These case files and the separately located worked key are publicly accessible. They are practice, not secure school assessment or a QCAA examination. Give the new case after the earlier practice; retain each learner's first response and note whether an adult supplied a concept or only access help. Both files use entirely invented quantities and do not ask for family or personal financial information.
Day 5 check A · Festival Repair Tent (File G)
File G — A fictional festival team has six volunteer-hours on a setup day. It can prepare large-print directional signs and run a tool-use demonstration. The organiser chooses to put the final two volunteer-hours into the demonstration. Its stated next-best feasible alternative would be to make 15 directional signs in those two hours. The team's available site space, helpers, reusable tool kit and organiser illustrate different production inputs. There is no information about who visits, who needs signs, whether the demonstration is safe/accessible, or how either activity is valued.
- Name the chooser, scarce resource and two competing uses. Why is this relative scarcity rather than no resources?
- State the opportunity cost of the final-two-hour decision with its correct unit. Why is it not necessarily a monetary cost?
- Classify site space, helpers, reusable tool kit and organiser's combining/risk role as four factors of production. Do not invent payments.
- State one what/how/for-whom question the team still has to resolve, and name one missing piece of evidence before claiming the choice is better or fairer.
Use a short paragraph, labelled cards, a diagram with full-word labels, or a spoken/AAC response. The economic reasoning target is the same.
Day 10 check B · Creekside Mobile Library (File H)
File H — A fictional mobile library has fixed staff, vehicle and hours in a model week. It can run pop-up reading sessions and prepare book-repair sets. Maximum feasible combinations under this simplified model are:
| Pop-up reading sessions | Book-repair sets |
|---|---|
| 0 | 10 |
| 1 | 9 |
| 2 | 7 |
| 3 | 4 |
| 4 | 0 |
Option X is 2 sessions and 7 repair sets. Option Y is 3 sessions and 4 repair sets. A third suggestion, 2 sessions and 5 sets, is possible but below the stated maximum. A fourth suggestion, 3 sessions and 7 sets, exceeds the present modeled capacity. There is no attendance, access, preference or quality evidence.
- Label both axes with units and list/plot all five frontier pairs. State the fixed-input assumption.
- Classify X, Y, the third suggestion and the fourth suggestion as frontier, inside or beyond. Explain one classification.
- For moving X→Y, calculate the opportunity cost of one extra reading session with the unit.
- Recommend X or Y conditionally using a named output criterion; explain why frontier efficiency cannot establish which option is more equitable. Name one evidence request about ownership/control or access.
Submit the first explanation before the public worked key is used for feedback. No claim about a real library, economy or community follows from these fictional values.
SubjectNest original public checks © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.