Investigate supplied cases, revise evidence-based explanations and produce an annotated project. Trace an original claim, compare independent reporting, repair its numbers and poll wording, and publish a private correction memo with an evidence-change threshold.
An implemented sequence of 5 case-based units with a guided project. These bounded cases introduce disciplinary mechanisms; they are not a complete semester survey, accreditation or verified learning effectiveness. Additional sustained readings, broader topic coverage and human review are needed for institutional credit.
Preparation and direct entry
Read a short source and distinguish observation from inference.
Use counts, percentages and simple tables; no coding required.
Open any lesson. Recaps explain assumed concepts without locking access.
0/9 lessons completed · 0 marked skipped. Skips do not reduce this course's completion denominator or award understanding. Shared lesson work is reused across paths; project evidence belongs to this course.
Lesson sequence
Each linked investigation opens on its own page. Your selected course stays with you as you move between lessons.
Publication time and evidence access shape what a report can establish. Later information can correct an early claim, but lateness alone does not guarantee reliability. Trace dependence: several outlets repeating one dispatch are not several independent witnesses.
Account identity, message authorization and the underlying institutional action are separate questions. A familiar account can be compromised; several reposts may repeat the same unauthorized claim. Verification needs a dated authoritative action record and an independent route to it.
An attention-funded medium may reward clicks while audiences rely on cues of independence. Payment does not prove a claim false, but hidden sponsorship can distort how readers assess it. Trace economic incentives separately from claim verification.
A public record proves particular wording and formal action. Implementation records and historical evidence are needed to explain whom that authority affected. Reading the literal text alone can miss discriminatory application; replacing the text with a later summary can misstate what the document actually says.
Cumulative projectSaved workspace · human review remains separate
CUMULATIVE PROJECT
A public claim audit — High school
Trace an original claim, compare independent reporting, repair its numbers and poll wording, and publish a private correction memo with an evidence-change threshold. Use the supplied fictional records and show each claim-to-evidence connection; an annotated diagram may accompany the written explanation.
Evidence and review criteria
Context and definitions: accurately identify the relevant institutions, mechanisms and population.
Evidence: connect specific records to claims without presenting fiction as observed history.
Analysis: show calculations or interpretation steps and consider a credible alternative.
Limits: separate facts, assumptions, causal claims and value judgments.
Transfer: adapt to the new case rather than repeating the worked response.
Communication and revision: provide an inspectable artifact and revision trail. Record guidance separately from quality; a submitted artifact is not automatically demonstrated understanding.
Use your lesson captures and citations. This saved workspace supports a reviewer; it does not automatically grade your writing or certify proficiency.
Review examples and quality criteria
These are authored teaching examples for practicing review, not calibrated scoring standards. Apply your course’s specific rubric above. Different conclusions can be defensible when evidence supports them; factual and numerical errors still require correction.
Claim needing revision
The sample average is higher, so the intervention caused the improvement for everyone.
More defensible reasoning
The supplied sample shows a higher average under the stated measurement rule. Compare recruitment, missingness, baseline composition and the distribution of changes. Identify a plausible rival explanation and a new observation that would distinguish it from the proposed mechanism.
Why the revision helps
A descriptive difference, a causal claim and a universal claim require different support. The revision needs actual source IDs, units and design details before it is a finished argument.
Assess the artifact, with assistance recorded separately
Criterion
Developing evidence
Supported evidence
Well-substantiated evidence
Question and context
A broad topic or undefined population.
A focused question, time/place and relevant definitions.
A justified scope with context that changes the interpretation.
Sources and claims
Names a source but does not connect its contents to a claim.
Cites specific records and explains provenance and relevance.
Weighs limitations, corroboration and meaningful disagreement.
Mechanism and analysis
Gives a conclusion with missing steps or unclear units.
Shows a valid causal chain, calculation or interpretation.
Tests a credible alternative and explains sensitivity or uncertainty.
Transfer and revision
Repeats the worked answer despite changed facts.
Adapts the reasoning to the unfamiliar case.
Explains why the change matters and what evidence would reverse the conclusion.
Use “missing” when no relevant evidence is supplied. Do not average these descriptions into an automatic pass score. Record whether the learner followed an example, used guidance or worked independently, and review quality separately.
Locate one specific claim and its supporting source or calculation.
Check the context, units and intermediate reasoning.
Identify one plausible alternative and the evidence that distinguishes it.
Ask for a revision or an unfamiliar application; explain the reason for the request.
The saved project remains a draft or a local submission. This page does not record instructor certification or infer understanding from response length.
Separate application casesVersioned evidence · earlier work remains intact
Apply your reasoning to a separate case
These versioned cases add distinct evidence to the portfolio. Earlier drafts and local submissions remain intact. Write your explanation before revealing review notes when you want to retain a pre-feedback attempt.
Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.
Record headline
Citation ID: social:independent:media:v1-headline
Fictional headline: '80% of the town supports the plan.' A survey invited 500 selected households;100 responded and 80 supported it. The selection procedure and town household total are not reported.
Record copy
Citation ID: social:independent:media:v1-copy
Three other websites repeat the same 80% figure and link to the original survey. None reports independent data. A chart uses a vertical axis from 70% to 90%.
The survey organizer later clarifies that invitations went to a membership list. No views are recorded for the 400 nonresponding invited households.
This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.
Record headline
Citation ID:
social:independent:media:v1-headlineFictional headline: '80% of the town supports the plan.' A survey invited 500 selected households;100 responded and 80 supported it. The selection procedure and town household total are not reported.