyday words, says what valid means, explains why a valid argument can still have a false premise, and names a limit of a validity check; 10 if it can be followed but omits the false-premise point or the limit, or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change 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 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 check it against the definitions. 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 both problems with the four reconstructions, the counterexample, the charitable reading, the objection and reply, and the roommate 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 reconstructions, my counterexample, my charitable reading, and my 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 four reconstructions with their forms, keys, and reasons and the count of invalid arguments; the counterexample, the charitable reading, and the objection and reply with the count of other valid forms; your message to your roommate; 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 2 skills — putting an argument in standard form, naming its form and keying it for validity, building a counterexample to an invalid form, reading an argument charitably and answering the strongest objection, and explaining validity to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your roommate, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for each reconstruction, underline the premise that matches P and the one that matches Q, and check the form's name against the chapter's list; for the counterexample, tick that its form matches the ferry argument line for line and that its premises are true and its conclusion false; and check that your roommate message separates valid from true. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition 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 reconstructions, counterexample, charitable reading, objection and reply, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. 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