Week 10 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Whose Power Is It?"

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 6 (federalism, separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution as a case study) · 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 10 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 Constitution's own words on federal and state power and asks you to do what political scientists do: take a position on where the design's weight actually falls — 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, Nov 8.

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 10 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 or a case detail; 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: "Does the U.S. Constitution's design, on balance, favor national power or state power?"

Source — the Constitution of the United States (signed Sept. 17, 1787; National Archives transcript) and McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Three short excerpts plus the case's holding (these are the only quotable words):
- Excerpt A (Article I, Section 8 — the Necessary and Proper Clause, the final clause of the enumerated-powers list): "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
- Excerpt B (Article VI — the supremacy clause): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
- Excerpt C (Amendment X, ratified 1791): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) — the holding, stated exactly: Congress could charter a national bank as an implied power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Excerpt A), and Maryland's tax on that bank was unconstitutional under the supremacy clause (Excerpt B) — Chief Justice Marshall wrote that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

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 the Constitution's DESIGN favors national or state power — is that an EMPIRICAL question or a NORMATIVE one, and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: name the THREE kinds of power the Constitution's text creates (hint: think of the memory hook from lecture — written down, a reasonable tool, and what's left over) and which excerpt above supplies each one."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Mostly empirical — it asks what the text actually establishes and how the pieces fit together, which is checkable against the document and its interpretive history, though reasonable readers can debate how to WEIGH the pieces (a normative-flavored judgment call sits on top of an otherwise empirical base). Full credit for identifying it as primarily empirical/textual with a nod to the interpretive judgment involved. (b) Enumerated powers (Article I §8's explicit list, not separately excerpted but referenced) + implied powers (Excerpt A, the Necessary and Proper Clause) + reserved powers (Excerpt C, Amendment X) — with the supremacy clause (Excerpt B) governing how conflicts between valid federal and state law resolve.
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — correct kind with a sound reason (6) + acknowledges the interpretive judgment layered on top (6). (b) 8 — names the three power types correctly matched to their sources. Partial for naming only two of three power types.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Sort this claim: 'Congress has more effective power today than the Framers of 1787 could have specifically anticipated.' Empirical or normative, and how do you know? (b) One sentence: what does the supremacy clause (Excerpt B) NOT settle, even though it sounds absolute?" Answers: (a) empirical — checkable against the historical record of what powers Congress has exercised over time; (b) supremacy does not settle WHICH powers are federal in the first place — it only breaks ties once a federal law is already established as valid. 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 the Constitution's design favors national or state power. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Any position is fine — favors national power, favors state power, 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 (national-power-favoring): "The Constitution's design tilts toward national power because the Necessary and Proper Clause and the supremacy clause together give the federal government both the tools to expand its reach and the guaranteed final word when conflicts arise." Model (state-power-favoring): "Despite the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Constitution's design still meaningfully favors state power, because Amendment X makes state authority the DEFAULT — federal power must be affirmatively found in the text, while state power needs no such justification." Model (qualified): "The Constitution's design is genuinely balanced on paper, but McCulloch v. Maryland shows how judicial interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause can tip that balance toward the national government in practice." Many valid phrasings; it must take a position on where the WEIGHT falls.
RUBRIC: 25 — takes a clear position on the national/state balance (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 McCulloch v. Maryland's holding follow logically from Excerpts A and B, or did Marshall need an additional interpretive premise?' One arguable sentence." Model: "McCulloch follows fairly directly from Excerpts A and B: if Congress may use necessary-and-proper tools for its enumerated ends, and valid federal law is supreme, a state cannot be allowed to tax a federal tool to death." (Or a defensible contrary: Marshall's reading of 'necessary' as merely 'convenient,' rather than 'essential,' is itself a substantive interpretive choice not dictated by the text alone.) Same rubric.

──────────── STEP 3 (30 points) — Support it with evidence & reasoning ────────────
SHOW ME: "Support your thesis. Quote ONE of the three excerpts (A, B, or C) accurately (copy the exact words — even a short phrase is fine), OR cite the McCulloch holding precisely, then explain in 2–3 sentences HOW that text plus a reason of your own supports your claim. Quoting/citing without explaining earns only half."
VETTED ANSWER: A correct response quotes A, B, or C word-for-word (or states the McCulloch holding precisely) and explains the link. Example (national-power-favoring, using Excerpt A + McCulloch): quoting "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" — Marshall read this broadly in McCulloch to uphold a bank nowhere listed in Article I §8, showing the clause functions as a real engine for expanding federal reach beyond the enumerated list. Example (state-power-favoring, using Excerpt C): quoting "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — this is a DEFAULT rule with no enumerated limit, meaning any power not affirmatively claimed by the federal government (through enumeration or the Necessary and Proper Clause) automatically belongs to the states, making state authority the constitutional baseline. Example (qualified, using Excerpt B + McCulloch): quoting "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" — this shows the DESIGN is one of federal supremacy ONLY once federal law is valid, and McCulloch shows how much interpretive work goes into deciding what counts as valid, so the "balance" question partly depends on how courts read the Necessary and Proper Clause, not the text alone.
RUBRIC: 30 — accurate quotation/citation, exact wording or precise holding (10); the quote/citation genuinely bears on the thesis (8); the explanation adds the student's own reasoning connecting text to claim, not just restatement (12). Misquoting, inventing words, or misstating the McCulloch holding = 0 on the accuracy portion and a flag to re-quote from the printed excerpts.
FRESH VARIANT: "Use a DIFFERENT excerpt (or the McCulloch holding, if you haven't used it yet) than the one you just used. Quote or cite 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 national-power-favoring theses: Amendment X makes state power the textual default, and the enumerated list in Article I §8 is genuinely limited on its face — a state-power-favoring reader could argue the Necessary and Proper Clause has been read more broadly by courts over time than the text alone requires, so the "tilt" is a product of interpretation, not the document itself. Against state-power-favoring theses: the supremacy clause combined with a broadly read Necessary and Proper Clause (as McCulloch confirms) gives the federal government real, practical reach far beyond the enumerated list — a reserved-powers default that yields to any successfully claimed implied power isn't much of a check in practice. Against qualified/balanced theses: if the answer genuinely depends on how a court happens to read "necessary," that arguably still shows a tilt toward whichever branch controls interpretation (the federal judiciary) rather than a stable balance. (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 + all three excerpts + the McCulloch holding) 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), and EXCEPT for the McCulloch holding, which must be stated accurately (implied powers via Necessary and Proper + supremacy-clause invalidation of the state tax).
• 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. Never let this drift into which current U.S. political party is right — it is a question about constitutional design, not this month's politics.

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 10 ASSIGNMENT — Whose Power Is It?
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 and the McCulloch holding (must match the excerpts and the historical record 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 10 Assignment — Whose Power Is It? (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-10 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-10.md. This file shows the same Week-10 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 6 (federalism, separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution as a case study) · 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 where the Constitution's design places its weight, support it from the text and a real Supreme Court case, 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: Does the U.S. Constitution's design, on balance, favor national power or state power?

The sources — the Constitution of the United States (signed Sept. 17, 1787; National Archives transcript) and McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Quote only from these three excerpts (or cite the case holding precisely); copy the wording exactly.
- Excerpt A (Article I, Section 8 — the Necessary and Proper Clause): "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
- Excerpt B (Article VI — the supremacy clause): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
- Excerpt C (Amendment X, ratified 1791):* "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) — the holding: Congress could charter a national bank as an implied power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and Maryland's tax on that bank was unconstitutional under the supremacy clause* — Marshall wrote that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Part 1 — Frame it (20 pts). (a) Is our question empirical or normative — and how do you know? (b) In one sentence: name the three kinds of power the Constitution's text creates, and which excerpt above supplies each one.

Part 2 — Write a thesis (25 pts). In one sentence, answer the question — an arguable claim about whether the Constitution's design favors national or state power. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (National-power-favoring, state-power-favoring, or a qualified position — all are equally gradable.)

Part 3 — Support it with evidence & reasoning (30 pts). Quote one of the three excerpts accurately (exact words), or cite the McCulloch holding precisely, then explain in 2–3 sentences how that text plus a reason of your own supports your thesis. (Quoting/citing 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 three excerpts above (or cite the McCulloch holding precisely) — 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-10.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, and none depend on any current-partisan framing.

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) Mostly empirical — the question asks what the text actually establishes and how the pieces fit together, checkable against the document and its interpretive history, though a genuine normative-flavored judgment sits on top in deciding how to WEIGH the pieces. (b) Enumerated powers (Article I §8's explicit list) + implied powers (Excerpt A, the Necessary and Proper Clause) + reserved powers (Excerpt C, Amendment X) — with the supremacy clause (Excerpt B) governing conflicts between valid federal and state law.
• Part 2 (model theses): National-power-favoring: "The Constitution's design tilts toward national power because the Necessary and Proper Clause and the supremacy clause together give the federal government both the tools to expand its reach and the guaranteed final word when conflicts arise." State-power-favoring: "Despite the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Constitution's design still meaningfully favors state power, because Amendment X makes state authority the DEFAULT — federal power must be affirmatively found in the text, while state power needs no such justification." Qualified: "The Constitution's design is genuinely balanced on paper, but McCulloch v. Maryland shows how judicial interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause can tip that balance toward the national government in practice." (Accept any arguable position on the balance.)
• Part 3 (model): Quoting Excerpt A + McCulloch — "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" — Marshall read this broadly in McCulloch to uphold a bank nowhere listed in Article I §8, showing the clause is a real engine for expanding federal reach. Or Excerpt C — "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — a default rule with no enumerated limit, making state authority the constitutional baseline unless a power is affirmatively claimed federally. Full marks require the exact quotation (or a precisely stated holding) + reasoning that connects rather than restates.
• Part 4 (model, by thesis): Against national-power-favoring: Amendment X makes state power the textual default, and the enumerated list is genuinely limited on its face — the "tilt" is arguably a product of broad judicial interpretation over time, not the document alone. Against state-power-favoring: the supremacy clause plus a broadly read Necessary and Proper Clause (confirmed by McCulloch) gives the federal government real, practical reach well beyond the enumerated list — a reserved-powers default that yields to any successfully claimed implied power isn't much of a check in practice. Against qualified/balanced: if the answer genuinely depends on how a court reads "necessary," that itself may show a tilt toward whichever branch controls interpretation. Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or honest revision.

Fact-and-source-accuracy gate — PASS: all three embedded excerpts are transcribed exactly from the National Archives Constitution and Bill of Rights transcripts (archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript; archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript); the McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) holding and the "power to tax involves the power to destroy" line are verified against the historical record. No fabricated quotation, case, or source appears. Evenhandedness check — PASS: the question is arguable; model answers are supplied for national-power-favoring, state-power-favoring, and qualified positions; the rubric grades reasoning and charity, never the side taken, and no current-partisan framing appears anywhere in the assignment or key.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 10 Assignment — Whose Power Is It? (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-10-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"