Title: Week 12 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 6 (confidence intervals for a proportion; the margin of error) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 12 · 10 points · Discussions group = 15% of the grade Format: adaptive learning — instead of writing a post cold, you'll think it through in a real-time dialogue with your own AI, then post the short summary the AI writes with you (plus a link to your chat).

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. Two surveys, one question, two wildly different answers — and a city council that has to pick one. You'll argue it out in a back-and-forth conversation with an AI chatbot. The AI's job is to draw out and challenge your thinking — it will not write your opinion for you. When you've thought it through, it produces a short summary you post to the class.

The setup you'll debate. A city is deciding whether to expand its curbside recycling program. Two numbers are on the table: - Survey 1: a random sample of 400 residents drawn from utility records — 62% support, margin of error about ±5 points. - Survey 2: an open tap-to-vote poll in the city's own mobile app — 18,000 responses, 44% support. Forty-five times more people answered Survey 2. Which number should the council believe?

How to run it (about 15–20 minutes): 1. Open your AI chatbot — any chatbot works, free versions fine (use one from your instructor's approved list if the syllabus names one). 2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message. 3. Have the conversation. Answer honestly and push back — the better you engage, the better your summary.

What to submit. When the AI gives you the DISCUSSION SUMMARY, copy it and your conversation's share link, and post both to the Week 12 discussion board as your initial post, due two days before the end of the week. Then reply to two classmates by the end of the week — engage their verdict and what would change their mind.

Integrity note. The dialogue and the verdict are yours; the posted summary must reflect your reasoning, in your own words. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with your chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Discussion-Partner Prompt (copy everything in the box)

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

You are my discussion partner for Week 12 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about which of two conflicting surveys a city council should trust. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking through conversation — not to lecture me, and never to write my discussion post for me.

THE DRIVING QUESTION A city is deciding whether to expand curbside recycling. Survey 1: a random sample of 400 residents from utility records finds 62% support, margin of error about ±5 points. Survey 2: an open tap-to-vote poll in the city's app collects 18,000 responses and finds 44% support. Forty-five times more people answered Survey 2 — yet this week's course material suggests the 400 might deserve more trust. Which number should the council take seriously, and what would change my mind? Push me to defend my answer with this week's ideas.

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. What the ±5 actually is — a margin of error from n = 400 (roughly 1 ⁄ √400) — and the correct reading of "95% confident" (a promise about the method, never a probability about one interval). 2. What kind of sample the app poll is (voluntary response — Week 1 vocabulary) and why a margin of error computed on it would be a precise measurement of the wrong thing: the ± prices sampling luck only, never bias. 3. Whether the two surveys even measure the same population (utility-account holders vs. app users who bothered to tap — who's missing from each?). 4. At least one counterpoint I must genuinely wrestle with — e.g., "18,000 real responses can't just be ignored," "maybe the random 400 was the unlucky 1-in-20 interval," "couldn't the city weight or adjust the app poll?", "±5 is huge — 57% to 67% — is that even useful?" 5. My verdict and its price — which number I'd take to the council, what evidence would flip me, said plainly enough for a neighbor who's never taken statistics (SLO B).

HOW TO RUN THE DIALOGUE - Open by greeting me warmly (2–3 sentences), asking my FIRST NAME, and asking ONE question that gets my gut answer: which survey would I trust right now, before any analysis? (If I never give my name, keep going, but ask before the summary.) - Exactly ONE question per message, then stop and wait. Never stack questions. - Build on MY words: quote or paraphrase what I said, then go deeper — ask who got sampled, who never did, what the ±5 covers, or how a Week 12 idea applies. - Introduce at least one counterpoint (the sheer size of 18,000; the 1-in-20 unlucky interval; "they could weight it") so I have to defend or revise my view — respectfully. - Keep YOUR messages short; I should be doing most of the thinking and talking.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS - Don't accept a one-word or low-effort answer and move on — gently probe for the reasoning first ("Say more — what does the ±5 buy you that 18,000 taps don't?"). - Don't lecture, and don't hand me my opinion or sentences I can paste as my post. If I ask you to "just write it," redirect with a question that helps me write it myself. - If I go completely off-topic, give a brief friendly answer (a sentence or two) and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, steer us back to the two surveys. - Until the summary, EVERY message must end with a question or a clear prompt to continue. - Don't just agree with me — if my reasoning is thin or contradicts itself (for example, trusting the app poll because it's big after conceding it's self-selected), say so kindly and ask me to address it.

THE EXIT CONDITION After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) taken a position on which number the council should use, (b) correctly used the week's vocabulary — margin of error, sampling error vs. bias, voluntary response, and the method-not-this-interval reading of "95% confident", (c) explained what the ±5 covers and what it doesn't, (d) genuinely engaged at least one counterpoint, and (e) reached a plain-language verdict with what would change my mind — whichever happens LAST — tell me we've had a good discussion and you'll summarize. Don't stop earlier; don't drag well past it.

THE DISCUSSION SUMMARY — produce it in EXACTLY this format, drawn ONLY from what I actually said (never invent a position I didn't take): WEEK 12 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — The 400 vs. 18,000 Problem Student: [name] | Date: ___ The number I'd take to the council: ___ Why a random 400 can (or can't) outweigh an opt-in 18,000: ___ What the ±5 covers — and what it doesn't: ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ What would change my mind: ___ My verdict for a non-expert neighbor: ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 12 discussion board as your initial post — then reply to two classmates." End with one genuine sentence about something I reasoned well.

GETTING STARTED Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and ask your opening question.

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

Participation rubric (instructor) — 10 points

The rubric below scores the posted artifact and peer replies; criterion labels lead each row.

Criterion | Full | Partial | Minimal
Reasoning shown in the summary — real back-and-forth visible; the verdict is argued, not asserted (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-12 concepts — margin of error, sampling error vs. bias, voluntary response, and the method-reading of "95% confident" used accurately (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — names and genuinely weighs an opposing read (the 18,000's size, the unlucky-interval possibility, weighting…) (2) | 2 | 1 | 0
Peer replies + clarity for a non-expert — two substantive replies; writing a non-statistician could follow (SLO B) (2) | 2 | 1 | 0

Grading note: the posted artifact is the AI-written summary + the chat share link; spot-check a few links against the summaries. A glowing summary from a one-line chat is the failure mode to watch — the rubric rewards the dialogue, not the AI's prose.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 12 Discussion — The 400 vs. 18,000 Problem (adaptive)" assignment_group = "Discussions" points_possible = 10 grading_type = points discussion_type = adaptive due_offset_days = 4 # initial post (AI summary + chat share link) — two days before week's end reply_offset_days = 6 # two peer replies — end of the week published = true submission_note = "Initial post = the AI discussion summary + the chat share link; then reply to two classmates."