{"id":"study-participatory-budgeting-reading-prep","audience":"college","category":"summarizing","technique":"format","track":"study","title":"Prep a dense reading for discussion section","free":false,"task":"You have discussion section in an hour on a reading about participatory budgeting. You want exactly 3 numbered points (the author's argument, her main evidence, and the limitation she admits, in that order), each under 20 words, then one line starting 'Q:' with a question you could ask in section, plain text. Use only the excerpt, including the corrected turnout figure.","materialLabel":"The reading excerpt (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"URBAN POLICY 240 - Week 6 reading\nOkoye, L. (2024). \"Who Shows Up? Participatory Budgeting in Riverton.\" Journal of Local Governance, 18(2), 33-51. (excerpt)\n\nSince 2019, the city of Riverton has let residents vote directly on how to spend $2 million of its yearly capital budget. Supporters claim participatory budgeting brings new voices into city decisions. My argument is more cautious: participatory budgeting in Riverton widened participation among renters and young residents, but it did not reach the city's lowest-income neighborhoods.\n\nI draw on five years of ballot data and 62 interviews with voters and organizers. Turnout among residents under 30 rose from 6% in 2019 to 19% in 2023. Renters, who made up only a fifth of voters in regular city elections, cast 41% of budgeting ballots by 2023.\n\n[Correction, printed in the journal's next issue: the renter share in 2023 was 34%, not 41%. The error came from double-counting online ballots.]\n\nYet the three census tracts with the lowest median income never exceeded 4% turnout. Organizers told me that meetings held on weekday evenings, in English only, kept many residents away.\n\nI should note a limit of this study: Riverton is a mid-sized, mostly suburban city, so these findings may not apply to large urban districts, where most research on participatory budgeting has been done.\n\nProf. Haddad's prompt for section: \"Is participatory budgeting more democratic, or just differently undemocratic?\"","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":3},{"type":"maxWords","max":85},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking for a plain summary","why":"The AI writes a paragraph that retells the article in order, which is hard to use in a live discussion.","fix":"Name the 3 parts: \"argument, evidence, limitation, in that order.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Not saying how many points","why":"The AI picks its own number, and it usually picks more points than you need.","fix":"Be exact: \"Exactly 3 numbered points.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]},{"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 point: \"each point under 18 words.\"","checks":["maxWords"]},{"title":"Missing the correction","why":"The original figure and the journal's correction are both in the excerpt.","fix":"Add: \"Use the corrected renter share from the correction note.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Not asking for a question","why":"A summary alone doesn't prepare you to speak up in section.","fix":"Add: \"End with one line starting 'Q:' with a question I could ask.\"","checks":["r2","plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Says how many points","patterns":["\\b(3|three)\\b.{0,25}point"]},{"label":"Names the 3 parts","patterns":["argument","evidence","limitation","limit"]},{"label":"Uses the correction","patterns":["correct","34","not 41"]},{"label":"Asks for a discussion question","patterns":["Q:","question.{0,20}(section|discussion|ask)"]},{"label":"Sets a length limit","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","word (limit|count)","under \\d+"]}],"hint":"A summary for discussion should be short and give you something to say. Tell the AI which 3 parts to cover in what order, how short, which figure to trust, and to end with a question.","rubricLabels":["The 3 points come in order: the author's argument (it widened participation among renters and young residents but did not reach the lowest-income neighborhoods), her evidence, and the limitation she admits (findings may not apply to large urban districts)","If the renter share is mentioned, it uses the corrected 34% (not 41%), and all other facts come from the excerpt with nothing from outside it","Ends with one line starting 'Q:' that asks a discussion question tied to the reading, and adds no intro, heading or closing note"]}