The game compares two fixed claims with three fictional fact cards. Students can also write a draft and keep it visible while a card becomes unavailable. Removing F3 flags numerical preference claims for review; it does not rewrite their prose or choose a winning activity. Teacher permission stays separate from preference.
Establish the fictional decision and its limits
Use these three cards:
| Card ID | Supplied fictional information |
|---|---|
| F1 | The club has one reading corner |
| F2 | The teacher allows either quiet reading or discussion for one 15-minute slot |
| F3 | A preference tally of nine participants records five for quiet reading and four for discussion |
Use these fictional facts as the shared basis for the round. Everyone is arguing about the same fifteen-minute choice; nobody needs to invent a survey or guess what the teacher permits.
ReadWriteThink's persuasive-writing lesson uses oral and written arguments, reasons with supporting facts and examples, and teacher conferences that check their accuracy. Here, partners check each other's reasons against F1, F2 and F3 before revising.
Separate proposal, evidence, and interpretation
The proposal may be: “Use quiet reading for this slot.” Its support from F3 is that five of the nine surveyed participants preferred that option. Its scope is the stated nine-person tally.
| Sentence | What the evidence permits |
|---|---|
| Everyone chose reading | Unsupported: four selected discussion |
| Five of the nine surveyed participants chose reading | Supported by F3 |
| Quiet reading is proved to be the best learning activity | Unsupported: the tally measures preference |
| We propose quiet reading for this 15-minute slot | A proposal within F2, subject to the teacher's decision |
F1 says there is one corner; it does not supply seating capacity or show that everyone can use it at once. F2 permits two options; it does not establish a majority-vote rule. F3 records preferences; it does not prove learning effectiveness or the wishes of all club members.
Ask the writer to label the reason and the source ID separately. A sentence that begins “because” still needs evidence for the claim after it.
Acknowledge the four who preferred discussion
Use an original illustrative proposal:
“May we use quiet reading for this 15-minute slot? Five of the nine surveyed participants chose quiet reading in the supplied tally. Four preferred discussion, so our proposal does not reflect everyone's first choice. We could ask the teacher whether a later discussion opportunity is possible. That later activity has not been approved.”
The response acknowledges the four discussion preferences and asks about another opportunity. The teacher still needs to decide whether another slot is available.
This paragraph is an example, not the only acceptable argument. A learner could propose discussion instead if the reasoning accurately uses the available facts and addresses the five reading preferences. The page checks its two fixed claim examples. A teacher or partner reviews the learner's own proposal, including a proposal for discussion.
Play a claim-revision round
Give learners the unsupported sentence “Everyone chose reading.” Ask them to identify which card contradicts it, then replace it with the bounded sentence “Five of the nine surveyed participants chose reading.”
Partners read the revision and point to F3. They can then ask: “Does this support your proposal, or does it decide the activity?” The writer should keep those questions separate.
Next remove F3 from the available evidence. The numerical preference claim loses its support. A possible revision is: “May we choose quiet reading for this 15-minute slot? F2 lists it as one of the permitted options. The preference tally is not available in this version, so I am not claiming how many participants prefer it.”
Without F3, do not keep “four preferred discussion,” change it to an unsupported “some preferred discussion,” or invent a new tally. The available alternative from F2 is discussion; the preferences require the missing evidence.
Use the source-change view
Choose Everyone or Five of nine to compare the two authored claims. Press Check example to see why the first exceeds F3 and the second stays within it. Your own draft remains in a separate writing field for teacher review; the activity does not treat arbitrary prose as automatically true or false.
Toggle F3 unavailable after entering a draft. The status asks you to review both the five-person support and the four-person counterpoint. The text remains available for human revision. Source withdrawal cannot become a new invented tally. Restore F3 to inspect the original evidence, or revise the draft using only the permitted-option fact in F2.
Copy this prompt
Create a persuasive writing activity in a single HTML page. Arrange three fictional evidence cards above a claim comparison and a roomy draft area. Make the source IDs easy to refer to during partner discussion.
F1 says the club has one reading corner. F2 says the teacher allows quiet reading or discussion for one fifteen-minute slot. F3 records nine participants: five preferred quiet reading and four preferred discussion. These facts do not establish seating capacity, a voting rule or which activity teaches better.
Provide two claim buttons: "Everyone chose reading" and "Five of the nine surveyed participants chose reading." Check example compares the chosen sentence with F3. Explain that everyone is unsupported because four chose discussion. The five-of-nine sentence matches the tally, but the tally does not decide what the teacher will allow.
Give each card an availability toggle and a visible Available or Unavailable label. When F3 becomes unavailable, preserve the draft and flag both numerical preference claims and the four-person counterpoint for review. If F1 or F2 changes, ask the writer to review related claims. Restore a card without rewriting the learner's text.
Leave the draft for human review. A separate expandable example can acknowledge the four discussion preferences and suggest asking whether a later discussion opportunity is possible. It must not promise another slot. Reset restores all cards, clears the draft and removes the chosen claim and feedback.
Return one self-contained HTML file with clear reading contrast, generous spacing and stacked evidence cards on narrow screens. Use buttons for availability and claim checks, with text feedback next to the draft.
Revise after F3 disappears
Write a short proposal using the five-of-nine tally, then make F3 unavailable. Find every sentence that depends on it, including the counterpoint about four discussion preferences. NOS can render the HTML activity for a class revision round. Rewrite using F2's permitted options, and ask a partner whether each remaining reason has a source.