Courses / Media literacy and civic reasoning / Trace claims and reason about public decisions / A source-backed civic evidence brief Build and defend your work A source-backed civic evidence brief Prepare a brief about fictional fountain repairs. Trace claims to original records, resolve incompatible comparisons, write an honest headline and compare policy benefits under a budget. Include a source table and an explicit fairness criterion.
Choose an audience, investigate alternatives, copy evidence from your experiments, and produce an artifact. You can open this project at any time. Reports, numerical transfer checks and human review are separate outcomes.
Your project workspace Choose the kind of work you want to produce School investigation College investigation Workplace application Write a school-news fact-check with original excerpts, a corrected headline and an explanation of what remains unknown.
1. Collect and compare evidence Required experiment sources:
Include every source above and at least one pair with different inputs from the same experiment. Explain confounding changes yourself; the presence check does not judge your interpretation.
Open an experiment and change an input or capture a trial to make evidence available here.
2. Write and revise your report Claim and original source table Record the exact claim, original record, date, population, measurement and whether it directly supports the claim.
Reconcile apparent disagreement Compare scope, time and definitions. Distinguish a repeated report from an independent observation.
Rewrite the headline Include a denominator, absolute quantity and limitation. Explain why your revision is supported.
Policy comparison and fairness Use a captured budget comparison. State total and group benefits, your criterion and missing population/access data.
Next verification step Name a fresh source or measurement that could change the conclusion, who should obtain it and how it would be checked.
Your artifact: code, analysis, prototype or decision brief This field stores up to 12,000 characters of inert text. Code runs only through the explicit bounded editor in the relevant lessons; project attachments never execute.
Load a text artifact Review your work against the rubric Claims match original source population, time and measurement. Provenance distinguishes independent observations from copies without assigning invented truth probabilities. Conflicting evidence is examined through scope and definitions rather than dismissed. Headlines preserve denominators and avoid causal overclaiming. Policy recommendation states feasibility, distribution, fairness assumptions and missing evidence. 11 evidence requirements remain Capture evidence from inspect the original source. Capture evidence from reconcile conflicting reports. Capture evidence from poll response bias. Capture evidence from compare policy distributions. Include two different input configurations from the same experiment to compare. Write your claim and original source table. Write your reconcile apparent disagreement. Write your rewrite the headline. Write your policy comparison and fairness. Write your next verification step. Add your project artifact: code, analysis, prototype or decision brief. Record my report Download report and evidence Editing the report or evidence returns it to draft. Recording verifies field presence and input comparisons, not correctness of your reasoning or code.
3. Check transfer to unfamiliar cases These authored cases use different numbers or conditions from the lesson practice. They are public local checks, not secure certification. Each case permits three submissions. Opening, first responses and attempt counts survive imports; no reset creates fresh evidence.
Case provenance-count Open case provenance-count Case absolute-risk Open case absolute-risk Case distribution Open case distribution
Return to the course · My Work and backups
