Explain a concept with a worked example and where it stops working

A source-aligned explanation with a worked example, a counterexample and a self-check.

Choose one of three approaches. The steps for that option appear below.

Choose an option above. On a phone, swipe the tabs left or right to see all options →

Claude: writes the explanation from your source

Paste the course definition and your question. Claude maps the confusion, then drafts the example, counterexample and self-check.

  1. You

    Get ready

  2. Claude

    Map, then draft

  3. You

    Check and approve

  1. Have ready: course definition and your question

    Use: You

    The course definition of the p-value and your question about it.

    Check

    Check these are the real course wording.

  2. Map the confusion, then draft the explanation

    Use: Claude

    Paste both and ask for a definition-to-confusion map with source locations. Then ask the same chat for the worked example, counterexample and self-check.

    Details

    What to paste into the tool

    Task: Definition-to-confusion map with source locations. Here is my course's definition of p-value, and here is my question: is the p-value the probability that the null hypothesis is true? Restate the definition exactly as my source gives it, point to where in the source each part comes from, and explain precisely where my question diverges from the definition. Mark anything the source does not settle. Task: Source-aligned explanation with a worked example, counterexample and self-check. Using the confirmed map, write a short explanation that answers my question, then: a worked example that computes a p-value for a simple two-sided test, a counterexample showing a case where the tempting interpretation fails, and three self-check questions that follow from my course source. Keep the source's exact terminology and mark anything that goes beyond it.

  3. Check the draft against the source and approve

    Use: You

    Check the restated definition and map match the source. Approve only what matches; correct or hold the rest.

    Check

    Check the map captures your actual question and the arithmetic and counterexample step by step. Explain the concept back unaided. No confirmed inline citations, so the map's source locations are claims you must re-check against the course text.

Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.

Tools in this workflow

Deciding between ChatGPT and Claude for this? See the comparison.

Final check

In every path the learner verifies the worked example's numerical reasoning step by step.

In every path the counterexample is treated as reaching past the source and is validated by re-derivation before use.

In every path the learner explains the concept back without reading the draft before treating the explanation as done.

Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.

What still needs checking
  • No path vendor-confirms the correctness of the worked example's arithmetic or the validity of the counterexample; both stay human-checked.
  • Definition fidelity is confirmed-checkable only where citations exist (path B); on other paths it is a manual word-by-word check.

Share this page