Week 2 — Three Answers to One Question: A Social-Contract Report

Assignment 2 of the term — work four short problems on this week's three social-contract texts and the Velmora case, analyze what each text claims, and explain to someone outside political science why power is not the same as a right to rule.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. 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 to sort a claim as empirical or normative; this week you use that sort on three famous answers to the question of why anyone should obey. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use these texts and this case, all from this week's chapter:

• Hobbes (1651), Leviathan, Chapter XIII: "where every man is Enemy to every man" and "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" (the pinned edition keeps the 1651 spelling).
• Locke (1689), Second Treatise of Government: section 95, "by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent"; and section 6, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions".
• Rousseau (1762), The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 1: "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."
• The illustrative country of Velmora, built for this course (not a real place): a dictatorship has fallen and no functioning government has replaced it; other states still treat Velmora as independent, while no one holds supreme authority at home.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Hobbes's Leviathan appeared in 1651 and Locke's Second Treatise of Government appeared in 1689. How many years separate the two works?
2. Locke's Second Treatise of Government appeared in 1689 and Rousseau's The Social Contract appeared in 1762. How many years separate the two works?
3. Illustrative Velmora is checked against the 4 criteria of a state: it lacks 1 criterion (a functioning government) and 1 criterion is split (sovereignty). How many of the 4 criteria does it fully meet?
4. This week's 5 pinned fragments include 2 normative fragments from Locke and 1 mixed fragment from Rousseau. How many of the 5 fragments carry at least one normative part?

Beside each answer, add the analysis that goes with it. For problem 1, credit each Hobbes fragment and the section 95 fragment to the right thinker, and state each thinker's fear and remedy. For problem 2, say where Rousseau locates sovereignty and contrast that with Locke's answer. For problem 3, say what happened to Velmora's government, state, and nation, and name which kind of sovereignty holds and which is in doubt. For problem 4, sort all 5 fragments as empirical-leaning, normative, or mixed, splitting Rousseau's line into its two halves; then argue which lens should guide Velmora, stating the strongest case for one other lens first and labelling one empirical claim and one normative claim in your argument.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your cousin has never studied political science and shares a video clip that says, "Locke proved that life without government is nasty, brutish, and short, so any strong ruler is legitimate." Write a 3–5 sentence message to your cousin that fixes the attribution, explains in everyday words the difference between power and legitimacy, says which part of the clip's claim is a value question rather than a fact, and names one limit, such as that the state of nature is a thought experiment. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one accurate wording can be defensible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who says, "Our new manager can fire any of us, so everything she says is legitimate." Model answer: "I'd say 'Our manager has the power to fire us,' not 'everything she says is legitimate.' Power means she can make us comply. Legitimacy is the shared belief that the company's way of choosing and directing managers deserves our cooperation, and the two can come apart: a boss who rules by threats may get compliance and still lose the staff's trust. Whether we ought to follow a particular order is a separate question about values, not something her power settles."

Use that pattern for your message to your cousin, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, their analysis, 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. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation 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 report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's political science: power, authority, and legitimacy; the state, the nation, and the government; internal and external sovereignty; and the social contract answers of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The texts: Hobbes (1651), Leviathan, Chapter XIII: "where every man is Enemy to every man" and "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short". Locke (1689), Second Treatise of Government, section 95: "by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent"; section 6: "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". Rousseau (1762), The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 1: "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." The case: illustrative Velmora, where a dictatorship has fallen and no functioning government has replaced it; other states still treat Velmora as independent, while no one holds supreme authority at home. Quote these texts only as written here.
PROBLEM P1: Hobbes's Leviathan appeared in 1651 and Locke's Second Treatise of Government appeared in 1689. How many years separate the two works?
PROBLEM P2: Locke's Second Treatise of Government appeared in 1689 and Rousseau's The Social Contract appeared in 1762. How many years separate the two works?
PROBLEM P3: Illustrative Velmora is checked against the 4 criteria of a state: it lacks 1 criterion (a functioning government) and 1 criterion is split (sovereignty). How many of the 4 criteria does it fully meet?
PROBLEM P4: This week's 5 pinned fragments include 2 normative fragments from Locke and 1 mixed fragment from Rousseau. How many of the 5 fragments carry at least one normative part?
After the four answers, I must add the analysis for each: for P1, credit each Hobbes fragment and the section 95 fragment to the right thinker and state each thinker's fear and remedy; for P2, say where Rousseau locates sovereignty and contrast it with Locke's answer; for P3, say what happened to Velmora's government, state, and nation, and which kind of sovereignty holds and which is in doubt; for P4, sort all 5 fragments by kind with Rousseau's line split, then argue which lens should guide Velmora after stating the strongest case for one other lens, labelling one empirical and one normative claim. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a cousin who is new to political science and shared a clip saying "Locke proved that life without government is nasty, brutish, and short, so any strong ruler is legitimate," fixing the attribution, explaining power versus legitimacy in everyday words, saying which part is a value question, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations from the texts' dates and counts (20 points), political-science reasoning about the texts and the case (48 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 2.5 computation points, 6 reasoning points, 2.5 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the cousin only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct gap in years or count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For each problem, both required parts of the analysis = 2; exactly one = 1; neither = 0. For P1, crediting a Hobbes fragment to Locke, or consent to Hobbes, does not count as correct attribution. For P4, the three parts are the fragment sort, the Velmora argument with the other lens stated at its strongest, and the message to the cousin; all three = 2, at least one accurate part = 1. Never score agreement or disagreement with any thinker. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the cousin with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. 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. Never pick a winner among Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and never quote any text beyond the fragments above.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer 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 answers and their analysis AND written my message to the cousin AND revised at least one calculation 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 score; 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 score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations 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 social-contract report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised social-contract report with all four answers, their analysis, and your message to your cousin — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled chart of the five fragments sorted by thinker and kind with a short note; 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 — telling power, authority, and legitimacy apart, crediting each social-contract fragment to the right thinker, keeping the state, the nation, and the government apart, separating internal from external sovereignty, and sorting claims as empirical or normative — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, their analysis, and the message to your cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised social-contract report, 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 calculations, 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 quote the three thinkers only in the fragments printed above. 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