Lesson Report:
## Title: Extracting & Testing Hypotheses from Think Tank Arguments (Smoking-Gun Evidence Workshop)
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This session shifted from students generating their own hypotheses to *extracting* hypotheses from outside arguments (think tank/opinion pieces) tied to each group’s case study. Students practiced standardizing dependent variables across sources, identifying independent variables, and then “testing� those claims by searching for primary-source “smoking gun� evidence (e.g., direct quotes from decision-makers). The instructor also connected the in-class workflow directly to expectations for the midterm paper and extended the deadline.
—
## Attendance
– **Absent (1):** Ayn Aziz
– **Present (12):** Albina, Azamat, Macron, Zoe, Sophie, Hermine, Elena, Nobukadas (sp.), Altina, Zamira, Adam (plus instructor referencing groups working in class)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with detailed activity flow)
### 1) Course logistics + transition into workshop mode
– Instructor noted the upcoming **spring break** and that this would likely be the last meeting until ~10 days later.
– Students were instructed to **sit with their case partners/groups** to begin the day’s collaborative tasks.
—
### 2) Setup: Uploading think tank/opinion piece links (shared class document)
**Goal:** Compile each student’s selected article into a single shared workspace for group comparison.
– Students were reminded of the prep task: **find one think tank article/opinion piece** connected to their case study that attempts to explain **why the events of the case are happening**.
– Instructor directed students to open **Week 8** materials on eCourse and locate a **Word document** (editable by the class).
– Students were instructed to:
– **Paste the article link** into the document under their case section.
– Add a short written note below the link (1–2 sentences) summarizing the author’s **core reasoning/argument**.
– Source recency guidance evolved during discussion:
– Initially: “no later than last Thursdayâ€� was mentioned, then adjusted.
– Final guidance: **older sources are acceptable**, with a rough cutoff of **2018** (so students can test whether explanations still hold today).
– Clarification on perspective:
– For the **China–Taiwan** case, the instructor confirmed the article can come from **any perspective/country** as long as it predicts/explains **why the events are happening**.
**Cases/groups explicitly referenced:** Greenland, Iran, China–Taiwan (Taiwan referenced as part of that case).
—
### 3) Activity Part I: “Hypothesis extraction� (from someone else’s argument)
**Purpose:** Convert large arguments into comparable hypothesis structures.
Students were guided to extract the author’s thesis and translate it into variables:
– Step 1: Identify the **general argument** (the author’s claim about why the conflict/event is occurring).
– Step 2: Write the argument in simple terms (1–2 sentences; verbatim acceptable if it’s a clear causal claim).
– Step 3: Translate into **dependent variable (DV)** and **independent variable(s) (IVs)**.
– The instructor framed this as: *Outcome (DV) explained by reasons/causes (IVs)*.
—
### 4) Activity Part II: Standardizing dependent variables within each group
**Purpose:** Ensure the group is comparing the *same outcome* across different articles (“avoid apples to oranges�).
– Instructor emphasized the need for **shared dependent variables** across a group’s sources, otherwise comparisons are invalid.
– DV requirements:
– Must be **concrete, observable actions/events**, not vague conditions.
– Example of what to avoid: “things are bad between Iran and the USâ€� (too vague).
– Examples of acceptable DV phrasing: “US calls for protests in Iran,â€� “US threatens to strike Iran,â€� etc.
– Group instruction:
– Compare everyone’s drafted DVs.
– Agree on **one shared set** (typically 1–2, maximum 3 events/outcomes).
**Group DV check-in (reported out in class):**
– **Greenland DV:** *US threats to capture Greenland*
– **Iran DV(s):**
– *US calls for protests in Iran*
– *US military threats*
– *Ongoing US–Iran negotiations*
– **China–Taiwan DV:** *China’s increased military presence near Taiwan and in the South China Sea* (measurable, time-specific actions)
—
### 5) Activity Part III: Aligning (“naturalizing�) dependent variables across mismatched articles
**Purpose:** Handle cases where a chosen article’s outcome doesn’t match the group DV.
– Instructor introduced “**naturalizing the dependent variable**â€�:
– If an article’s stated outcome differs from the group DV, students must check whether the article still contains discussion/evidence relevant to the group DV.
– Example given (Greenland-related mismatch):
– An article emphasizing **China as a key Arctic stakeholder** doesn’t directly match “**US threats to capture Greenland**.â€�
– Students must search inside the article for mention/explanation of the **US threats** if they want to use it for DV-aligned comparison.
—
### 6) Activity Part IV: Testing independent variables with “smoking gun� evidence (primary sources)
**Purpose:** Move from identifying claims (IVs) to evaluating evidentiary support using primary sources.
– Instructor directed students back to their earlier major assignment: the **SITREP (situational report)**.
– SITREPs contain a “bankâ€� of sources, including **primary-source statements** (e.g., quotes from presidents, defense secretaries, NATO officials, etc.).
– Smoking gun test definition (as practiced):
– Look for **direct quotations** from relevant decision-makers/officials that explicitly support a specific IV.
– If found: paste quote(s) into the shared document next to the IV.
– If not found: explicitly mark **no evidence found / cannot be supported**.
**Worked example (Greenland):**
– **DV:** Trump threatens to capture Greenland.
– Example **IV:** “China and Russia are becoming more hostile/belligerent in the region.â€�
– Smoking gun test prompt:
– Can students find Trump/officials saying (in effect) “We need Greenland *because* Russia/China are increasingly threateningâ€�?
—
### 7) Midterm assignment briefing: structure, standards, and new deadline
**Connection to class activities:** The instructor explicitly framed the last few weeks (hypothesis building → testing → extraction/testing from literature) as direct preparation for the midterm.
**Deadline change:**
– Midterm due date **extended by one week**:
– Originally: **12th**
– New deadline: **19th at 23:59 on eCourse**
– Instructor noted the extension is paired with clear expectations.
**Midterm objective (as explained):**
– Students will explain **why** the outcome in their SITREP happened by **comparing arguments “in the wildâ€�** (think tanks/op-eds), not by simply stating personal opinion.
**Core midterm steps (mirroring today’s activity):**
1. Identify the SITREP’s **dependent variable** (the outcome to explain).
2. Select external articles that address the **same DV**.
3. Extract **DV + IVs** from each argument.
4. Run smoking gun tests using **primary sources** (often from the SITREP source bank).
5. Compare two broader “theories/arguments� and deliver a **verdict** on which holds up best.
**Important caution (reiterated with Greenland example):**
– Articles with different DVs are not comparable:
– Example mismatch: “China’s engagement in Greenlandâ€� (DV) vs “US threatens to capture Greenlandâ€� (DV).
**Paper structure expectations (outlined in class):**
– **Introduction + puzzle:** summarize the SITREP and explain why the outcome is puzzling/needs explanation.
– **Compare two main theories/arguments:** not necessarily textbook IR theories (realism/constructivism), but real arguments drawn from sources.
– Recommendation: find **two articles per argument** (or at least multiple sources with similar IVs) to show the argument is not a one-off claim.
– **Verdict:** decide which argument “holds waterâ€� based on:
– Quantitative-ish comparison (e.g., number of IVs supported by strong quotes).
– Qualitative comparison (strength/logic of sourcing and consistency).
– **Required IR-theory vocabulary integration:**
– Students should connect findings to concepts like **balance of power**, **security dilemma**, **identity**, etc.
**Instructions posting timeline:**
– Full midterm instructions to be posted on **eCourse by Friday night**.
—
### 8) Case update guidance (Iran) + time-bounding events
– Instructor told the **Iran group** to **update the dependent variable** based on recent developments:
– Shift from “US threatsâ€� toward **US bombs being dropped** (more concrete and updated to current events).
– Instructor imposed a cutoff for included developments:
– “Nothing after **March 7**â€� (framed as “up to Saturdayâ€�).
—
### 9) End-of-class Q&A: applying the smoking gun standard (China–Taiwan examples)
**Primary sources as valid evidence:**
– A student referenced using **Xi Jinping interviews** to support IVs (e.g., expansion of Chinese military capabilities).
– Instructor confirmed: **Yes, interviews/speeches by Xi are primary sources** (valid for smoking gun searches).
**Avoiding prediction-focused articles:**
– Student mentioned using a **2021 prediction** by a US military official about possible invasion timing.
– Instructor advised:
– Don’t center analysis on the **prediction** itself.
– Focus on **measurable outcomes/events at that time** (what was actually happening), not speculative futures.
**Evaluating evidence strength:**
– Student asked whether a quote about Taiwan being a strategically critical trade route counts as smoking gun support for an IV about strategic importance.
– Instructor: **Yes**, that’s strong support if it directly ties to the IV.
**Weak evidence can still be discussed—but labeled appropriately:**
– Student proposed using PLA strategy-language that doesn’t clearly identify “the enemyâ€� or directly state intent regarding Taiwan.
– Instructor guidance:
– Treat this as **weak** support and potentially classify the IV as **not supported**.
– Still permissible to mention as the “closest availableâ€� evidence—useful as contextual window into strategy, but not strong causal confirmation.
—
### 10) Administrative side request (email about lateness)
– A student requested the instructor email another professor (Professor Bura) noting they had to be **15 minutes late**, because they were **17 minutes late** and concerned about a cutoff policy.
—
## Actionable Items (Short bullets, organized by urgency)
### Urgent / Time-sensitive (Before break or immediately after)
– **Post midterm instructions to eCourse by Friday night** (instructor action).
– **Students:** Ensure midterm plan reflects the new due date (**19th, 23:59**).
– **Iran group:** Update DV to reflect **recent events** (shift toward “bombs being droppedâ€�) and respect the **March 7 cutoff**.
### High priority (Directly tied to midterm success)
– **Students:** Confirm your midterm DV exactly matches your SITREP outcome; avoid DV mismatch across articles.
– **Students:** Find **multiple articles per argument** (ideally 2 per side) so each “theoryâ€� is corroborated, not a one-off.
– **Students:** Collect **primary-source smoking gun quotes** for each IV; if none exist, explicitly label the IV as **unsupported/weak**.
### Administrative / Follow-up communication
– **Instructor:** Consider whether to send the requested email to **Professor Bura** regarding the student’s late arrival (15-minute vs 17-minute issue).
– **Students:** Keep the shared Week 8 document organized (links + 1–2 sentence argument summaries + DV/IV alignment notes + evidence quotes).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Midterm Paper — Compare Competing Explanations for Your SITREP Outcome (Smoking-Gun Evidence Test)
You will build directly on your earlier situational report (SITREP) by explaining **why** your SITREP outcome happened, using **real arguments “in the wild� (think tanks/op-eds)** and evaluating those arguments by searching for **primary-source “smoking gun� evidence** that supports (or fails to support) each argument’s independent variables.
Instructions:
1. **Confirm the deadline and submission window**
1) Plan to submit your midterm **by the 19th at 23:59** (the deadline was extended from the 12th to the 19th).
2) Treat this as a full paper assignment: you are expected to use the extra time to strengthen article selection, dependent-variable alignment, and primary-source evidence.
2. **Start from your SITREP and clearly identify your dependent variable (DV)**
1) Re-open your SITREP and locate the **specific outcome/event(s)** you reported on.
2) Write your DV as **concrete, observable actions** (events you can tie to identifiable moments), not general “vibes� (e.g., not “relations worsened,� but “X threatened Y,� “X conducted strikes,� “X increased military patrols,� etc.).
3) Make sure your DV is current and time-bounded based on what has happened recently (in class, the Iran case was discussed as needing an update to reflect that the focus had shifted from threats to bombs being dropped).
4) Use a clear cutoff date if applicable to your case (in class, a cutoff like “nothing after March 7� was discussed as a way to keep the outcome window consistent).
3. **Find argument sources (think tank articles / opinion pieces) that explain your DV**
1) Locate opinion pieces or think tank articles that explicitly try to **explain why your DV outcome is happening**.
2) Ensure your chosen articles are actually addressing the **same DV** as your SITREP:
– Do **not** choose articles whose DV is a different outcome (e.g., an article about “China’s engagement in Greenlandâ€� cannot be compared to an outcome like “U.S. threats to capture Greenland,â€� even if the topics are related).
– Your goal is to avoid “apples-to-orangesâ€� comparisons by keeping the DV consistent across the arguments you will compare.
4. **Extract each article’s argument as dependent and independent variables**
For each article you plan to use:
1) Identify the **dependent variable** the author is trying to explain (the outcome).
2) Identify the **independent variables (IVs)** the author claims cause the outcome (the reasons for why the DV happened).
3) Rewrite the argument in a clean, testable format:
– DV: *[your outcome]*
– IV(s): *[the author’s claimed causes/reasons]*
5. **“Naturalize� the dependent variable so all sources align to the same outcome**
1) Check whether each article’s DV truly matches your SITREP DV.
2) If an article’s DV is not directly aligned, you must decide one of the following:
– **(Preferred)** Use a different article that actually explains your DV, or
– If the article contains relevant discussion of your DV, explicitly locate and extract the part where it addresses your DV (so you can still test its IVs against your DV).
3) Do not proceed with comparison until you can clearly state that you are comparing the **same DV across all arguments**.
6. **Organize the paper around two competing theories/arguments**
1) Identify **two main explanations** you will compare (these are the “theories� for your paper).
2) For each explanation, try to find **two articles** that share the **same or very similar IVs** (so you can corroborate that the argument is not just “one random person’s blog claim,� but a repeated explanation you see across sources).
3) Make sure both explanations are aimed at explaining the **same DV**.
7. **Run “smoking gun� tests using primary sources from your SITREP source bank**
This is the core method you practiced in class and must apply in the midterm.
1) Go back to your SITREP and the **bank of sources** you previously collected (your SITREP should have positioned you to find primary-source statements from key decision-makers and relevant officials).
2) For **each IV** in each argument, search your SITREP materials (and any additional primary sources you are allowed/able to locate, if appropriate) for **direct quotations or direct evidence** that supports that IV.
– The target is “smoking gunâ€� evidence: a decision-maker or key actor directly indicating a motivation/cause consistent with the IV (e.g., “We must do X because of Yâ€�).
3) For each IV, record:
– The **exact quotation** (or a very precise citation of the primary evidence),
– Who said it (role/position),
– When it was said (date),
– Why it supports (or does not support) the IV.
4) If you **cannot** find smoking-gun evidence for an IV:
– State clearly: **no direct evidence found / cannot be supported**.
– You may include the “best availableâ€� related evidence, but you must label it as **weak or indirect** and explain why it does not meet the smoking-gun standard (as discussed in class: you can use a weak quote to show you looked, but your conclusion should be that the IV is not strongly supported).
8. **Write the midterm using the required structure**
Build your paper in the sequence discussed in class:
1) **Introduction + statement of puzzle**
– Summarize what your SITREP outcome is (your DV).
– Explain why the outcome is puzzling or important to understand (“what do we need to understand better?â€�).
2) **State the DV clearly**
– Present the specific outcome you are explaining.
3) **Present the two competing arguments (“theories�)**
– Theory/Argument A: summarize the shared IVs and the logic linking them to the DV.
– Theory/Argument B: summarize the shared IVs and the logic linking them to the DV.
– Use your article set(s) to show these arguments exist in credible public analysis.
4) **Evidence section (smoking gun tests)**
– For each IV under each argument, present the primary-source evidence you found (quotations), or state that you found none.
– Make it easy for the reader to see which IVs are supported and which are not.
5) **Verdict (which argument “holds water� best)**
– Decide which explanation is stronger based on the smoking-gun tests.
– You may evaluate:
– **Quantitatively** (e.g., Argument A has more IVs with strong primary-source support than Argument B), and/or
– **Qualitatively** (e.g., the available sources are more logically consistent, more directly tied to decision-making, or more internally coherent).
– If an IV has “virtually no sources,â€� you should be willing to discount it rather than forcing it into your conclusion.
9. **Integrate course theory vocabulary to interpret what you found**
1) Use relevant international relations terminology discussed in class (examples mentioned: **balance of power, security dilemma, identity**).
2) Connect those concepts to the IVs you are evaluating (i.e., use theory language to interpret or categorize what kind of explanation each argument represents).
10. **Final check before submission**
1) Re-check that all arguments in the paper are explaining the **same DV** (your SITREP outcome).
2) Confirm every major IV claim you discuss is paired with either:
– A smoking-gun quotation/evidence item, or
– An explicit statement that it could not be supported by direct primary-source evidence.
3) Submit by **the 19th at 23:59**.