Week 13 — Build It, Then Break It: Your Persuasive Argument, Mapped and Tested

Assignment 12 of the term — map your own persuasive claim with Toulmin's model, write its case as a syllogism, test its causal and analogical steps, label and repair fallacies, catch a chatbot's mislabel, and explain to a friend how a confident argument can still be unsound.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into clear, careful work on the argument inside your own persuasive speech. You remain the speaker and the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Speech Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together as a written argument analysis and a built argument. It builds on Week 4's oral citation: this week that citation becomes the evidence in a full argument, and the warrant is what makes it count.

The task

This week's shared example is the running speech's persuasive claim, which is illustrative and attributed to no one; its oral citations come from the course's mini-source set. Chapter 13 takes it apart:

• its claim is "Our campus dining hall should run a two-week plate-waste audit before deciding whether to remove trays.";
• its Toulmin map holds 1 claim, 2 pieces of evidence (oral citations 1 and 2), 1 warrant ("a campus should measure a change's effect before adopting it when the best available study found no significant effect"), 2 qualifiers ("for a two-week trial" and "in dining halls like ours"), and 1 rebuttal ("unless the audit costs more than the trial");
• its case, written as a syllogism, has 2 premises and 1 conclusion;
• the week labels 2 fallacies from the opening meeting (a hasty generalization and a slippery slope) and 4 spot-the-fallacy items (campus security's response time, a new manager and rising sales, food in the library, and helmets and safety); and
• an illustrative chatbot, asked to label "Sales at the café went up the month the new manager started, so the new manager caused the rise.", called it a hasty generalization "because it draws a conclusion from limited evidence and assumes the manager caused the increase," and called the running speech's compost-bin scene an appeal-to-emotion fallacy. Checked against the definitions, that is 1 wrong label, 1 blended explanation, and 1 legitimate appeal called a fallacy.

Work these four problems, and show how you reached each one:

1. The running speech's Toulmin map holds 1 claim, 2 pieces of evidence, 1 warrant, 2 qualifiers, and 1 rebuttal. How many statements does the map hold in all?
2. The week labels 2 fallacies from the opening meeting and 4 spot-the-fallacy items. How many fallacy examples are labelled in all?
3. The running speech's syllogism has 2 premises and 1 conclusion. How many statements does the syllogism hold?
4. The chatbot's answer holds 1 wrong label, 1 blended explanation, and 1 legitimate appeal called a fallacy. How many problems does checking against the definitions catch in all?

Beside each answer, add one brief explanation, and use your own persuasive speech, on a topic from the course's roster, for the parts that ask for it:

• Problem 1: map one main point of your own persuasive speech in five labelled lines: claim, evidence written as a complete oral citation from a real source you found and checked (who, what, and when before the evidence), warrant, qualifier, and rebuttal. Then use the look-it-up test in one or two sentences to show which line is your evidence and which is your warrant.
• Problem 2: label all six of the week's fallacy examples, and for the new-manager item, explain with the sorting question why it is false cause and not hasty generalization. Then name the fallacy your own speech is most at risk of and rewrite the sentence where it could creep in.
• Problem 3: write your own claim's case as a syllogism with one general premise, one specific premise, and the conclusion. Then find one causal or analogical step in your speech and test it: does it show more than sequence or correlation, or are the two cases alike in the ways that matter?
• Problem 4: in the illustrative chatbot answer, name its three problems (a wrong label, a blended explanation, and a legitimate appeal called a fallacy) and the fix for each, and explain when an emotional appeal is legitimate and when it becomes a fallacy.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your cousin will speak for two minutes at a neighborhood association meeting in favor of a community garden on a vacant lot, and plans to say: "Everyone on our block wants it, and since the garden across town opened, people there started shopping at the corner stores more, so a garden will help our street's shops." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, why "everyone wants it" is not a reason on its own; why the shopping line confuses something that happened after with something that was caused; what your cousin could say instead; and one limit, such as adding "on our block" or dropping the shopping claim unless a real source backs it. Explain any course term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible; this message is scored with Problem 4.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who will ask at a staff meeting for a new break-room coffee machine and plans to say, "The office upstairs got one, and their sick days dropped the next month, so it'll keep us healthy." Model answer: "The coffee machine might be a good idea, but the sick-day line will lose the people who think it through. Their sick days dropping after the machine arrived doesn't mean the machine did it; a mild flu season could explain it. Ask for the machine for the reasons you can back up, like the time people spend walking to the café. If you mention the other office at all, say it as what happened there, not as proof."

Use that pattern for your cousin, with your own wording and examples.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief explanations, your five-line map, your look-it-up sentences, your six labels and your rewritten sentence, your syllogism and your tested step, your critique of the chatbot answer, and your message to your cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show your arithmetic when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one answer or explanation, even if your first attempt was strong.
4. Never let the coach write your claim, your warrant, or your citations. If it offers a statistic, a source, or a real public figure as an example, decline it; find and check your own evidence at the original page, and keep every fallacy example invented and neutral.
5. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met, then save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. If it labels a fallacy in your work, check the label against the course definitions before you accept it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful public speaking coach for an introductory Public Speaking course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about argument and reasoning: the four types of reasoning, the syllogism, Toulmin's claim, evidence, and warrant with the qualifier and rebuttal, and the fallacies this course names. Do not write my assignment, my claim, my warrant, my citations, or my message for me, and do not invent work I did not show. Never supply a statistic, a study, or a source; if I cite one, ask me who published it, what it is, and when it appeared. Never use a real public figure as an example of a fallacy. You cannot see or hear me, so never ask for a recording.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the running speech's persuasive claim is illustrative and attributed to no one. Its claim is "Our campus dining hall should run a two-week plate-waste audit before deciding whether to remove trays." Its warrant is "a campus should measure a change's effect before adopting it when the best available study found no significant effect." Its qualifiers are "for a two-week trial" and "in dining halls like ours," and its rebuttal is "unless the audit costs more than the trial." The opening meeting holds a hasty generalization and a slippery slope; the four drill items are campus security's response time, a new manager and rising sales, food in the library, and helmets and safety. In the illustrative chatbot exchange, asked to label "Sales at the café went up the month the new manager started, so the new manager caused the rise.", the chatbot called it a hasty generalization and called the compost-bin scene an appeal-to-emotion fallacy.
PROBLEM P1: The running speech's Toulmin map holds 1 claim, 2 pieces of evidence, 1 warrant, 2 qualifiers, and 1 rebuttal. How many statements does the map hold in all?
PROBLEM P2: The week labels 2 fallacies from the opening meeting and 4 spot-the-fallacy items. How many fallacy examples are labelled in all?
PROBLEM P3: The running speech's syllogism has 2 premises and 1 conclusion. How many statements does the syllogism hold?
PROBLEM P4: The chatbot's answer holds 1 wrong label, 1 blended explanation, and 1 legitimate appeal called a fallacy. How many problems does checking against the definitions catch in all?
After the four answers, I must briefly explain each one: for P1, a five-line map of one main point of my own persuasive speech (claim, evidence as a complete oral citation from a real source I found and checked, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal), plus one or two sentences using the look-it-up test to tell my evidence from my warrant; for P2, labels for all six of the week's fallacy examples with the sorting question applied to the new-manager item, plus the fallacy my own speech is most at risk of and the rewritten sentence; for P3, my own claim's case as a syllogism, plus one causal or analogical step in my speech tested against sequence, correlation, or likeness; for P4, a critique naming the chatbot answer's three problems with a fix for each and explaining when an emotional appeal is legitimate and when it becomes a fallacy. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to my cousin, who plans to argue for a community garden by saying everyone on the block wants it and that shopping rose near another garden after it opened, explaining in everyday words why popularity is not a reason on its own, why the shopping line confuses sequence with cause, what to say instead, and one limit. I must explain course terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: accurate counts from the week's argument example (40 points), argument and reasoning analysis (32 points), clarity for a non-expert listener (16 points), and showing the work and the evidence (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-the-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COUNT UNITS: A correct total = 2; the right values with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing answer or the wrong values = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent wording.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an explanation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a critique naming the chatbot answer's three problems with a fix for each and explaining when an emotional appeal is legitimate AND a message to my cousin that explains the popularity line, the sequence-and-cause line, what to say instead, and one limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone who has never taken a speaking course, with course terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or unexplained terms = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-THE-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the values, labels, or steps behind the answer shown so they can be checked = 2; a relevant but incomplete value, label, or step = 1; an answer alone or no evidence = 0. Visible evidence stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. When I share a warrant, ask me whether a skeptical listener would accept it. When I label a fallacy, ask me which definition the label rests on.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made, and name the words you are praising. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief explanations AND written my message to my cousin AND revised at least one answer or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my answers and explanations]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four answers, their brief explanations, your five-line map, your look-it-up sentences, your six labels and rewritten sentence, your syllogism and tested step, your critique of the chatbot answer, and your message to your cousin — written, or spoken and recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

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.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 13 skills — mapping an argument with Toulmin's claim, evidence, and warrant, writing a syllogism, testing causal and analogical reasoning, labelling and repairing fallacies, checking a chatbot's fallacy labels against the definitions, and explaining all of it to someone who has never taken a speaking course — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief explanations, and the message to your cousin. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one answer or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The counts, the explanations, your map, your syllogism, your labels, your citations, the revision, and the message to your cousin must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to write your claim or warrant, to supply a statistic or source you did not find and check yourself, or to hand you a real public figure as a fallacy example. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com