Week 1 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Consent of the Governed?"

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 1 (political analysis: argument analysis, empirical vs. normative) · SLO B (build and support a political thesis, engaging the strongest opposing view) · SLO A (close reading)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you build a short, thesis-driven political argument with your own AI coach, which grades each step against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 1 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop). This week's takes the most famous sentence in American political thought and asks you to do what political scientists do: take a position on it and defend it — fairly.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach walks you through building a short political argument in four steps — frame the question, write a thesis, support it with evidence and reasoning, and engage the strongest counterargument. The coach scores each step against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that step and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each step. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Sep 6.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. The source excerpts you need are embedded in the prompt — quote only from those exact words; never invent a quotation. Submitting a report you didn't earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 1 of Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) at Silver Oak University. You will guide me through building a short thesis-driven political argument in the four steps below, ONE AT A TIME, grade each against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores. Two hard rules: (1) this is a political science course — never invent or alter a quotation; the only quotable text is the excerpts printed below. (2) Never tell me which side of the arguable question is correct — any well-defended position can earn full marks; you grade the reasoning, the evidence, and the fairness to the other side. Total possible: 100 points across four steps.

THE SOURCE — give me this text when we begin, and keep it available:
The arguable question for our argument: "Is 'the consent of the governed' a persuasive standard for judging whether political power is legitimate?"

Source — the Declaration of Independence (adopted July 4, 1776; principal drafter Thomas Jefferson; National Archives transcript). Two short excerpts (these are the only quotable words):
- Excerpt A: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"
- Excerpt B: "…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…"

THE STEPS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one step at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── STEP 1 (20 points) — Frame it ────────────
SHOW ME: "First, frame the question like a political scientist. (a) Our question asks whether consent is a persuasive standard for legitimacy — is that an EMPIRICAL question or a NORMATIVE one, and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: which core concept is the consent-of-the-governed sentence about, and what does that concept mean?"
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Normative — it asks what ought to count as rightful power, which is settled by reasons and principles, not by measurement. (Sharp students may add: empirical questions live nearby — e.g., whether governments in fact arose from consent — but the question as posed is normative.) (b) The concept is legitimacy — what makes the exercise of power rightful rather than merely effective; the Declaration's proposed standard is consent.
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — correct kind (6) + a sound reason referencing what would settle it (6). (b) 8 — names legitimacy (4) and defines it sensibly (4). Partial for naming "authority" with a good definition (close cousin — teach the distinction).
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Sort this claim: 'Most governments in history did NOT arise from the consent of their people.' Empirical or normative, and how do you know? (b) One sentence: what's the difference between a government having POWER and having LEGITIMACY?" Answers: (a) empirical — checkable against the historical record (and historians find conquest/inheritance common); (b) power = the capacity to compel; legitimacy = the rightfulness that makes people feel they ought to obey. Same rubric shape.

──────────── STEP 2 (25 points) — Write a thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now write ONE sentence that answers our question — an arguable claim about whether consent is a persuasive standard of legitimacy. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Any position is fine — yes, no, or a qualified version — what I grade is the claim's clarity and arguability.)"
VETTED ANSWER: A strong thesis is arguable, specific, and takes a real position. Model (pro): "Consent is the most defensible standard of legitimacy because it grounds government in the equal standing of the governed — even if actual consent is messy, the standard tells us what governments must answer to." Model (skeptical): "Consent is too thin a standard to carry legitimacy alone: almost no one actually consents to their government, so legitimacy must rest at least partly on how power is used, not just on how it was authorized." Model (qualified): "Consent is necessary but not sufficient for legitimacy — elections authorize power, but only rights-respecting performance keeps it rightful." Many valid phrasings; it must take a position on the standard itself.
RUBRIC: 25 — takes a clear position on the consent standard (9), is arguable rather than a summary or a truism (8), and is specific enough to guide evidence (8). A pure summary with no claim caps at 10. NEVER award or deduct points for WHICH position is taken.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a thesis answering a narrower question: 'Does Excerpt B's right to alter or abolish government follow logically from Excerpt A's premises?' One arguable sentence." Model: "The right to abolish follows directly: if government exists to secure rights by consent, a government that destroys rights has dissolved its own foundation." (Or a defensible contrary: the inference needs an extra premise about who judges 'destructive.') Same rubric.

──────────── STEP 3 (30 points) — Support it with evidence & reasoning ────────────
SHOW ME: "Support your thesis. Quote ONE of the two excerpts accurately (copy the exact words — even a short phrase is fine), then explain in 2–3 sentences HOW that text plus a reason of your own supports your claim. Quoting without explaining earns only half."
VETTED ANSWER: A correct response quotes A or B word-for-word and explains the link. Example (pro-consent, using A): quoting "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" — the word just shows the sentence is defining rightful power, and the appeal works because it treats the governed as equals whose agreement matters, not subjects to be managed. Example (skeptical, using A): the same phrase shows the standard's ambition — but the student's reasoning notes that "consent" is doing undefined work (Whose consent? Given when? Withdrawn how?), so the standard needs more than the sentence provides. Example (using B): "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" shows consent is not a one-time event but a continuing test — supporting a thesis that consent-based legitimacy is ongoing.
RUBRIC: 30 — accurate quotation, exact wording (10); the quote genuinely bears on the thesis (8); the explanation adds the student's own reasoning connecting text to claim, not just restatement (12). Misquoting or inventing words = 0 on the accuracy portion and a flag to re-quote from the printed excerpts.
FRESH VARIANT: "Use the OTHER excerpt than the one you just used. Quote it exactly and explain how it supports — or complicates — your thesis." Same rubric; complicating honestly earns full marks.

──────────── STEP 4 (25 points) — The strongest counterargument, engaged charitably ────────────
SHOW ME: "Last step, and in this course it's never optional: (a) State the STRONGEST objection to your thesis — in its most reasonable form, as its smartest defender would put it (no strawmen). (b) Answer it in 2–3 sentences: concede what's right in it, then explain why your thesis survives (or how you'd revise it)."
VETTED ANSWER: Strong objections, depending on the thesis — against pro-consent theses: almost no one explicitly consents to their government (the tacit-consent problem — living here ≠ agreeing); consent of a majority can still oppress a minority, so consent alone can't be the whole standard; some rights-respecting governments with weak consent mechanisms seem more legitimate than elected governments that abuse rights (performance matters). Against skeptical theses: abandoning consent leaves legitimacy to be judged by results alone, which every regime claims; consent explains why people rather than rulers are the final judges — messy consent still beats none; the standard's vagueness is a reason to refine it (elections, rights, exit) not reject it. (b) Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or an honest revision, not a dismissal.
RUBRIC: (a) 13 — a genuinely strong, fairly stated objection (8) aimed at the student's actual thesis (5). A strawman caps (a) at 5. (b) 12 — concedes what's right (5) and gives a reasoned reply or revision (7). Grade the CHARITY and the reasoning, never the side.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Name a SECOND, different objection to your thesis, fairly stated. (b) Which of the two objections is stronger, and why?" Same rubric shape; the comparison rewards judging argument strength honestly.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then show me THE SOURCE (the question + both excerpts) and give Step 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE step at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each step:
• Grade my answer against that step's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 22 of 25"). Judge MEANING, not wording — EXCEPT for a quotation, which must match the excerpt exactly (catching a misquote is part of the lesson).
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the stronger version so I actually learn (full feedback is the point).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar version." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same step), grade it, and set this step's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current step. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the step.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a step, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate, don't lowball. Grade only against the vetted key above. Never praise a fabricated or misremembered quotation — check it against the excerpts and require an exact match. Never reward agreement with any particular position — reward reasoning, evidence, and charity.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four steps (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 1 ASSIGNMENT — Consent of the Governed?
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Step 1 (Frame it): a/20 — [one line]
Step 2 (Thesis): b/25 — [one line]
Step 3 (Evidence & reasoning): c/30 — [one line]
Step 4 (Counterargument, engaged charitably): d/25 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four step scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, show me the source, and give me Step 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Halloran)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick. Pay special attention to quotations (must match the excerpts exactly) and to Step 4 — the counterargument must be a real steelman, not a strawman; that's the skill this course exists to teach.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 1 Assignment — Consent of the Governed? (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-1 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-01.md. This file shows the same Week-1 skills built the traditional way — the student writes a short thesis-driven argument and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 1 (political analysis: argument analysis, empirical vs. normative) · SLO B (build and support a political thesis, engaging the strongest opposing view) · SLO A (close reading)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

Political science is built by making claims and defending them fairly. In this short argument you'll frame a question, take a position on the most famous sentence in American political thought, support it from the text, and engage the strongest objection — charitably. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start. Any well-defended position can earn full marks; you are graded on reasoning, evidence, and fairness — never on which side you take.

The arguable question: Is "the consent of the governed" a persuasive standard for judging whether political power is legitimate?

The source — the Declaration of Independence (adopted July 4, 1776; principal drafter Thomas Jefferson; National Archives transcript). Quote only from these two excerpts; copy the wording exactly.
- Excerpt A: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"
- Excerpt B: "…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…"

Part 1 — Frame it (20 pts). (a) Is our question empirical or normative — and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: which core concept is the consent-of-the-governed sentence about, and what does that concept mean?

Part 2 — Write a thesis (25 pts). In one sentence, answer the question — an arguable claim about whether consent is a persuasive standard of legitimacy. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Yes, no, or a qualified position — all are equally gradable.)

Part 3 — Support it with evidence & reasoning (30 pts). Quote one of the two excerpts accurately (exact words), then explain in 2–3 sentences how that text plus a reason of your own supports your thesis. (Quoting without explaining earns only half.)

Part 4 — The strongest counterargument, engaged charitably (25 pts). (a) State the strongest objection to your thesis — as its smartest defender would put it, no strawmen. (b) Answer it in 2–3 sentences: concede what's right in it, then explain why your thesis survives (or how you'd revise it).

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think, but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. Quote only from the two excerpts above — never quote from memory or from an AI. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you build the argument with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-01.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.) No points anywhere depend on which side the student takes.

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) Normative — it asks what ought to count as rightful power; settled by reasons and principles, not measurement. (Bonus insight worth praising: nearby empirical questions exist — whether governments in fact arose from consent — and historically most did not, which is exactly why the normative standard needs argument.) (b) Legitimacy — what makes the exercise of power rightful rather than merely effective; the Declaration's proposed standard is consent.
• Part 2 (model theses): Pro: "Consent is the most defensible standard of legitimacy because it grounds government in the equal standing of the governed — even if actual consent is messy, the standard tells us what governments must answer to." Skeptical: "Consent is too thin a standard to carry legitimacy alone: almost no one actually consents to their government, so legitimacy must rest at least partly on how power is used, not just how it was authorized." Qualified: "Consent is necessary but not sufficient — elections authorize power, but only rights-respecting performance keeps it rightful." (Accept any arguable position on the standard.)
• Part 3 (model): Quoting Excerpt A ("deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed") — the word just shows the sentence defines rightful power, and the appeal treats the governed as equals whose agreement matters. Or Excerpt B ("the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it") — consent as a continuing test, not a one-time event. Skeptical uses of the same quotes (consent left undefined — whose? when? withdrawn how?) earn full marks with good reasoning. Full marks require the exact quotation + reasoning that connects rather than restates.
• Part 4 (model, by thesis): Against pro-consent: the tacit-consent problem (living here ≠ agreeing); majority consent can still oppress a minority; rights-respecting performance sometimes outweighs authorization. Against skeptical: performance-only legitimacy is what every regime claims; messy consent still uniquely makes the people the final judges; vagueness argues for refining the standard (elections, rights, exit), not rejecting it. Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or honest revision.

Fact-and-source-accuracy gate — PASS: both embedded excerpts are transcribed exactly from the Declaration of Independence (National Archives transcript, archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript); the date (July 4, 1776) and Jefferson's role as principal drafter are verified; "pursuit of Happiness" (not Locke's "property") is the correct wording. No fabricated quotation or source appears. Evenhandedness check — PASS: the question is arguable; model answers are supplied for pro, skeptical, and qualified positions; the rubric grades reasoning and charity, never the side taken.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 1 Assignment — Consent of the Governed? (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-01-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"