Week 13 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · Fallacy ID + Build a Sound Argument

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective assessed: Objective 7 (reasoning types; Toulmin model; logical fallacies) · SLO B (critical analysis — evaluate arguments) · SLO A (compose — build a sound argument)
Worth 100 points · Speeches (Assignments) group = 25% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — an AI coach walks you through identifying fallacies in described arguments and then constructing a sound argument in Toulmin form. You submit the coach's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 13 of the term — a building-block task. This week's work directly strengthens the reasoning quality of your persuasive speech (Week 12) and any future persuasive contexts you encounter.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach walks you through two tasks: (A) identify the fallacy in each of four described arguments and explain the reasoning error; and (B) construct one complete sound argument in Toulmin form (claim + evidence + warrant). The coach scores your work against the rubric.

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 through it with the coach: analyze the four described arguments, build your sound argument, and receive a self-scored report.

What to submit (two things):
1. The coach's report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100.
2. Your conversation's share link.

Integrity note. The analysis and the argument construction are yours; the coach guides and assesses. The coach must NOT invent example arguments; all four described arguments are pre-written below.

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

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

You are my reasoning and argument coach for Week 13 of Public Speaking (COMM 1) at Silver Oak University. You will walk me through two tasks: (A) identifying logical fallacies in four described arguments and (B) constructing one sound argument in Toulmin form. You grade ONLY against the rubric below. Total possible: 100 points.

IMPORTANT — NO FABRICATION: do NOT invent arguments, statistics, or citations. All four described arguments are pre-written below; use exactly those descriptions. When I build my own argument in Task B, coach me to find real or explicitly illustrative evidence — never make up a statistic or source.

THE RUBRIC (100 points) — grade against THIS; do not show it as a block until the report:
- Task A — Fallacy identification (60 pts, 15 each): for each of four described arguments: (a) correct fallacy named (8 pts), (b) precise explanation of the structural reasoning error — not just "it's misleading" (7 pts). Total for four = 60.
- Task B — Toulmin argument construction (40 pts): (a) clear, specific claim (10 pts), (b) evidence that is real, plausible, and clearly cited or labeled as illustrative (15 pts), (c) warrant that genuinely connects the evidence to the claim — not a restatement of the claim or the evidence (15 pts).

HOW TO RUN IT:
1. Greet + name. Greet warmly, ask my FIRST NAME and major/interest.
2. Task A — Fallacy ID. Present each of the four described arguments ONE AT A TIME. For each: (i) Ask me to name the fallacy and explain the reasoning error precisely. (ii) If I name it correctly and explain it well, confirm and move to the next. (iii) If my name is wrong, ask a guiding question without giving the answer; after two genuine misses, reveal the answer with a full explanation before moving on. (iv) If I name it correctly but explain it vaguely, push: "What exactly is the structural error? Why doesn't the evidence prove the claim?"
3. Task B — Build the Toulmin argument. Tell me I'll now build my own sound argument on a topic of my choice (campus life, everyday decision, non-partisan). Walk me through: (i) draft a specific claim; (ii) identify the evidence (real if possible, or explicitly illustrative if not — label it clearly); (iii) write the warrant — the principle that connects the evidence to the claim. Challenge me if the warrant just restates the evidence or the claim.
4. Remind me throughout: evidence must be labeled clearly as either real (with source) or explicitly illustrative. NEVER invent a real statistic or citation.
5. Every message ends with a question or a clear next step until the final report.

THE FOUR DESCRIBED ARGUMENTS (use exactly these; do not change or invent new ones):

Argument 1: "Our new campus bus schedule has made students late to class far less often. But ever since the new schedule was introduced, the campus bookstore has been busier. The new bus schedule must be causing more students to visit the bookstore."

Argument 2: "A nationally recognized nutritional biochemist with peer-reviewed research on campus-food consumption patterns has found that students who eat breakfast regularly report better concentration in morning classes. We should trust this finding."

Argument 3: "Either we completely overhaul the campus gym's equipment this year, or student fitness will decline and the campus will lose its wellness certification. There are no other options."

Argument 4: "Lots of students in the social science department say this professor is great. Clearly, this professor is one of the best on campus."

EXPECTED ANSWERS (for you, the coach — do not reveal these; use only to guide and grade):
- Arg 1: False cause (post hoc) — the bus schedule and bookstore traffic are correlated in timing, but no causal mechanism is established; the increase in bookstore traffic could have many other explanations. (If student says "hasty generalization" — probe: is the problem really the sample size, or is it the causal claim specifically? Guide them toward false cause.)
- Arg 2: Valid appeal to authority (NOT a fallacy) — a nationally recognized nutritional biochemist with peer-reviewed research on this exact topic is a legitimate expert in the relevant field. This is sound reasoning. If student calls it a fallacy, probe: "What makes an authority appeal false vs. valid? Does this source have genuine expertise in the relevant field?"
- Arg 3: False dilemma (either-or) — presents only two options (complete overhaul OR decline + lost certification) when many intermediate positions exist.
- Arg 4: Hasty generalization — "lots of students in one department" is too small and unrepresentative a sample to conclude "one of the best on campus."

COMPLETION + REPORT. After Task B is complete, produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 13 ASSIGNMENT — Fallacy ID + Build a Sound Argument
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Argument 1 — Fallacy named (a/8): [name] | Explanation quality (b/7): [one line] | Sub-score: /15
Argument 2 — Fallacy named (a/8): [name/or "valid appeal"] | Explanation quality (b/7): [one line] | Sub-score: /15
Argument 3 — Fallacy named (a/8): [name] | Explanation quality (b/7): [one line] | Sub-score: /15
Argument 4 — Fallacy named (a/8): [name] | Explanation quality (b/7): [one line] | Sub-score: /15
Task B — Claim clarity (a/10): [one line] | Evidence quality (b/15): [one line] | Warrant quality (c/15): [one line] | Sub-score: __/40
One thing done particularly well: ___
One thing to sharpen next time: ___
(All sub-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 and major/interest, and present Argument 1.

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

The Assignment Rubric — 100 points (what the coach grades, and what Prof. Marchetti confirms)

Rubric sum check: 32 + 28 + 10 + 15 + 15 = 100. PASS.

Instructor grading note (Prof. Marchetti)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1.
• Spot-check that Argument 2 was handled correctly (it is a VALID appeal, not a fallacy — a strong completion will recognize that).
• Look at the Task B warrant: if the submitted warrant just restates the claim or the evidence, the student has not yet mastered the Toulmin model; flag for Tutorial follow-up.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 13 Assignment — Fallacy ID + Build a Sound Argument (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Speeches (Assignments)"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # report (score on line 1) + chat link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Marchetti's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-13 assignment is the BYOAI-coached version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-13.md. This file shows the same Week-13 task built the traditional way — a direct prompt the student completes on their own and submits as a written document. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective assessed: Objective 7 (reasoning types; Toulmin model; logical fallacies) · SLO B (critical analysis) · SLO A (compose — build a sound argument)
Worth 100 points · Speeches (Assignments) group = 25% of the grade

The Assignment

This week's building-block task asks you to do two things: identify logical fallacies in described arguments with precise structural explanations, and build one sound argument in Toulmin form. Both skills directly strengthen your future persuasive speaking.

Task A — Fallacy Identification (60 points, 15 each)

For each of the four described arguments below:
1. Name the logical fallacy (or, if the argument is actually sound, explain why it is NOT a fallacy).
2. Explain precisely what the reasoning error is — not just "it's misleading," but what structural flaw makes the reasoning unsound. Specific and structural beats general and vague.

Argument 1: "Our new campus bus schedule has made students late to class far less often. But ever since the new schedule was introduced, the campus bookstore has been busier. The new bus schedule must be causing more students to visit the bookstore."

Argument 2: "A nationally recognized nutritional biochemist with peer-reviewed research on campus-food consumption patterns has found that students who eat breakfast regularly report better concentration in morning classes. We should trust this finding."

Argument 3: "Either we completely overhaul the campus gym's equipment this year, or student fitness will decline and the campus will lose its wellness certification. There are no other options."

Argument 4: "Lots of students in the social science department say this professor is great. Clearly, this professor is one of the best on campus."

Task B — Build a Sound Argument in Toulmin Form (40 points)

Choose a non-partisan campus or everyday topic (e.g., campus recycling, bike infrastructure, dining-hall hours, a student wellness initiative). Write:
- Claim: a single clear, specific, arguable assertion.
- Evidence / Grounds: data, a study, survey results, or testimony that supports the claim. If you use a real source, cite it (author, organization, date, where found). If you use illustrative evidence you have not verified, label it explicitly as "illustrative — in a real speech, I would verify and cite this."
- Warrant: the logical principle that connects the evidence to the claim. This is NOT a restatement of the claim or the evidence — it is the because that explains why the evidence proves the claim.

REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS — Instructor Answer Key

Argument 1 — False cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc): The bus schedule change and the bookstore traffic increase are correlated in timing, but no causal mechanism is established. Many other factors (time of semester, more students on campus overall, a popular textbook order) could explain the bookstore increase. Sequence alone does not establish causation.
- Distinguish from hasty generalization: the problem is not the sample size of observations — it is the causal claim. If a student confuses these, note: hasty generalization draws a universal conclusion from too few cases; false cause draws a causal conclusion from correlation or sequence.

Argument 2 — This is a VALID appeal to authority, NOT a fallacy. A nationally recognized nutritional biochemist with peer-reviewed research on campus-food consumption is a genuine expert in the relevant field. The false-authority fallacy applies when the cited person lacks genuine relevant expertise (e.g., a celebrity endorsing a supplement). Here the expertise is real and domain-appropriate.
- Strong student work will recognize this and explain why this distinguishes from false authority. Award full credit for correctly identifying it as a valid appeal AND explaining the distinction.

Argument 3 — False dilemma (either-or): The argument presents only two options — complete overhaul or decline + lost certification — when many intermediate positions exist (phased upgrade, targeted equipment replacement, maintenance-only plan). Real choices rarely come in only two extremes.

Argument 4 — Hasty generalization: "Lots of students in one department" is too small and too unrepresentative a sample to generalize to "one of the best on campus." The conclusion overreaches the evidence dramatically.

Task B — model structure (illustrative):
- Claim: "Silver Oak should install additional covered bike racks in the main quad parking area."
- Evidence (explicitly illustrative): "An illustrative example: a student government survey found that 58% of cycling commuters reported at least one incident of bike damage due to inadequate covered parking in the past year. (Illustrative — in a real speech, I would verify and cite the actual survey.)"
- Warrant: "When a majority of a user group reports preventable damage to property as a result of an inadequate campus facility, addressing the documented infrastructure gap is a reasonable institutional priority."

The Assignment Rubric — 100 points

Rubric sum check: 32 + 28 + 10 + 15 + 15 = 100. PASS.

Grading note (Prof. Marchetti): key diagnostic — does the student correctly handle Argument 2 as a valid appeal, not a fallacy? A student who labels it "false authority" without recognizing the genuine expertise has a gap in their fallacy framework worth addressing in feedback. Check the Task B warrant: if it restates the claim or evidence, note that and explain the distinction in written feedback.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 13 Assignment — Fallacy ID + Build a Sound Argument (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Speeches (Assignments)"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_upload]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
submission_note  = "Student submits written responses to Tasks A and B directly in Canvas."
provenance       = "~ Prof. Marchetti's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"