Argument Audit

Basic idea

Students sort AI-generated objections to a draft, explain their decisions, and revise the claims that need work.

Learning aims

locate the claim an objection addresses
explain why a criticism is relevant or mistaken
revise an ambiguous or unsupported claim

You'll need

any AI tools

Format

~30 min in class

Sketch by: Fred Gibbs, History
Status: rough
Topics: writing interpretation

A working thesis often needs criticism before it needs polishing. This exercise gives students a set of objections while there is still time to change the argument. Their job is to decide which objections deserve a revision and explain why.

Preparation and submission

Students need a draft with a claim and supporting evidence, plus enough knowledge of the topic to judge criticism. Prepare a short sorting demonstration. For an adaptation without individual accounts, supply objections to a shared draft.

Suggested submission: the original claim, three annotated objections, and a revised paragraph explaining which criticism prompted the change. If no objection warrants revision, students should justify that judgment.

Sorting the objections

Students bring a thesis paragraph, an interpretive claim, or a partial draft. They ask an AI tool for its three strongest objections, then annotate each one and sort it into a category:

too generic to address the claim;
based on a misreading of the draft;
pointing to a gap, ambiguity, or unsupported step.

For each objection, students identify the passage it concerns and explain their decision. They revise in response to the third category. If an objection misreads the argument, they should also consider whether their wording made that reading possible.

The Prompt

Prompt

Here is my argument: [paste your thesis paragraph or interpretive claim]. Generate the three strongest objections you can imagine to this argument. For each objection, be as specific as possible — refer to the actual claims I’m making, the evidence I’m relying on, or the logical moves I’m asking the reader to accept.

A sorting example

Constructed example — the claim and objections below are invented. Claim: “The library’s longer opening hours caused the increase in borrowing because loans rose the next term.”

“Libraries matter to communities” doesn’t challenge this claim; it is too general.
“Closing libraries reduces literacy” misreads a claim about longer hours.
“Did enrollment or the number of available books also change?” identifies a gap in the causal inference.

A defensible revision would describe borrowing as increasing after the hours changed, while reserving the causal claim until competing explanations are checked.

What needs modeling

Model the sorting before students begin, especially if they haven’t had to explain why a criticism fails. Show how to distinguish an uncomfortable objection from an irrelevant one. Dismissing a criticism should require as much attention to the draft as accepting it.

The model’s confidence can make a thin objection seem more substantial than it is. Ask students what the objection would require them to change, and why that change would improve the argument. If they can’t answer, the objection may need more examination.

Very early drafts may produce only generic criticism. That can help a student recognize that the claim needs definition, but it gives them less to work with in this particular exercise.

Using This Sketch

This sketch is licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0. You're welcome to share and adapt it for noncommercial purposes, with credit, as long as you share your adaptation under the same license.

Image Puzzle, photo by Muns (derivative by Schlurcher), 2009. CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. The image's own license applies to it, separately from the sketch.

Suggested citation

Fred Gibbs. "Argument Audit." AI Sketchbook, Amaranth, University of New Mexico, April 9, 2026. https://amaranth.unm.edu/ai-sketchbook/teaching/argument-audit.html. Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.