Week 2 Political Analysis Workshop: Hobbes or Locke? Sourcing Two Answers to Why We Obey

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you met two famous answers to the question of why anyone should obey a government. Hobbes fears chaos and wants a strong sovereign; Locke fears tyranny and rests rule on consent. Chatbots and hurried readers swap them all the time, and a swapped quotation is a rumor, not evidence. In this workshop you do what a political scientist does before trusting a quotation: you go to the source. You open the free Project Gutenberg editions of both books, run six exact searches, and log where each phrase actually lives. Then you sort each fragment as empirical-leaning or normative, compare the two answers side by side at full strength, and finally ask a chatbot the same questions and catch where it slips.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: When someone hands you a famous line about why people obey, how can you prove from the source whether it is Hobbes's or Locke's, and what kind of claim is it making?

Workshop data: your search log of two Project Gutenberg editions (Leviathan, eBook 3207, and Second Treatise of Government, eBook 7370)

Source: A search log you build yourself in this workshop by running six exact-phrase searches in Project Gutenberg's free online editions of Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) and Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689), recording how many matches each search returns and the chapter or section label above each match.

Rows: 6 searches, 3 in each edition (the search-log table in Part 4 has 6 rows, one per search; the source-log table before it has 2 rows, one per edition)
Columns: search phrase; edition; number of matches; chapter or section label above each match
Editions: Leviathan (Hobbes, 1651), Project Gutenberg eBook 3207, keeping the 1651 spelling; Second Treatise of Government (Locke, 1689), Project Gutenberg eBook 7370, with numbered sections labelled Sect.

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches
A web browser's find command (Ctrl+F, or Command+F on a Mac)
A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

primary-text-analysis
read-the-data
argument-map-and-steel-man

Procedure

Open Project Gutenberg's page for Leviathan at gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207 and choose Read online now. In the source-log table in Part 4, record the author, the title, the year 1651, and one thing you notice about the edition's spelling. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: The page title reads Leviathan, and the text keeps old spellings such as Warre.
Press Ctrl+F (Command+F on a Mac) and search each Leviathan phrase from the search-log table, one at a time: solitary, poore; Enemy to every man; brutish. For each search, write the number of matches the find bar reports and the chapter heading above each match. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Each search shows a match count in the find bar, and scrolling up from each match reaches a CHAPTER heading.
Open Project Gutenberg's page for Second Treatise of Government at gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370 and choose Read online now. Record the author, the title, the year 1689, and how the edition labels its numbered paragraphs. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: The page title reads Second Treatise Of Government, and its paragraphs carry labels that begin Sect.
Search each Second Treatise phrase from the search-log table: subjected to the political power of another; without his own consent; no one ought to harm another. For each search, record the number of matches and the Sect. label of the paragraph that holds each match. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Every match sits inside a paragraph that begins with a Sect. label.
Open a blank spreadsheet. In row 1 type the headers Search, Edition, and Matches in columns A, B, and C. Copy your six searches into rows 2 to 7, then type =SUM(C2:C7) in C8 to total the matches across all six searches. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: C8 shows one whole-number total that equals the sum of the six counts you wrote by hand.
Complete the claim-sort table and the comparison table in Part 4, using only the fragments you found and this week's definitions. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Every fragment in the claim-sort table has a thinker, a kind, and a reason, and every comparison row has an entry for both thinkers.
Do the AI-critique step in Part 6, or the equivalent route printed there, and write the 3–5 sentence report. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Your report quotes at least three errors and corrects each with evidence from your logs or this week's definitions.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if Project Gutenberg will not load or no spreadsheet is available.

Use the four fragments printed in the claim-sort table and the chapter and section labels given in Chapter 2 of this week's materials to complete the source log and the claim-sort and comparison tables, and write each search count you can obtain, or the word unavailable, in the search log. Total any counts by hand. Answer every analysis question, do the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Source each edition before you quote it, so you know who wrote it, when, and how this printing differs from others.

Student scaffold table 1
Edition	Author	Year	What you notice about this printing
Leviathan, Project Gutenberg eBook 3207
Second Treatise of Government, Project Gutenberg eBook 7370

Log every search so that each attribution you make rests on where the words actually appear, not on memory.

Student scaffold table 2
Search phrase	Edition	Number of matches	Chapter or section label above each match
solitary, poore	Leviathan
Enemy to every man	Leviathan
brutish	Leviathan
subjected to the political power of another	Second Treatise
without his own consent	Second Treatise
no one ought to harm another	Second Treatise

Sort each fragment by thinker and by kind, so you keep what a text describes apart from what it says ought to happen.

Student scaffold table 3
Fragment	Thinker	Kind (empirical-leaning or normative)	Your reason
"where every man is Enemy to every man"
"solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short"
"subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent"
"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"

Compare the two answers side by side, stating each one as fairly as its best defender would.

Student scaffold table 4
Question	Hobbes (1651)	Locke (1689)
What is life like without a common power?
What does each thinker fear most?
What does obedience rest on?
When, if ever, may people stop obeying?

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Report your search log: how many matches each of the six searches returned, the chapter or section label for each match, and the total across all six. Which search returned more than one match, and what does that teach you about quoting a phrase without its context?
Credit each of the four fragments in the claim-sort table to Hobbes or Locke, and explain how the chapter or section label in your search log proves each attribution.
Sort each fragment as empirical-leaning or normative, and explain how Hobbes can argue from two empirical-leaning fragments to a normative conclusion about the sovereign. Use Week 1's sort in your answer.
An invented harbor town's elected council has resigned, and no one runs the port. Give Hobbes's answer and Locke's answer to what the town should do next, each at full strength, and say which part of your answer is an empirical claim and which is a normative choice. Use the words power, authority, and legitimacy correctly at least once.
Name two limits of your evidence, such as that you searched one edition with old spellings, that a find command matches words and not meanings, or that a fragment lifts one sentence out of a longer argument, and say how each limit affects what you can conclude.
Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences: (a) which of the two answers do you find less convincing, and what is its strongest case? (b) describe a time you obeyed a rule out of fear and a time you obeyed one because you thought it was rightful, and name which idea, power or legitimacy, each moment shows.

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 am studying why people obey governments, using Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) and Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689). Please answer these seven questions. 1. Who wrote the line "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," and in which work? 2. Quote, word for word, Locke's sentence in section 95 about being subjected to the political power of another. 3. Name a Supreme Court case that applied Locke's idea of consent, and state what the Court held. 4. What share of the world's countries now follow Hobbes's model of government? 5. Which present-day political party is the true heir of Locke? 6. Who was right about why people should obey, Hobbes or Locke? 7. Is Hobbes's state of nature a fact about history, or only an opinion?

Test the response for these likely failures:

Chatbots often credit the "nasty, brutish, and short" line to Locke, or credit Hobbes with government by consent that the people may revoke.
Chatbots often quote section 95 from memory in modern words, or slip in "life, liberty, and property" as if it were the sentence, instead of the edition's own words.
Chatbots often name a court case, with a confident citation and holding, that supposedly applied Locke's idea of consent.
Chatbots often supply a share of countries that "follow Hobbes's model" with no source.
Chatbots often name a present-day party as Locke's heir, as if that were a settled fact.
Chatbots often pick a winner, such as "Locke was right," and give the other side one weak sentence.
Chatbots often call the state of nature a historical fact, or wave it off as mere opinion.

In 3–5 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least three sentences it got wrong, and correct each one with evidence from your search log, your source log, or this week's definitions.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 1 (describe the subfields and methods of political science — political theory and philosophy, comparative politics, international relations, American government, and political methodology — and analyze a political text or dataset with the discipline's core tools: concept application, argument analysis, evidence evaluation, the comparative method, and the empirical/normative distinction) and Objective 2 (explain power, authority, legitimacy, and the state — Weber's types of authority, the criteria of statehood, sovereignty, and the social-contract answers of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau — and apply these concepts to real and hypothetical cases), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of a chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Locke famously wrote that life without government is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, which is why he wanted an all-powerful ruler. In section 95 Locke says that all men are born with the rights of life, liberty, and property, and that no king may tax them. The Supreme Court made Locke's consent theory the law of the land in a well-known case that ruled every government must hold a yearly vote. About 70 percent of the world's countries now follow Hobbes's model. One of the present-day major political parties is the true heir of Locke, and the other is the heir of Hobbes. Since Locke's view led to democracy, he was right and Hobbes was wrong. The state of nature is a historical fact: humans lived that way before the first governments." Mark every error you can find, quote at least three, and correct each in 3–5 sentences with evidence from your search log, your source log, or this week's definitions. Submit the marked-up analysis and your correction in place of the chatbot report and share link.

Part 7 — What to Submit

All four completed scaffold tables
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 Political Analysis Workshop report on Hobbes and Locke: four completed tables (the source log, the six-search log with its total, the claim sort, and the side-by-side comparison), written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's answers to the same questions, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or a labelled diagram of the two answers with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Sourcing and the search log	Both editions are sourced with author, title, and year, all six searches are logged with a match count and a chapter or section label, and the total is reported.	Most searches are logged, but one count, one label, the total, or one edition's sourcing is missing.	No search log is submitted, or the counts and labels are invented rather than found.
Close reading and attribution	All four fragments are credited to the right thinker, each attribution cites the label from the search log, and the fragments are quoted letter for letter.	Most fragments are credited correctly, but one is swapped, unsupported by the log, or misquoted.	No attribution is given, or Hobbes and Locke are swapped throughout.
Sorting claims by kind	Every fragment is sorted as empirical-leaning or normative with a reason, and the move from Hobbes's empirical-leaning premises to his normative conclusion is explained.	Fragments are sorted, but a reason is missing, one sort is wrong, or the premise-to-conclusion move is not explained.	No sort is given, or kinds are assigned by topic rather than by what the claim does.
Comparing the answers fairly	Both thinkers' answers are stated at full strength in the comparison table and the harbor-town case, power, authority, and legitimacy are used correctly, and the empirical and normative parts of the case are labelled.	Both answers appear, but one is a strawman, a key term is blurred, or the labels are missing.	Only one answer is given, or a verdict is presented as fact.
Catching and correcting the AI (either route)	At least three errors from the chatbot or the printed flawed analysis are quoted and corrected with evidence; both routes earn this credit equally.	One or two errors are corrected, or errors are named without evidence; both routes are scored the same way.	No critique is submitted on either route, or output is pasted without any check.

Quality Gate

Every fragment you quote matches the Project Gutenberg edition letter for letter, including the 1651 spelling poore.
Every attribution rests on a chapter or section label from your own search log, never on memory or a chatbot.
Each fragment is sorted as empirical-leaning or normative with a reason.
Both thinkers' answers are stated at full strength, and no verdict is presented as a fact.
No quotation, court case, source, or statistic is invented anywhere in the submission.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com