The worked activity makes the timing and permission questions visible. At 1:55, ten more minutes reaches 2:05, five minutes after the promised return. The example compares that calculation with Dee's stated plan and lets a reader add explicit permission in V2. It prepares a reasoned discussion; it does not choose a morally winning learner or grade someone's character.
Keep the initial facts short
V1 has three facts. F1: Mia promised Dee the markers by 2:00 p.m. F2: it is 1:55 and Mia's poster needs ten more minutes. F3: Dee plans to use the markers for signs at 2:00. Ask learners to identify the people affected before choosing an action. Do not invent spare markers, a deadline for the poster, or an assurance that Dee will not mind. Those additions would change the conflict rather than explain a response to the one supplied.
Offer returning by 2:00, asking Dee before 2:00 about a later return, or keeping the markers until 2:05 without asking as options to examine. A learner may propose another action with a supported explanation. The question is how the action responds to F1 through F3. Asking is not the same as receiving agreement: a request-based proposal should say what Mia will do if Dee declines. Keep that contingency in the response instead of treating a conversation as automatic permission.
Model an objection fairly
One authored reason favors returning on time because Mia made a promise and Dee planned to use the markers then. That reason draws on F1 and F3. A fair counterconsideration is that returning interrupts work needing ten more minutes, supported by F2. “Mia is selfish” invents a motive and makes the objection easier to dismiss. Ask a partner to restate the opposing consideration in words its proponent could recognize before replying. The exercise is about the quality of the argument's connection to facts.
Missing information belongs in questions: Can Dee wait? Does the poster need every marker? Is another set available? Ask the learner why an answer would matter without supplying a favorable answer on their behalf. An unresolved question can be a useful result of reading the situation carefully. Record action, reason, supporting fact IDs, affected people, counterreason, missing question, and revised or retained view. Keep teacher illustrations separate from the actual learner response so a polished model is not mistaken for classroom evidence.
Add permission as a new version
V2 adds F4: Dee agrees that Mia may return the markers at 2:05. The example now reports explicit fictional permission; removing F4 restores permission unknown. The five-minute delay still exists as a time comparison, but its relationship to the agreement changes. Ask which sentence in the original reason needs revision. A learner may retain an action with a different explanation; there is no requirement that every reader reach the same final judgment when the fact changes.
Use the changed assumption as the discussion's final check. Partners rotate giving a reason, representing an objection, asking a question, and responding. Offer written participation or a pass without requiring personal confessions or real disputes. The page can prepare a nonempty written note for teacher review, but cannot assess its moral worth. Reset returns to V1 and clears the current note. Preserve earlier paper reasoning under its original version label rather than rewriting it as though permission had always been present.
Make your own working example
Create an original marker-sharing discussion page using V1 facts F1 Mia promised Dee the markers by 2:00 p.m.; F2 it is 1:55 and Mia needs ten more minutes for a poster; F3 Dee plans to use them at 2:00. Show the computed finish 2:05 and delay five minutes. Provide V1 and V2 buttons. Include a static explanation that V2 adds F4 Dee explicitly agreeing to a 2:05 return, changing permission but not the five-minute time comparison. Returning to V1 removes that permission from the active scenario.
Offer three action buttons: return by 2:00, ask before 2:00, and keep until 2:05 without asking. Display a source-linked reason and fair counterconsideration for each, not a winning moral score. Asking must not imply agreement in V1. Preserve the unknowns about spare markers and ability to wait.
Provide a labeled reasoning field and a Prepare for teacher review button. Blank text is incomplete; nonempty text awaits human discussion, with no morality grade. Edits or scene changes clear stale review messages. Reset restores V1 and clears the note. Keep the exact facts, timing, reason and counterreason near the top, and label all samples fictional.
Use one self-contained HTML file with no remote dependency. Keep the initial sample, output, and labeled controls near the top. Use at least 16px text, strong contrast, visible focus, and a stacked layout at 360px without horizontal overflow. Use explicit type=button click handlers and explicit DOM selectors; do not depend on native form submission. Clear stale feedback when task inputs change. Render entered text safely. Keep practice data local to the current page; do not imply saving, sending, or production integration. Return only the finished HTML.
Prepare the next class copy
For a follow-up discussion, clarify the static F4 explanation beside the scene so the class can identify exactly what permission changed and what remained a timing fact. In NOS, eligible static instructions can be revised in visual editing mode without asking AI to regenerate the HTML. Keep the teacher's source packet and actual learner work separately; use the reading copy to clarify the next activity.