This key is public by URL and is for teaching, not secure school assessment. Do not treat a correct response as proof of independent reading if the text was read aloud. Record content prompts distinctly from access support. A learner can explain a sound alternative conditional recommendation when it cites case evidence and its criterion. Never infer a QCAA Unit 1 grade from these short tasks.
Daily quick keys
| Day | Worked idea and immediate next move |
|---|---|
| 1 | B has eight staff-hours for competing tasks; D has crew capacity for one project. “Limited relative to uses” is correct; “zero resources” is not. If confused, move eight counters between two full-word task headings. |
| 2 | B's final two hours move to digital help, forgoing the stated next-best 24 catalogued books. This is output opportunity cost, not $24. If all alternatives are added, ask which one is next best. |
| 3 | D: what/how much = one of two projects; how = method/inputs need detail; for whom = access to which people/places unknown. Full crew use could be technically efficient; resource ownership/control and access equity are unresolved. Ask for a user/access and ownership map. |
| 4 | C: site space→land/rent category; typesetters→labour/wages; produced printer→capital/interest; coordinator's organisation/risk→entrepreneurial ability/profit. Paper stock is manufactured, not the land example. No payment is reported. If “cash” is named as printer capital, show the produced equipment. |
| 5 | File G below: 6 hours, 2-hour choice, 15 signs forgone, four factors and an unresolved allocation question. If learner gives $15, revisit units. |
| 6 | A ordered pairs: (0,12),(1,11),(2,9),(3,6),(4,0), axes workshops then circles. At 2, max 9. If a point is treated as observed demand, repeat fixed-input model assumption. |
| 7 | F1=(2,9), F2=(3,6) both frontier; (2,6) inside. F1→F2 costs 9−6=3 circles for one added workshop. 3→4 costs 6−0=6 circles. Inside shows modeled underuse, not its cause. |
| 8 | E's proposed (4,6) is beyond A's old maximum (4,0). It is one possible new point if repeatable; does not establish every new frontier point or national growth. Ask what trial evidence/costs are missing. |
| 9 | F1 and F2 are both technically efficient in A's model; F2 adds 1 workshop but forgoes 3 circles. A conditional choice needs a declared objective, resource-ownership and distribution data before equity judgement. Ask whose access is counted. |
| 10 | File H below: X/Y frontier, (2,5) inside, (3,7) beyond; X→Y costs 3 repair sets. Preference/access evidence is absent. If “fair” follows from “on frontier”, separate output from distribution. |
Day 5 File G · worked check
- The organiser/team chooses how to use six volunteer-hours. Competing uses are preparing large-print signs and a tool-use demonstration. The team has resources, but these hours cannot serve both uses in full: relative scarcity.
- In the stated model, using the final two hours for the demonstration forgoes the next-best 15 directional signs. Opportunity cost = 15 signs, not $15. Monetary expense, value of the signs and value of the demonstration are not given.
- Site space → land/natural-resource category; helpers → labour; reusable tool kit → produced capital; organiser combining inputs and accepting planning risk → entrepreneurial ability. Pairing those abstract categories with rent/wages/interest/profit does not establish an actual payment or profit.
- For example: for whom should signs or the demonstration be available? Missing evidence includes visitors' access needs and relevant, consented feedback. “The demonstration is more valuable” or “everyone can attend” is unsupported.
If ready: require a second plausible answer to the allocation question without pretending one is factual. If not ready: rehearse the physical two-hour strip and ask which stated alternative is displaced. For factor confusion, use the full-word factors mat.
Day 10 File H · worked check
- Horizontal axis: pop-up reading sessions. Vertical axis: book-repair sets. Maximum pairs: (0,10), (1,9), (2,7), (3,4), (4,0). Staff, vehicle, hours and technique are held fixed in the model. Joined line segments help visualise the order; intermediate points are not directly reported.
- X (2,7) and Y (3,4) are on the frontier. (2,5) is inside because the table permits 7 repair sets at two sessions. (3,7) is beyond because at three sessions the stated maximum is four sets. An inside point indicates modeled underuse but does not identify a cause such as unemployment.
- X→Y adds one pop-up reading session and forgoes 7−4=3 book-repair sets. Conversely Y→X gives up one session and gains three sets. Units and direction matter.
- “Choose Y if the agreed criterion is to maximise sessions among X/Y, subject to checking attendance and access”; “choose X if the criterion is to retain more repair sets, subject to checking use” are both bounded. Both use the modeled inputs efficiently. Neither output mix proves fair distribution without evidence about who owns/controls the inputs, who can attend/use either service, quality and preferences. Request accessibility and use evidence without collecting classmates' private circumstances.
If ready: ask whether a proposed technique that makes (3,7) repeatably feasible would change the old frontier and what else must be verified. If not ready: rebuild the ordered-pair table with full-word counters, then compare at the same three-session input. The fresh check gives no real policy advice.
SubjectNest original worked key © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.