Title: Week 16 Discussion
Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-Week Generic Edition)

Course: Introduction to Statistics (18-week generic edition) Objective: Objective 9 (chi-square reasoning about category counts) · SLO B (communicate to a non-technical audience) Discussion 16 · 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. Everyone carries a private "rigged" theory about counts of categories: the candy bag that's always short on your favorite color, the vending machine that eats your coins, the traffic light that's always red for you, the day of the week your bus is worst. This week you learned the machine that judges exactly these claims. You'll put YOUR pattern on trial 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.

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 16 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 — put their pattern on trial: is their evidence counts, or memories?

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 16 of my college Introduction to Statistics course. We are going to have a real back-and-forth about a "rigged" pattern I personally believe in — and whether chi-square thinking says my evidence is real or just noise. 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 Help me name one pattern about counts of categories that I genuinely believe from my own life — a candy or snack mix that shorts my favorite, a vending machine that eats coins, a traffic light that's "always" red, the weekday my bus is worst, a playlist that "favors" certain artists — and figure out: if I actually put my pattern on trial the way this week's chi-square test would, does my evidence hold up — or am I convicting randomness on vibes?

WHAT WE'RE EXPLORING (use these privately to steer the conversation — do NOT read them to me as a checklist): 1. My pattern, pinned down: the categories involved and what I claim about them — and what the boring null claim would be ("all colors equally likely," "all five weekdays the same"). 2. What the expected counts would look like under that boring claim, in plain words — and what data I would actually have to collect (real tallies, how many observations, roughly whether every expected count would clear 5). 3. The quality of my current evidence: is it recorded counts, or remembered moments? Push me on memory as a sampling method — we tally the annoying cases and forget the ordinary ones, which is a biased sample of our own life (Week 1's lesson wearing new clothes). 4. At least one complication or counterpoint — e.g., small samples drift a lot (a χ² test on 20 candies convicts nobody); a real association can exist yet have a boring cause (the "slow" line is the one nearest the door, so I pick it more); or my pattern might survive an honest test — what result would make me drop the claim? 5. My verdict — keep, drop, or "collect data first" — stated plainly enough for a friend who's never taken statistics, including one sentence on what a fair trial of my pattern would require (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 me to name a "rigged" pattern I actually believe. (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 what the categories are, what "fair" would predict, or how I'd count. - Introduce at least one counterpoint ("would 60 candies be enough to convict?" / "do you remember the times the elevator WAS there?") 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 would the boring explanation predict?"). - 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 my pattern. - 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 (e.g., I call five remembered bad days "data"), say so kindly and ask me to address it.

THE EXIT CONDITION After at least 5 substantive exchanges AND once I have (a) named a real category-count pattern I believe, (b) stated the boring null claim and roughly what it would predict, (c) honestly rated my current evidence (counts vs. memories), (d) engaged with at least one counterpoint, and (e) reached a plain-language verdict including what a fair test would require — 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 16 DISCUSSION SUMMARY — Rigged, or Random? Student: [name] | Date: ___ The pattern I put on trial: ___ The boring claim (H₀) and what it would predict: ___ My evidence, honestly rated (counts or memories?): ___ A counterpoint I weighed: ___ My verdict — keep it, drop it, or collect data first (and what a fair test needs): ___ One line for a non-statistician about "rigged" feelings vs. chi-square evidence: ___ Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 16 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 follows from the trial, not the original hunch (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Correct use of Week-16 concepts — null claim, expected counts, sample size / expected-count condition used accurately in plain words (3) | 3 | 2 | 0–1
Engaged a counterpoint — genuinely weighs memory bias, small-sample drift, or a boring alternative cause (2) | 2 | 1 | 0
Peer replies + clarity for a non-expert — two substantive replies interrogating classmates' evidence; 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. The failure mode to watch: a verdict that ignores the dialogue ("still rigged, whatever") — the rubric rewards a verdict earned by the trial, including honest "collect data first" outcomes.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object = DiscussionTopic title = "Week 16 Discussion — Rigged, or Random? (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."