The four authored records show more posters accompanying more visitors. They do not establish why. The local activity connects three hypotheses to specific missing evidence and checks whether a proposed rewrite stays within the records. The 45-minute plan ends with a qualified claim and a useful next question.
Work through the example
Select H3 to examine reverse planning: expected visitor numbers might have shaped poster allocation. The useful request asks when forecasts were recorded relative to poster decisions. Select H2 to ask about planned event scale affecting both. Neither selection identifies the actual cause. Choose the qualified rewrite to see why it fits the supplied evidence.
Ask each learner for a qualified relationship statement, two possible explanations and an evidence request with a purpose. A missing-evidence question should target a hypothesis. Forecast timing bears on reverse planning; comparable event-scale records bear on a common-cause account. The four pairs alone leave the cause unresolved, so the debrief should not reward a favored hypothesis as though it had been established. Allocate 5 minutes to the opening claim, 8 to reading records, 12 to competing explanations, 10 to evidence planning and 10 to the exit rewrite, for 45 minutes total.
Plan for a concrete learner response
The intended response has three parts:
- A qualified statement of the relationship in the supplied records.
- At least two possible explanations, without declaring one established.
- A specific request for additional evidence and an explanation of how it helps.
Treat those as lesson objectives, not achieved outcomes. Confirm the learner group, prerequisite knowledge, language/access needs, and any required school plan format before use.
| Planning field | Actual confirmation |
|---|---|
| Class/learner group | [TO CONFIRM] |
| Prerequisite reading of paired counts | [TO CONFIRM] |
| Language and access route | [TO CONFIRM] |
| Required curriculum/lesson format | [TO CONFIRM] |
| Actual learner evidence |
The statistical reference distinguishes association from causal explanation and discusses a possible common cause. It supports this narrow concept; the event story, figures, materials, and lesson sequence below are original. Introduction to Statistics, section 19.3.
Supply the observation card
Exercise label: FICTIONAL CLUB EVENTS — authored data
| Event ID | Poster count | Visitor count |
|---|---|---|
| E1 | 2 | 10 |
| E2 | 4 | 20 |
| E3 | 6 | 30 |
| E4 | 8 | 40 |
The supplied pattern is that larger poster counts accompany larger visitor counts across these four authored records. The table alone does not tell you how posters were allocated or what else differed between events.
Dates, event scale, audience, location, planning decisions, and visitor expectations are unknown. Do not fill them with invented explanations presented as observations.
Give students the initial claim card: “More posters caused more visitors.” Ask which part goes beyond the table. The word caused proposes a mechanism and a direction; neither is established by these pairs alone.
No correlation coefficient, significance test, or effect estimate is needed for this lesson. A precise-looking statistic would not supply the absent planning and design evidence.
Keep three explanations in view
| Hypothesis | Proposed explanation | Missing evidence |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Posters influenced visits | How exposure and allocation worked; other differences between events |
| H2 | Planned event scale affected both poster allocation and visits | Records of scale and how it influenced planning |
| H3 | Expected visitors drove poster allocation | Forecasts and timing of the allocation decision |
H1 proposes influence from posters toward visits. H2 proposes a common cause. H3 proposes reverse planning: an expectation of visitors shaped the poster allocation before actual attendance.
Recreate this example
Build one self-contained responsive HTML example titled “Critical thinking lesson: which evidence is missing?” for readers completing the stated task. Return the complete HTML with embedded CSS and JavaScript. Use no remote fonts, libraries, images, requests, account connections, or saved-state claims.
Original E1–E4 posters2,4,6,8 and visitors10,20,30,40. No real data or causal test. Buttons H1 posters influence visits; H2 planned scale affects both; H3 expected visitors drive allocation display hypothesis and discriminating evidence request. Qualified rewrite button shows association with unresolved cause; Caused rewrite button explains overreach. Include complete 45-minute plan 5 opening,8 read,12 explanations,10 evidence planning,10 exit. Teacher worked response separate from blank learner record. Do not calculate a misleading causal effect or automatically grade prose.
Use an evidence discussion board with four event records and hypothesis-specific questions design with a compact header. Keep the actual sample data, controls, and useful default result visible early on a 360px-wide screen. Use readable text at least 16px, generous paragraph spacing, strong contrast, semantic labels, visible keyboard focus, and wrapping source blocks. Stack records on narrow screens rather than forcing a wide table.
Wire each action to an explicit type=button click handler using element selectors; the host permits scripts but blocks form submission. Update the visible result when the described action occurs. Show specific error feedback for invalid or missing input and clear stale feedback after dependent inputs change. Use plain text when displaying user values.
Fictional paired counts and hypothesis checks do not establish causation or learner outcomes. Keep the source fixture and worked teacher or developer example distinct from actual user records. Include the domain-specific explanation and next check beside the result. Provide no fake download, send, deployment, approval, or persistence button. Everything operates locally for the current page session.
Review the prepared copy in NOS
Finish with the revised claim and the reason for the learner’s next evidence question. An HTML lesson review in NOS can keep that worked example beside the event records. Revise eligible static activity instructions visually, then use the school-format lesson and actual learner work for teaching review.