Week 13 Philosophy Workshop: The Hillside Garden and the Plot Draw

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned social contract theory, Hobbes's state of nature and absolute sovereign, Locke's natural rights and consent, Mill's harm principle, Rawls's veil of ignorance and difference principle, and Nozick's entitlement theory. In this workshop you take one illustrative packet from a small community garden association whose members are arguing about who may make the garden's rules and how its plots should be shared. You reconstruct four short arguments and key each for validity. Then you test a variation of Rawls's veil of ignorance, the plot draw, and ask what plan you would choose before you know which plot you will get. You write a short dialogue between a defender of the difference principle and an entitlement theorist, each in their strongest form. Last, you check a chatbot's version of the same work and correct its slips by hand, starting with who devised the veil of ignorance.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of the garden's four arguments are valid, which two fail, and what plan would you choose for the plots before the draw tells you which one is yours?

Workshop data: Hillside garden packet: four illustrative arguments and the plot draw, a variation of the veil of ignorance

Source: An illustrative packet of four short arguments and one thought-experiment variation written for this course's workshop; it describes no real garden, association, or person, and its premises are written for teaching, not claims the course endorses.

• Rows: 4 arguments (A1 to A4) and 1 thought-experiment variation; the reconstruction table has 4 rows and the plot-draw table has 4
• Arguments: A1 a garden with no shared rules; A2 the watering rota; A3 the glove rule; A4 the coordinator's consent
• Thought-experiment variation: members vote on how to divide sunny and shaded plots before a draw decides who gets which, labelled as a variation of Rawls's veil of ignorance

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free word processor or note-taking app for arguments in standard form and short dialogues, with the pinned public-domain texts on Project Gutenberg and the Internet Classics Archive open beside it; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose reconstructions, quotations, and attributions the student checks word for word against the pinned text and record before trusting them
• A free word processor or note-taking app
• One approved chatbot

Ways of working

• reconstruct-the-argument
• test-the-thought-experiment
• write-the-dialogue

Procedure

1. Read the garden packet in Part 2 twice. In your notes, copy each of A1 to A4 into standard form: number the premises P1 and P2, and write the conclusion last as C, introduced by So. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Four reconstructions, each with numbered premises and one conclusion line that begins with So.
2. In the first table, name each argument's form and write valid or invalid with a one-sentence reason that uses the definition of validity. For each invalid argument, write a same-shape argument on a new topic whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Every row of the first table has a form, a key, and a reason; each invalid row has a working counterexample; no row says sound or unsound.
3. Count the arguments in the second table: how many are valid and how many are invalid. Show the subtraction from the 4 arguments in the packet. Check: A count of valid and invalid arguments, with the subtraction shown.
4. Work the plot draw in the third table: say which plan you would vote for and why, what Rawls's side would say about choosing before the draw, one change to the case that pulls your choice the other way (label it as your own variation), and what the plot draw changes compared with Rawls's original position. Check: Each row is filled in, your own change is labelled as a variation, and the original case is credited to Rawls (1971).
5. Write a short dialogue of four to six lines between a defender of the difference principle and an entitlement theorist about whether a member who traded fairly for the sunniest plot must share its harvest. Give each speaker their strongest point, have each answer the other, and end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Each speaker answers the other, neither is a weakened version, and a closing sentence names the disagreement.
6. Paste the prompt from Part 6 into one approved chatbot after your completed work, read its reply, and write the critique report. Or, on the equivalent route, mark up the printed flawed analysis instead. Tool: One approved chatbot. Check: A report that quotes at least two slips and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 13.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot open a word processor or a note-taking app.

Copy the three tables by hand onto paper or into any text file, read the packet from this page, write the four reconstructions, the count, the plot-draw table, and the dialogue by hand, and complete every analysis question and the critique step in the same order. Submit a photo or scan of the paper, or the text file, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Key each argument by its form before you judge it, so a key rests on the pattern and not on whether the conclusion sounds right.

Student scaffold table 1

Argument	Form	Valid or invalid	Reason	Counterexample if invalid
A1 (a garden with no shared rules)
A2 (the watering rota)
A3 (the glove rule)
A4 (the coordinator's consent)

Count the keys so every number you report traces back to the table above.

Student scaffold table 2

Count	Number	How you got it
Arguments in the packet	4	Given in the packet
Valid arguments
Invalid arguments

Run the variation one step at a time, so your choice of plan is argued rather than asserted.

Student scaffold table 3

Step	What you find
Which plan would you vote for before the draw, and why?
What Rawls's side says about choosing before you know your plot
Your own change to the case that pulls the other way (a labelled variation)
What the plot draw changes from Rawls's original position

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. How many of the packet's 4 arguments are valid, and how many invalid? Show the subtraction, and name the form of each valid one.
2. Why are A2 and A4 invalid even if their premises are true? Explain each with your same-shape counterexample and one plain sentence about the garden.
3. Using your plot-draw table, explain which plan you would choose before the draw, what Rawls's side says about choosing that way, and which way your own variation pulls. Keep the original case credited to Rawls (1971).
4. In your dialogue, what is the strongest point each speaker makes, and where exactly do they disagree? Connect the entitlement theorist's side to how the sunny plot was acquired and transferred. End with one plain sentence.
5. What can a validity check not tell you about A1 or A3, and what can the plot draw not show about justice for a whole society, whose basic institutions shape everyone's life?
6. Choose one reflection: (a) which argument in the packet did you first key the wrong way, and what in this week's definitions changed your mind? or (b) which speaker in your dialogue did you start out agreeing with, and did your view survive writing the other side at its strongest?

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 completed my reconstruction table, my count, my plot-draw table, and my short dialogue above. Here is an illustrative workshop packet from my philosophy course. Hillside garden packet (illustrative): the members of a small community garden association argue about who may make the garden's rules and how its plots should be shared. A1: If the garden has no shared rules, every plot-holder has reason to guard their own plot at the others' expense. If every plot-holder has reason to guard their own plot at the others' expense, the garden will fall apart. So if the garden has no shared rules, the garden will fall apart. A2: All fair garden rules were agreed to by the members. The watering rota was agreed to by the members. So the watering rota is a fair garden rule. A3: If a rule limits a member only for that member's own good, it is not a rightful use of the association's power. The rule requiring members to wear gloves limits members only for their own good. So the glove rule is not a rightful use of the association's power. A4: If the association's coordinator rules with the members' consent, the coordinator is legitimate. The coordinator is legitimate. So the coordinator rules with the members' consent. The plot draw (a variation of Rawls's veil of ignorance, written for this workshop): the association must decide how to divide its plots, some sunny and some shaded, and every member votes on a plan before a draw decides which plot each member gets. Please do seven things. First, put each of A1 to A4 in standard form, and say whether each is valid and whether it is sound. Second, tell me who devised the veil of ignorance, with the book and year, and quote Hobbes's sentence about the life of man in Leviathan and Mill's harm principle exactly. Third, give me Rousseau's exact words in The Social Contract defining the general will. Fourth, tell me which book 'I think, therefore I am' comes from. Fifth, summarize Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Nozick, and say whether anyone outside Europe ever asked what makes authority legitimate. Sixth, tell me whether the difference principle is the correct principle for dividing the plots. Seventh, end with a balanced summary of the debate between Rawls and Nozick.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call A2 valid because both premises sound reasonable, or read A4 as modus ponens.
• Chatbots often say A3 is sound, or that it proves the glove rule is wrong, without asking whether its first premise is true.
• Chatbots sometimes credit the veil of ignorance to Hobbes or Locke, because it appears beside the social contract.
• Chatbots sometimes date A Theory of Justice to 1974, Nozick's year, or credit the harm principle to Locke.
• Asked for Hobbes's sentence, chatbots usually modernize poore to poor or drop its opening words, and they often paraphrase Mill's harm principle inside quotation marks.
• Asked for Rousseau's exact words defining the general will, chatbots give an English sentence and present it as Rousseau's own words.
• Chatbots usually place 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations of 1641.
• Chatbots often reduce Hobbes to 'people are evil', the harm principle to 'no rules at all', and Nozick to 'no government'.
• Chatbots sometimes say that asking what makes authority legitimate began in Europe with Hobbes and Locke.
• Asked whether the difference principle is correct for the plots, chatbots often announce that it plainly is, or that it plainly is not.
• Chatbots often end a 'balanced' summary by saying that Nozick refuted Rawls, or that Rawls answered Nozick once and for all.

Write 3-5 sentences naming what the chatbot got right and at least two places where it slipped into one of the failures above, quoting its words and correcting each by hand against the packet and Chapter 13.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 7 (compare social contract theories and theories of justice and liberty, from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to Mill, Rawls, and Nozick) and Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis of the hillside garden packet, printed here in full: "A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all valid, and A4 is modus ponens, so the coordinator rules with consent. A3 is sound, which proves the glove rule is wrong. Thomas Hobbes devised the veil of ignorance, and A Theory of Justice was published in 1974. Hobbes said life without government is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and Locke's harm principle says no government may limit anyone, quoted here from memory. Rousseau wrote in English that the general will is whatever the majority votes for, and Descartes wrote 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations. Hobbes thought people are simply evil, and Nozick wanted no government at all. Asking what makes authority legitimate began in Europe. The difference principle is plainly the right way to divide the plots. To sum up fairly, Rawls answered Nozick once and for all." Mark every error you find, name the failure it shows, and correct it by hand against the packet and Chapter 13; find at least two. Submit the marked-up analysis with your corrections in place of the chatbot report and share link. If you take Rawls's side in your dialogue, rebuild the printed claim about Nozick at its strongest as an entitlement theorist would state it; if you take Nozick's side, rebuild the printed claim about the difference principle at its strongest as Rawls would state it.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The three completed tables from Part 4, including the count with its subtraction
• The four reconstructions, the two counterexamples, and the four-to-six-line dialogue
• Written answers to all six analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Philosophy Workshop report on one illustrative garden packet: three completed tables (four arguments keyed for validity with reasons and a counterexample for each invalid one; the count of valid and invalid arguments with its subtraction; and the plot draw worked step by step), a four-to-six-line dialogue between a defender of the difference principle and an entitlement theorist, ending in a plain sentence, written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same work, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or labelled tables with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria. 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
Accurate reconstruction and validity judgment	All four arguments are in standard form, each form is named and keyed valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, each invalid one has a working same-shape counterexample, and the count is worked with its subtraction.	Most arguments are reconstructed and keyed with reasons, but one is misnamed or miskeyed, a counterexample does not work, a reason is missing, or the count is missing or off.	The reconstructions are missing, or the keys rest on whether conclusions sound true rather than on form.
Thought-experiment test	The plot-draw table names a plan and a reason, states Rawls's side on choosing before the draw, adds one labelled variation that pulls the choice the other way, and says what the plot draw changes from Rawls's original position.	The table is mostly complete, but Rawls's side is missing, the student's own change is not labelled as a variation, or the comparison with the original case is missing.	No plot-draw table appears, or the variation is treated as Rawls's own case.
Two positions stated fairly in dialogue	The dialogue gives the defender of the difference principle and the entitlement theorist each their strongest point, has each answer the other, ties the entitlement side to how the plot was acquired and transferred, and ends in one plain sentence naming where they disagree.	Both positions appear, but one is weakened, the speakers talk past each other, or the closing sentence is missing.	No dialogue, or only one side is stated.
Caught-and-corrected AI slip, on either route	The chatbot critique report, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, quotes at least two errors, names the failure each shows, and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 13; either route earns this band equally.	One error is quoted and corrected on either route, or errors are named without a correction.	No critique on either route, or chatbot output is pasted without checking it.
Accurate sourcing and reflection	The veil of ignorance is credited to Rawls (1971), the harm principle to Mill, and the entitlement theory to Nozick, any pinned quotation is copied exactly, the plot draw is labelled as a variation, nothing is invented, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a reason.	The sourcing is accurate but the reflection is thin, or the reflection is strong but one attribution or quotation goes beyond the pinned record.	An invented quotation, work, or date appears, and there is no reflection.

Quality Gate

• Every argument is in standard form, with numbered premises and a conclusion line introduced by So.
• Every key says valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, each invalid argument has a working same-shape counterexample, and no argument in the packet is called sound or unsound.
• The plot draw is labelled as a variation of Rawls's veil of ignorance, any further change is labelled as the student's own variation, and the veil of ignorance is credited to Rawls (1971), not to Hobbes or Locke.
• Each position in the dialogue is stated as its strongest defenders would, and no verdict is announced on which principle of justice is right.
• No quotation, work, date, or philosopher's view is invented anywhere in the submission, and any pinned quotation is copied word for word, spelling included.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors by hand.