{"id":"study-historians-interpretations-compare","audience":"college","category":"summarizing","technique":"format","track":"study","title":"Put two historians' arguments side by side","free":false,"task":"Your History seminar asks you to compare interpretations, and two readings disagree about the Dust Bowl. Get exactly 2 numbered lines, one per historian, each in the form 'Historian: main argument | key evidence', then one line starting 'Disagree on:' naming the core disagreement, under 85 words total, plain text. Use only the excerpts and don't take a side.","materialLabel":"The two reading excerpts (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"HIST 3320 - Environmental History - Week 8 readings (excerpts)\n\nREADING 1: Halvorsen, M. (2019). Plowed Under, p. 44.\n\"The Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster that happened to farmers; it was a disaster farmers helped make. Between 1910 and 1930, wheat acreage on the southern plains more than doubled, as high prices and new tractors encouraged farmers to plow up native grasses that had held the soil for centuries. When drought came in 1931, there was nothing left to anchor the land.\"\n\nREADING 2: Okonjo, A. (2021). Weather and Ruin, p. 112.\n\"It is fashionable to blame plains farmers, but the drought of the 1930s was among the most severe in 300 years of tree-ring records. Counties that had plowed little native grass still suffered major dust storms. Farmers were responding rationally to federal policy and market signals; the deeper cause was a climate event no one could have prevented.\"\n\nProf. Sato's seminar question: \"Where exactly do Halvorsen and Okonjo disagree? Don't pick a winner yet. Name the disagreement precisely.\"\n\nMy note: I lean toward Halvorsen but I'm supposed to stay neutral for now.\n\nResponse paper due Monday (I'll write my own position then).","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":2},{"type":"maxWords","max":85},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking to compare","why":"The AI writes an essay comparing them and usually ends by picking a winner.","fix":"Show the shape: \"Historian: argument | evidence\", then \"Disagree on:\".","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Not saying how many lines","why":"The AI picks its own number, and it usually picks more lines than you need.","fix":"Be exact: \"Exactly 2 numbered lines.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]},{"title":"Missing the precise disagreement","why":"The AI lists differences without naming the one thing they really disagree about.","fix":"Add: \"End with one line starting 'Disagree on:' naming the core disagreement.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Letting the AI pick a side","why":"AI likes to conclude, and your professor said not to yet.","fix":"Add: \"Don't take a side or say who is right.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Trusting the AI to count words","why":"AI is bad at counting. Ask for a total and it often lands 20% over.","fix":"Cap each part: \"argument under 12 words, evidence under 12.\"","checks":["maxWords"]},{"title":"Forgetting where it will be read","why":"AI formats for a screen, with bold and headings that show up as stray symbols in your seminar notes.","fix":"Say: \"Plain text, no bold, no headings.\"","checks":["plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Shows the line shape","patterns":["\\|","argument.{0,15}evidence","like ['\"]","format"]},{"label":"Asks for the disagreement","patterns":["disagree","core","where.{0,15}differ"]},{"label":"Stays neutral","patterns":["neutral","(don't|do not|no).{0,15}(side|winner|pick)","who is right"]},{"label":"Sets a length limit","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","word (limit|count)","under \\d+"]},{"label":"Says to use only the material","patterns":["only.{0,30}(notes|material|source|excerpt|text|reading|passage|draft|facts|article|handout|sheet|guide|chapter|data|list)","no outside","don't add","do not add","don't invent","excerpts"]}],"hint":"Comparing interpretations means naming the disagreement precisely, not judging it. Show the AI the line shape, ask for the disagreement line, and tell it to stay neutral.","rubricLabels":["Has 2 numbered lines in the shape 'Historian: main argument | key evidence', one for Halvorsen (farmers' plowing of native grasses, wheat acreage doubling) and one for Okonjo (severe drought from tree-ring records, unplowed counties also hit)","Ends with one line starting 'Disagree on:' that names the core disagreement (whether human farming practices or the drought itself was the main cause)","Takes no side, adds no evaluation of which historian is right, and uses nothing outside the excerpts"]}