Lesson Report:
# Title
**Final Midterm Workshop: Building and Evidencing Causal Chains for Policy Memos**
This session served as the last in-class workshop before the midterm deadline, with the instructor focusing on helping students finalize the logic and evidence structure of their memo arguments. The main objective was to strengthen students’ causal chains by making each step explicit, ensuring that every node was supported by appropriate theory, primary sources, or empirical evidence. The class also previewed the upcoming course transition from explanation of current events to forecasting future developments.
—
# Attendance
– **Students explicitly mentioned absent:** **0**
– **Absent names mentioned:** None
– **Students explicitly noted as present by name:** **Wyatt Adam James** (“Adam”)
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening Administrative Reminders: Midterm Deadline and Course Transition
– The instructor opened by reminding students that the **midterm is due Thursday night**.
– He explained that this class would be the **final in-class work session devoted to the midterm**, and that after this, the course would move into its final unit: **forecasting**.
– The instructor framed the overall course progression as:
– first explaining **what is happening now**,
– then explaining **why it is happening**,
– and finally explaining **what is likely to happen next**.
– This positioned the day’s work as the final step in strengthening explanation before the class turns toward prediction.
—
## 2. Why Causal Chains Matter: Making Arguments Explicit and Rigorous
– The instructor reviewed the purpose of using **causal chains** in analytical writing, drawing on his experience grading essays over many years.
– He explained that student arguments are often **compressed too much in writing**, which causes important logical steps to disappear.
– The causal chain method was presented as a way to:
– visualize each part of an argument step by step,
– ensure no logical “jumps” are left unsupported,
– make arguments more rigorous,
– and improve the eventual quality of the midterm memo.
– He emphasized that each chain should clearly move from the **most basic starting condition** to the **dependent variable**, with each intermediate node accounted for and defended.
—
## 3. Whole-Class Review Example: China, Security, and Military Pressure Around Taiwan
The instructor then reconstructed the class’s earlier example on the board and used it to review the structure of a strong causal chain.
### 3.1 Identifying the dependent variable
– Students were asked what the **final point** in a causal chain should be.
– A student correctly answered: **the dependent variable**.
– The instructor used the example:
– **Dependent variable:** *China increases the number of ships surrounding Taiwan.*
– He explained that this is the event being explained and therefore must come at the end of the chain.
### 3.2 Beginning from the most basic state motive
– Students were asked what states want at the lowest possible level.
– A student answered: **survive**.
– The instructor reformulated this in international relations language as:
– **China seeks security**.
– He then unpacked the meaning of **security**:
– for a person, security means confidence in one’s ability to defend oneself and remain okay;
– for a state, it means confidence in its ability to **survive**.
– He emphasized that security is the baseline motive from which many IR arguments begin.
### 3.3 Identifying the perceived threat
– The instructor then asked what specifically threatens China’s survival in relation to Taiwan.
– Students identified that China perceives itself as **threatened by other regional powers**.
– The instructor refined this into a more complete node:
– other regional powers threaten China’s ability to **project power** and protect its **sovereignty** in what it considers its regional “backyard.”
– He highlighted that the argument must explain **why China feels insecure**, not just that it acts forcefully.
### 3.4 Linking threat perception to action through deterrence
– The instructor then asked what China can do in response.
– Students suggested **maximize its power** and **deterrence**.
– The instructor explained **deterrence** as creating conditions in which opponents decide not to act because they fear serious consequences.
– In this logic:
– China seeks survival/security,
– China feels threatened by regional powers,
– therefore China seeks to **maximize its power** in the region,
– in part to **deter** those actors,
– which leads to the action of increasing the number of ships around Taiwan.
### 3.5 Clarifying the overall logic
– The instructor pointed out that this chain could be expanded indefinitely, but that for memo purposes students need a version that is:
– clear,
– logical,
– manageable,
– and sufficiently strong to explain the dependent variable.
– He stressed that the goal is an **“airtight” progression** from basic motive to observable behavior.
—
## 4. Group Activity Setup: Sharing Homework Causal Chains
– Students were instructed to sit with their established groups and share the **causal chains they had created for homework**.
– The instructor reminded them that each group should have:
– one causal chain for each of their **main arguments**,
– especially the separate chains corresponding to the previously developed **realist** and **constructivist** hypotheses.
– Groups were given around **ten minutes** to compare and refine their chains before writing them on the board.
—
## 5. Mini-Lecture: Every Node Must Be Substantiated
After the brief group work, the instructor shifted to a new emphasis: not just creating a causal chain, but proving it.
### 5.1 Every node requires evidence
– The instructor explained that each step in the causal chain is a **node**, and that every node must be **substantiated** with evidence.
– He noted that the type of evidence needed depends on the type of claim being made.
### 5.2 Using theory to support foundational claims
– The class returned to the first node: *China seeks security / survival*.
– A student asked whether using **realist theory** alone would be enough.
– The instructor responded that realism can be used, but that the idea of state survival is not unique to realism; it is more broadly accepted in IR.
– He emphasized that students should cite **specific authors**, not vague references like “realist theory says.”
– He suggested citing named scholars such as **Mearsheimer** or **Walt**, depending on the argument.
### 5.3 Proving what a state believes: the need for primary sources
– The instructor next asked how students could prove that **China believes it is being threatened**.
– One student proposed using **official reports**, mentioning items such as U.S. military reporting, aid to Taiwan, and agreements signed in the 1970s.
– The instructor said such sources are useful for **triangulation**, but clarified that the key issue is not just what the United States is doing, but **what China believes about it**.
– A student identified in the transcript as **“Elvina”** asked which documents could show that; this name does **not confidently match the roster** and is therefore treated as **uncertain**.
– The instructor answered that students need **Chinese/CCP primary sources**, such as:
– speeches,
– official reports,
– statements by ministers,
– and statements by top leaders.
– He stressed that if students want to explain China’s actions, they need evidence of **Chinese decision-makers’ perceptions**, not just Western descriptions.
### 5.4 Repeating the same logic for later nodes
– The class then applied the same reasoning to another node: *China believes it can deter others by maximizing regional power*.
– Again, the instructor emphasized that **CCP primary source material** would be central for demonstrating this belief.
### 5.5 Distinguishing arguments from empirical facts
– The instructor then introduced a methodological distinction between:
– **arguments/opinions/interpretations**, and
– **empirical facts**.
– A student initially associated empirical work with **statistics and numbers**, and another suggested facts such as donated money or military increases.
– The instructor clarified that:
– an **empirical fact** is something based on observable evidence,
– while much of theoretical IR reasoning is an **interpretive argument**.
– He used the final node as the example:
– “China increases the number of ships around Taiwan” is an **empirical claim** because one can count the ships, compare reports, and observe the increase.
– He reminded students that this is similar to what they already did in their earlier **situational reports**, where they triangulated sources to establish what was happening factually.
—
## 6. Board Work Instructions: Write Both Chains and Identify Source Types
– Before moving into group presentations, the instructor assigned the next task:
– each group should write its **two chosen causal chains** on the board,
– and under each node, indicate the **types of sources** needed to prove it.
– He clarified that students did **not** need full bibliographic details yet; identifying the kinds of sources was sufficient for this stage.
—
## 7. Group Feedback Round 1: Iran Case
### 7.1 Realist/strategic explanation of U.S. action toward Iran
The instructor first reviewed the Iran group’s board work.
#### Main causal logic presented by the group
– **Dependent variable:** ongoing strikes between the **U.S., Iran, and their allies**, and/or inefficient ongoing negotiations.
– Starting node: the **U.S. seeks to remain the biggest power/security force** in the region.
– Threat node: Iran’s possible **nuclear capability** threatens the U.S.’s biggest ally in the Middle East, identified by the class as **Israel**.
– Mechanism: the U.S. must **neutralize Iran’s nuclear program**.
#### Instructor feedback
– The instructor said the logic was promising but somewhat compressed.
– He encouraged the group to make explicit that:
– if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon,
– it could credibly threaten the regional order,
– and thereby reduce U.S. **hegemony** or power projection in the Middle East.
– He connected this back to deterrence, noting that a nuclear-armed Iran would have a powerful deterrent effect on U.S./Israeli freedom of action.
#### “Why now?” problem
– The instructor then challenged the group to explain not only **why** the U.S. would act against Iran in general, but **why now** specifically.
– He noted that claims about Iran nearing nuclear capability have circulated for decades and therefore cannot by themselves explain current timing.
– He suggested adding a **window of opportunity** node, drawing on points previously discussed in class:
– Iran appeared especially vulnerable due to **domestic protests**,
– and there was an opportunity when multiple Iranian government ministers were reportedly in one location above ground.
– This, he said, would better explain the timing of recent U.S. action.
### 7.2 Leader-centered explanation: Trump, legacy, and diversion
The group’s second argument centered on Donald Trump rather than structural realism.
#### Main causal logic presented by the group
– Trump is seeking **personal power and gain**.
– He wants increased domestic popularity and historical impact.
– Iran is seen as a major threat by U.S. citizens.
– Therefore, he launches war/strikes to improve his standing.
#### Instructor feedback on causal structure
– The instructor accepted this as a plausible hypothesis but said it needed to be more carefully structured.
– He pointed out that if Trump’s goal is legacy building, then the chain must clearly identify:
– what is threatening that legacy,
– and how conflict with Iran would improve it.
#### Domestic threats to popularity
– The instructor suggested that the group explicitly include:
– Trump’s declining popularity in polling,
– controversies around **ICE**,
– and continuing scandal pressure from the **Epstein files**.
– These would serve as the domestic pressures threatening Trump’s image and legitimacy.
#### Rally-around-the-flag effect
– The instructor asked what external conflict can do politically for a leader, prompting a discussion of the **rally-around-the-flag effect**.
– **Wyatt Adam James** contributed here, explaining it as a way to give people a reason to unite around the governing power and as a quick way to raise approval.
– The instructor praised this and elaborated that national crises or foreign conflicts can produce surges in support for leaders, as in the U.S. after 9/11.
– He suggested that the group link Trump’s actions to an attempt to generate or exploit this effect.
#### Diversionary theory of war
– A student from the Iran discussion then explicitly mentioned **diversionary theory**, arguing that a leader may engage in external conflict to distract from domestic problems such as protests against ICE and broader opposition to Trump.
– The instructor endorsed the relevance of this framework and referenced the film **Wag the Dog** as a cultural example of the idea.
#### Burden of proof and evidence challenge
– The instructor stressed that once the group adopts a leader-centered argument, the burden of proof changes:
– students now need evidence that **Trump himself viewed conflict as a tool for popularity or legacy management**.
– He warned that such a hypothesis may be hard to prove with primary-source evidence and that the memo may ultimately conclude that the hypothesis cannot be substantiated.
—
## 8. Group Feedback Round 2: Taiwan Case
### 8.1 Realist chain on China, balance of power, and U.S. arms sales
The Taiwan group presented a clearly labeled **realist** causal chain.
#### Main causal logic presented by the group
– China wants **security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity**.
– U.S. **arms sales to Taiwan** threaten the regional **balance of power**.
– This undermines China’s security and territorial integrity.
– China responds firmly.
– Dependent variable: China **increases military presence around Taiwan**.
#### Instructor feedback
– The instructor said this was a strong structure.
– He emphasized that the group must prove not just that U.S. arms sales exist, but that **China believes** those sales threaten the balance of power.
– The group cited a **Chinese ambassador article** containing language that provocations on the Taiwan question would be met with a firm response.
– When the instructor asked about the source, the group clarified that the article was specifically about the U.S. arms sale package and that the statement came directly from the ambassador.
– The instructor called this **“smoking gun evidence”**, indicating that it directly linked Chinese rhetoric to the specific triggering action.
– He affirmed that the final node—China increasing military presence—can be demonstrated empirically.
### 8.2 Constructivist chain on legitimacy, reunification, and signaling
The Taiwan group then presented a **constructivist** explanation.
#### Main causal logic presented by the group
– China has a **long-term goal of reunification with Taiwan**.
– Taiwan is framed as a **breakaway province**.
– Rising Taiwanese sovereignty/independence threatens the **political legitimacy** of the CCP.
– China promotes nationalism and historical unity through state-controlled education and media.
– This creates public expectations that reunification will occur.
– China increases military presence around Taiwan as a **visible signal of resolve** and physical demonstration of control.
#### Instructor feedback
– The instructor pushed the group to start from the deeper political need underlying reunification: **legitimacy and regime survival**, not just reunification for its own sake.
– He explained that if Taiwan moves permanently into the U.S. sphere of influence, that weakens one of the CCP’s claims to authority and may contribute to domestic instability.
– He encouraged the group to use sources showing:
– that Taiwan is officially framed by China as breakaway behavior,
– that reunification is treated as essential to national rejuvenation,
– and that nationalism and education/media messaging shape public expectations.
– He also advised them to keep the **dependent variable exactly the same** across both causal chains, so that the two theories are clearly competing explanations of one outcome.
—
## 9. Group Feedback Round 3: Greenland/Arctic Case
Time was limited, so the instructor only briefly reviewed the Greenland group’s work.
### Main ideas presented
– Greenland’s location gives the U.S. **strategic control over the Arctic**.
– The U.S. wants to remain the **dominant power** and maintain the **balance of power**.
– Expansion of **Chinese and Russian activity** in the Arctic threatens U.S. interests.
– The U.S. responds by increasing military presence.
– There were also references to tensions involving the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark.
### Instructor feedback
– The instructor said the broad realist logic was sound but needed clearer specification.
– He advised the group to explain more directly:
– why Arctic control matters,
– how Chinese/Russian activity displaces U.S. power,
– and why this should be understood in zero-sum balance-of-power terms.
– He also pointed out a structural problem: the group appeared to have **two dependent variables** at once, and these need to be unified so that both hypotheses explain the **same outcome**.
– He recommended separating claims about Arctic dominance from claims about tensions with Greenland/Denmark unless they are properly linked.
—
## 10. Closing Instructions: Converting the Causal Chain into the Midterm Memo
– As class ended, the instructor summarized that this was the **final in-class workshop** on the midterm.
– Students’ next step is to translate their board work into the proper **memo format**.
– He reminded them that their memo must:
– present the causal chain as a coherent written argument,
– support each node with evidence,
– and clearly identify the dependent variable and puzzle being addressed.
—
## 11. End-of-Class Questions: Formatting, Sources, and Administrative Concerns
### 11.1 Memo formatting questions
A student asked several follow-up questions about submission format:
– whether the **title page** format they had seen was correct,
– whether the introduction should explicitly address the **puzzle/dependent variable**,
– whether they could use **readings from the internet**,
– and whether the final section should be labeled **bibliography** or **references**.
The instructor replied:
– the title page format was fine,
– the memo should indeed identify the **dependent variable/puzzle** early,
– internet readings are acceptable,
– and either “bibliography” or “references” is fine as long as sources are listed.
### 11.2 Instructor to send requested document(s)
– A student asked the instructor to **send the letter(s)**, and the instructor replied that he could send them.
– The exact nature of the letters was not clear from the transcript.
### 11.3 Attendance/access issue raised after class
– A student spoke privately with the instructor about a notice stating that students may not be allowed to access the course due to **non-attendance**.
– The student said they believed their attendance was actually good and worried about the consequences of missing the next class.
– The instructor advised the student to speak directly and respectfully with the relevant person/authority, acknowledge responsibility if necessary, and ask whether anything can still be done, while noting there was no guarantee of a favorable outcome.
—
# Student Tracker
– **Wyatt Adam James** — Explained the **rally-around-the-flag effect** as a way to unify people around leadership and quickly increase public approval during an external conflict.
– **Uncertain student (possibly Asankulova Albina Talgarbekovna; transcript renders name as “Elvina”)** — Asked what kinds of Chinese documents could be used to prove China’s beliefs and motivations in the Taiwan case.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked whether **realist theory alone** is enough to substantiate the claim that states seek survival/security.
– **Uncertain student** — Proposed using **official reports, treaties, and military documentation** to support claims about China/Taiwan and U.S. actions.
– **Uncertain student** — Contributed to the discussion distinguishing **empirical facts** from arguments by suggesting numerical and factual evidence such as money flows and military increases.
– **Uncertain student (Iran group)** — Raised **diversionary theory of war** as a framework for explaining external conflict as a distraction from domestic political problems.
– **Uncertain student** — Asked practical questions about **memo format, title page, source types, and bibliography/reference labeling**.
– **Uncertain student** — Raised a post-class concern about **attendance/course access**, prompting the instructor’s advice to speak directly with the relevant authority.
—
# Actionable Items
## High Urgency
– **Midterm due Thursday night**; this was identified as the final in-class workshop for it.
– Students need to **convert causal chains into full memo format** and ensure each node is supported with evidence.
– Students should keep the **same dependent variable across both competing explanations** in their memos.
– Students should use **specific authors and primary sources**, not vague references to theory.
## Medium Urgency
– For arguments about state beliefs, students need to prioritize **primary-source evidence** from the relevant actor (e.g., CCP/Chinese officials for China-focused claims).
– Iran group should strengthen the **“why now?”** portion of the argument, potentially using a **window of opportunity** node.
– Greenland group should **unify its dependent variable** and separate overlapping claims about Arctic dominance vs. tensions with Greenland/Denmark.
– Taiwan group should keep the dependent variable wording **identical** across realist and constructivist chains.
## Lower Urgency / Follow-Up
– Instructor indicated he still needs to **send requested letter(s)** to a student.
– One student has an unresolved **attendance/course access issue** and was advised to follow up directly with the relevant instructor/administrator.
– Next class will begin the course transition to **forecasting**, so students should be prepared for that shift after midterm submission.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Midterm Memo
You will turn the causal-chain work you finalized in class into your midterm memo by clearly explaining your dependent variable, presenting your two main hypotheses, and supporting each step of your logic with appropriate evidence so that your argument is rigorous, explicit, and well substantiated.
Instructions:
1. Begin by revising the two causal chains you developed for your case.
– Use the feedback from class to make sure both of your arguments are fully developed.
– Make sure each argument explains the same outcome.
– Keep the dependent variable identical across both arguments, since you are explaining one empirical event from two different theoretical perspectives or hypotheses.
2. Start your memo with a title page.
– Include a proper title page, as clarified in class.
– Make sure the memo is presented in proper memo format.
3. Introduce the puzzle at the start of the memo.
– In your opening section, clearly identify the puzzle or question your memo addresses.
– Explicitly state the dependent variable, meaning the outcome you are trying to explain.
– Make it immediately clear to the reader what happened and what your memo is trying to explain.
4. Present your first argument as a clear causal chain in prose.
– Convert the first causal chain into a written explanation.
– Move step by step from the broad starting condition to the final outcome.
– Do not skip logical steps.
– As discussed in class, your goal is to avoid compressing the argument too much; instead, show how each node leads to the next.
5. Present your second argument as a separate causal chain in prose.
– Write the second hypothesis as its own structured explanation.
– Again, move step by step from the initial condition or motivation, through the intermediate mechanisms, to the dependent variable.
– Keep the logic explicit and easy to follow.
6. Make sure each node in each causal chain is substantiated.
– Every major claim in your argument needs support.
– Do not simply state that something is true; provide evidence that makes the claim defensible.
– This was one of the main points of the lesson: each node in the chain needs proof, not just the final outcome.
7. Use theory to support broad theoretical claims.
– For foundational claims such as states seeking survival, security, sovereignty, legitimacy, or other theoretical motivations, support your argument with course theory and specific authors.
– Do not write vague statements like “realist theory says” or “constructivism says.”
– Instead, cite specific scholars or texts discussed in the course, such as the authors you have already worked with in the realism and constructivism sections.
8. Use primary sources to prove what decision-makers believe.
– When your argument depends on what a state or leader believes, use primary-source material whenever possible.
– This can include speeches, official statements, government reports, party documents, embassy statements, ministerial communications, or similar materials from the relevant actor.
– As emphasized in class, if you are explaining what China, the United States, Trump, the CCP, or another actor believes, you should prioritize documents from that actor rather than relying only on outside commentary.
9. Use empirical evidence to support the dependent variable and other factual claims.
– For factual claims such as increases in ships, strikes, negotiations, arms sales, military deployments, or public polling, use empirical evidence.
– This can include news reports, official statistics, military reporting, observational data, or triangulated reporting across multiple sources.
– Distinguish clearly between argumentative claims and factual claims, just as was discussed in class.
10. Triangulate when useful.
– If appropriate, use multiple sources to support the same factual point.
– For example, you may combine official documents from the actor you are studying with outside reporting or other state documents to strengthen your evidence.
– However, remember that outside sources should not replace primary sources when your goal is to prove what the actor itself believes.
11. Check whether your evidence actually supports the argument you are making.
– Be careful not to include evidence that is only loosely related.
– Make sure the source proves the specific step in the chain that you claim it proves.
– If a source shows that something happened in general but does not show why it happened now, then you may need an additional node or an additional source.
12. Be honest if a hypothesis cannot be fully proven.
– As discussed in class, one possible outcome is that you identify what evidence would be needed for a hypothesis but find that the available evidence does not actually substantiate it.
– If that happens, acknowledge that clearly rather than overstating the strength of your proof.
13. Make sure the memo reflects the lesson’s emphasis on rigor.
– Your final draft should show airtight logic from beginning to end.
– The reader should be able to see exactly how you move from the actor’s core motivation, to the perceived threat, to the mechanism, to the final observed outcome.
14. Include your sources at the end.
– Add a bibliography or references section at the end of the memo.
– Either label is acceptable, as clarified in class.
– What matters is that all sources you used are listed clearly.
15. Use appropriate sources, including online readings.
– You may use readings from the internet.
– You should also draw on course readings and relevant scholarly texts where appropriate.
– Make sure your sources are credible and relevant to the claim you are supporting.
16. Proofread before submitting.
– Check that the memo format is complete.
– Verify that the dependent variable is clearly stated.
– Confirm that both hypotheses explain the same outcome.
– Make sure each causal node has supporting evidence.
– Check that all citations and the final bibliography/references section are included.
17. Submit the completed midterm memo by Thursday night.
– The professor stated at the beginning of class that the midterm is due Thursday night, so make sure your final memo is completed and submitted by then.