Week 5 — What Knowledge Needs: Testing a Definition with a Lucky Case

Assignment 5 of the term — test the justified true belief definition against a lucky case, put the challenge in standard form, weigh three answers to the regress problem, and explain Gettier's point 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. In Week 1 you tested definitions with counterexamples, in Week 2 you learned standard form and denying the consequent, and in Week 4 you met Descartes' search for certainty. This week you learned justified true belief, the Gettier cases, a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism. 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 this week's pinned facts and the course's own definitions. The case below was written for this assignment on the shape of Edmund Gettier's 1963 cases; it is a variation, not one of Gettier's own, and it describes no real person or place. Every argument you reconstruct is illustrative, and the course keys validity only, never soundness, when a premise is an open question.

Part A — test the definition. A night-shift security guard glances at a camera monitor that shows the loading dock empty, and believes the dock is empty. The guard does not know that the monitor froze an hour ago on an old image. By chance, the dock really is empty right now. Do three things:

• Check the conditions. Take the guard's belief through the three conditions of justified true belief, (1) truth, (2) belief, and (3) justification, one at a time, with a reason for each. Then name what justifies the belief and what makes it true.
• Reconstruct the challenge. Put a challenge to the definition in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So"), using the guard's case. Name its form and say whether it is valid, with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity. Then name the premise a critic of the challenge would press, and say why the course does not key the argument for soundness.
• Explain the count. In two or three sentences, explain why a single case like this one is enough to defeat the definition as stated, using the terms necessary condition and sufficient condition.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy date from 1641, and Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" from 1963. How many years separate them?

Part B — weigh three answers to the regress. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding dates from 1748, and Gettier's paper from 1963. How many years separate them?

Then do three things:

• State the problem. In your own words, state the regress problem and say what the skeptic concludes from it.
• State all three answers at their strongest. State foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism each as its best defenders would, give the strongest objection to each, and give a reply from each theory's own side.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where the three theories disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has never taken philosophy says, "If you believed something, you had a good reason, and you were right, then you knew it. End of story." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what Gettier's cases are meant to show, using a lucky case of your own, and names one honest limit of what the cases show. Explain any term your friend might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who asks how an argument can be valid and still have a false conclusion. Model answer: "Valid only means the conclusion would have to be true if the starting claims were true. It says nothing about whether those starting claims really are true. So if one of them is false, a valid argument can still land on a false conclusion. One limit: knowing an argument is valid tells you to check its starting claims, but it does not check them for you."

Use that pattern for your message to your friend, with your own explanation of Gettier's point.

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 your condition check or your reconstruction more exact, and which definition showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one theory of justification stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your friend 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 condition check, reconstruction, or statement of a theory, 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 condition check, reconstruction, or message for you. If it says Gettier proved that knowledge can never be defined, calls justified true belief the settled definition, or names a winning theory of justification, check that against Chapter 5 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 ideas: justified true belief and its three conditions (truth, belief, justification), justification as good reason rather than certainty, necessary and sufficient conditions, the Gettier cases from Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" (Analysis, 1963), a priori and a posteriori knowledge, the regress problem, and foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism. 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; do not retell the details of Gettier's own cases; never call an argument with a contested premise sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on whether the guard knew or which theory of justification is right.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: a night-shift security guard sees a camera monitor showing the loading dock empty and believes the dock is empty; the monitor froze an hour ago on an old image, and by chance the dock really is empty. I check truth, belief, and justification one at a time with a reason for each and name what justifies the belief and what makes it true. I put a challenge to the definition in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So") using the guard's case, name its form, judge its validity with a reason, name the premise a critic would press, and say why soundness is not keyed. I explain, using necessary condition and sufficient condition, why one case is enough to defeat the definition as stated. Part B: I state the regress problem and the skeptic's conclusion; I state foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism at their strongest, each with its strongest objection and a reply from its own side; and I end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy date from 1641, and Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" from 1963. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding dates from 1748, and Gettier's paper from 1963. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the condition check, the reconstruction, and the count explanation. For P2 I must also supply the regress problem, the three theories with objections and replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a friend who thinks a justified true belief is always knowledge. After revising, I answer reflection option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Interpretation of the case (P1): 20 if the condition check takes truth, belief, and justification one at a time with a reason for each, names what justifies the belief (the monitor) and what makes it true (the dock's actual state), and works the P1 year gap; 10 if two or three of those four parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if the challenge is in standard form using the guard's case, its form is named (denying the consequent in the chapter's version; another valid form if my reconstruction has one) and judged valid with a reason, the contested premise is named with the reason soundness is not keyed, and the count explanation uses necessary and sufficient conditions to show why one case is enough; 15 if one of those two parts is complete and the other has one gap; 5 if a form is named and judged with a reason but both parts have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the three theories (P2): 25 if the regress problem and the skeptic's conclusion are stated, all three theories are stated at their strongest each with an objection and a reply, the plain sentence names the disagreement, and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or a theory is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, uses a lucky case, says what Gettier's cases are meant to show, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points 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 and the pinned facts. 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 condition check, the reconstruction, the count explanation, the regress problem, the three theories with objections and replies, the plain sentence, and the friend 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 condition check, my reconstruction, my evaluation, 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 condition check, the reconstruction, and the count explanation with the first year gap; the regress problem, the three theories with objections and replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your friend; 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 5 skills — checking a belief against the three conditions of justified true belief, putting a challenge to a definition in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, explaining why one counterexample defeats a definition, stating foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism at their strongest with objections and replies, and explaining Gettier's point 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 friend, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the condition check, confirm you took truth, belief, and justification one at a time and named what justifies the belief and what makes it true; for the reconstruction, check the form's name against Week 2's list and underline the premise a critic would press; for each theory, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; and check that your friend message says what the cases suggest without claiming they prove more. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned fact 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 condition check, reconstruction, evaluation, 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