Week 7 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Designing a New Democracy"

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 5 (political institutions: parliamentary/presidential/semi-presidential design) · 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 7 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop). This week you become a constitutional designer: choose an executive-legislative design for a brand-new democracy, and defend the choice — 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, Oct 18.

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 7 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 institutional design is correct; any well-defended design choice can earn full marks — you grade the reasoning, the evidence, and the fairness to the design I did NOT choose. Total possible: 100 points across four steps.

THE SOURCE — give me this text when we begin, and keep it available:
The scenario for our argument: "You are advising the framers of a brand-new democracy, drafting its constitution from scratch. They must choose ONE executive-legislative design: parliamentary, presidential, or semi-presidential. Recommend a design and defend the choice."

Source excerpts — the two classic texts on fusion vs. separation (these are the only quotable words):
- Excerpt A (the case for fusion) — Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867), chapter "The Cabinet": "The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers."
- Excerpt B (the case for separation) — the Constitution of the United States (1787), Article I, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1 (paraphrase the structure, quote only the operative clauses exactly): Article I, §1 vests "All legislative Powers herein granted" in "a Congress of the United States." Article II, §1 vests "The executive Power" in "a President of the United States of America," chosen through a separate process for a fixed term.

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) Is 'which design should this new democracy choose' an EMPIRICAL question or a NORMATIVE one, and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: what is the core design variable this whole decision turns on, and what does it mean?"
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Normative — it asks what a new democracy OUGHT to choose, which depends on what the framers value (stability? accountability? quick removal of failures? clear identifiability?) — not something settled by measurement alone. (Sharp students may add: EMPIRICAL sub-questions feed into it — e.g., how presidential systems have historically fared in similar conditions — but the overall recommendation is normative.) (b) The core variable is fusion vs. separation of executive and legislative power — whether the executive is drawn from and removable by the legislature (fusion) or independently elected for a fixed term (separation).
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — correct kind (6) + a sound reason referencing what would settle it (6). (b) 8 — names fusion/separation as the variable (4) and defines it sensibly (4). Partial for naming "separation of powers" alone without connecting it to THIS week's specific fusion-vs-separation choice.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Sort this claim: 'Presidential democracies in some regions have historically shown more instability than parliamentary ones.' Empirical or normative, and how do you know? (b) One sentence: what's the difference between a NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE and IMPEACHMENT?" Answers: (a) empirical — a claim about the historical record, checkable (and genuinely debated among researchers as to cause); (b) no-confidence = routine, any reason, parliamentary; impeachment = rare, serious wrongdoing, presidential. Same rubric shape.

──────────── STEP 2 (25 points) — Write a thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now write ONE sentence that answers our question — an arguable claim recommending ONE design (parliamentary, presidential, or semi-presidential) for the new democracy, and naming the criterion your recommendation optimizes for. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Any of the three designs is fine — what I grade is the claim's clarity, arguability, and named criterion.)"
VETTED ANSWER: A strong thesis names a design, states a criterion, and takes a real position. Model (parliamentary): "The new democracy should adopt a parliamentary system, because rapid removal of a failing government via no-confidence better protects democratic accountability than a fixed term that can trap voters with an ineffective executive for years." Model (presidential): "The new democracy should adopt a presidential system, because voter identifiability — knowing exactly who holds executive power and being able to hold that one person accountable at a fixed election — outweighs the flexibility a parliamentary system offers." Model (semi-presidential): "The new democracy should adopt a semi-presidential system, because splitting the executive lets it combine a stable, directly accountable head of state with a legislature-responsive head of government who can be swapped out without a full constitutional crisis." Many valid phrasings; it must name ONE design and a criterion.
RUBRIC: 25 — names one specific design (7), states a clear evaluative criterion (9), and the claim is specific enough to guide evidence rather than a vague preference (9). A thesis naming a design with NO criterion caps at 12. NEVER award or deduct points for WHICH design is chosen.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a narrower thesis answering: 'Should the new democracy use a bicameral or unicameral legislature?' One arguable sentence naming a criterion." Model: "The new democracy should adopt a bicameral legislature, because a second chamber representing its regions will protect smaller territories from being outvoted on a pure population basis." (Or a defensible contrary emphasizing speed/simplicity.) 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 design recommendation. Quoting without explaining earns only half."
VETTED ANSWER: A correct response quotes A or B word-for-word and explains the link. Example (parliamentary thesis, using Excerpt A): quoting "the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers" — Bagehot's point is that fusion lets a government fall immediately when it loses support, which the student's own reasoning connects to fast accountability for the new democracy. Example (presidential thesis, using Excerpt B): quoting "The executive Power" vested in a separately-elected President — the student reasons that this separation guarantees the new democracy's voters can identify and directly hold accountable one clear chief executive, rather than a coalition whose composition might shift after the vote. Example (semi-presidential thesis, using BOTH, briefly): the student may note the new democracy could combine Bagehot's fusion logic (for the PM/legislature relationship) with Article II's separation logic (for a fixed, directly accountable presidency) — as France does.
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 the design recommendation, 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 design recommendation — 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 recommendation survives (or how you'd revise it)."
VETTED ANSWER: Strong objections, depending on the thesis — against parliamentary theses: coalition governments can leave voters unsure who will actually govern until after the election (the identifiability problem); frequent no-confidence votes can produce genuine instability in fragmented party systems. Against presidential theses: Linz's dual-legitimacy worry — a president and a hostile legislature can both claim to speak for the people with no built-in referee; a failing or gridlocked president is hard to remove short of a rare, high-bar impeachment. Against semi-presidential theses: a dual executive can create confusion about who is actually accountable for a given policy failure, and the balance of power between president and PM can shift unpredictably (as in French "cohabitation"), creating uncertainty the other two designs avoid. (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 design choice (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 design chosen.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Name a SECOND, different objection to your recommended design, 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 scenario + 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 one design choice over another — 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 7 ASSIGNMENT — Designing a New Democracy
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 7 Assignment — Designing a New Democracy (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-7 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-07.md. This file shows the same Week-7 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 5 (political institutions: parliamentary/presidential/semi-presidential design) · 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 act as a constitutional designer: frame the question, recommend an institutional design for a brand-new democracy, 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 design recommendation can earn full marks; you are graded on reasoning, evidence, and fairness — never on which design you choose.

The scenario: You are advising the framers of a brand-new democracy, drafting its constitution from scratch. They must choose ONE executive-legislative design: parliamentary, presidential, or semi-presidential. Recommend a design and defend the choice.

The source excerpts — the two classic texts on fusion vs. separation. Quote only from these exact words; copy them precisely.
- Excerpt A (the case for fusion) — Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867), chapter "The Cabinet": "The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers."
- Excerpt B (the case for separation) — the Constitution of the United States (1787): Article I, §1 vests "All legislative Powers herein granted" in "a Congress of the United States." Article II, §1 vests "The executive Power" in "a President of the United States of America," chosen through a separate process for a fixed term.

Part 1 — Frame it (20 pts). (a) Is "which design should this new democracy choose" an empirical or normative question — and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: what is the core design variable this whole decision turns on, and what does it mean?

Part 2 — Write a thesis (25 pts). In one sentence, recommend one design (parliamentary, presidential, or semi-presidential) for the new democracy and name the criterion your recommendation optimizes for (e.g., accountability, stability, identifiability). A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary.

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 design recommendation. (Quoting without explaining earns only half.)

Part 4 — The strongest counterargument, engaged charitably (25 pts). (a) State the strongest objection to your recommended design — 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 recommendation 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-07.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 design the student recommends.

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) Normative — it asks what the framers OUGHT to choose, which depends on what they value (stability, accountability, identifiability, quick removal of failures) — not something measurement alone settles. (Bonus insight worth praising: EMPIRICAL sub-questions feed the decision — e.g., the historical stability record of each design in comparable conditions — but the overall recommendation is normative.) (b) The core variable is fusion vs. separation of executive and legislative power — whether the executive is drawn from and removable by the legislature (fusion) or independently elected for a fixed term (separation).
• Part 2 (model theses): Parliamentary: "The new democracy should adopt a parliamentary system, because rapid removal of a failing government via no-confidence better protects democratic accountability than a fixed term that can trap voters with an ineffective executive for years." Presidential: "The new democracy should adopt a presidential system, because voter identifiability — knowing exactly who holds executive power and being able to hold that one person accountable at a fixed election — outweighs the flexibility a parliamentary system offers." Semi-presidential: "The new democracy should adopt a semi-presidential system, because splitting the executive lets it combine a stable, directly accountable head of state with a legislature-responsive head of government who can be swapped out without a full constitutional crisis." (Accept any of the three designs, clearly argued.)
• Part 3 (model): Quoting Excerpt A ("the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers") to support a parliamentary thesis — fusion lets a government fall immediately when it loses support, connecting to fast accountability. Or Excerpt B ("The executive Power" vested in a separately-elected President) to support a presidential thesis — separation guarantees voters can identify and directly hold accountable one clear chief executive. A semi-presidential thesis may use both, noting the design combines fusion logic (PM/legislature) with separation logic (a fixed, directly accountable presidency), as France does. Full marks require the exact quotation + reasoning that connects rather than restates.
• Part 4 (model, by thesis): Against parliamentary theses: coalition governments can leave voters unsure who will actually govern until after the election (the identifiability problem); frequent no-confidence votes can produce real instability in fragmented party systems. Against presidential theses: Linz's dual-legitimacy worry (president and legislature can both claim to speak for the people, no built-in referee); a failing president is hard to remove short of rare, high-bar impeachment. Against semi-presidential theses: a dual executive can blur accountability for a given policy failure, and the president/PM power balance can shift unpredictably (French "cohabitation"). Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or honest revision.

Fact-and-source-accuracy gate — PASS: both embedded excerpts are transcribed exactly — Excerpt A from Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867), chapter "The Cabinet" (verified live 2026-07-02 against the Project Gutenberg text at gutenberg.org/ebooks/4351 and independently corroborated via a second transcription of the same chapter); Excerpt B from the U.S. Constitution, Article I §1 and Article II §1 (verified against the National Archives transcript, archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript). The country-system classifications referenced in the rubric commentary (UK/Germany/Japan/Canada parliamentary; US/Mexico/Brazil presidential; France semi-presidential) match FACTS_PACK §B6. No fabricated quotation or source appears. Evenhandedness check — PASS: the design question is arguable; model answers are supplied for all three designs; the rubric grades reasoning and charity, never the design chosen.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 7 Assignment — Designing a New Democracy (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-07-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"